1Co11.2-16. Instincts. The Cover of Shame.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

I'm amazed by the dogged persistence in spite of the lack of encouragement or support.

Welcome back, after long absence, Amanah. Thx for your posting. I will later respond to it.

[donfriesen1]

Peter had preached the gospel for 8-10 years,

with tremendous revival and miracles.

Thousands are saved and even his shadow is

thought to heal people.



Inspite of this, Ac10 shows this Apostle in error.



That pastors, prophets and evangelists have past

tremendous Holy Ghost experiences does not

guarantee that they are not holding some form

of error -- like Peter.



When Peter was shown his error, he

protested, even contradicting the God who

spoke. Not so, Lord Ac10.14.

This wasn't Holy Ghost boldness responding.

'I won't do what you ask me too', later changing

his mind.



That people can be in error of one area while right in

others, and having anointing with signs

following, is demonstrated by Peter.



The Bible, correctly interpreted, is the standard

for determining truth and error. Success and

miracles not. Those shown the error of their

(previous) ways have the option to change, as

Peter did. It is the right thing to do.



No one can say, 'See - the success, miracles, and

anointing evident in my life is proof that

everything I believe is truth.' Not Peter, not

anyone.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Amanah

I'm amazed by the dogged persistence in spite of the lack of encouragement or support.

Welcome to blind religion. Where they believe what they believe because they say so. If you critique their belief they will get upset and throw you into timeout. Yet, they appear to look exactly like us, as to be mistaken to be us. That's when people see their deception and discard them. But, they also refuse to hear us. Because the religious look like us, and almost sound like us.

Paul didn't rebuke the woman who had the spirit of Python because she wasn't speaking the truth. She was rebuked because she was following them. The disciples rebuked a man who was casting demons out in Jesus name, because the man was NOT a follower. Yet, Jesus said leave him alone, for no one can do a miracle in Jesus' name and then turn around and speak evil of Jesus Christ. Jesus wasn't condoning the man's theology. Just that the man wouldn't be actively suppressing what Jesus was doing. The tares will always grow up with the wheat, and when you know the truth then you can see exactly what a tare looks like. A sister in the church was helping a pastor's wife, and mentioned a situation where an individual hadn't been baptized in Jesus' name, and infilled with the Holy Ghost with the initial evidence of speaking in other tongues. The pastor's wife flipped out! Started to go on an ecclesiastical tirade on how there won't only be One God Apostolic Pentecostals in heaven. This is an individual who has been in the UPCI her entire life (don't try to guess who she is. Sadly, you'd probably come up with quite a few names.) Here is a sister who married to a pastor, and defending ecumenicalism in her old age. This didn't happen over night. This is a slow decay, and the sad situation is this Pentecostal sister never understood the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Apostles. She throws the baby out with the bath water and now see Jesus as inclusive, instead of exclusive. Just like Don, and all the other Donites out among us. They may not call it by name, but they all preach a doctrine of Inclusion. Preachers who barely have a grasp of eschatology, theology and dimly understand soteriology. To the point that their idea of the Gospel is just water baptism in Jesus name. Whether or not the baptized even understands why he or she is being baptized. Bypassing the initial sign of speaking in tongues, and opting out for something else as the initial sign of indwelling. Don, is religious. Do we all remember Sean? They keep coming at us like an Ecclesiastical Freddy Kruger or an Ecclesiastical Jason Voorhees. No amount of scriptural reasoning will abate them, or persuade them to your logical outcomes. They we told a doctrine from a manual, and through the years they modified the rest.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

I'm amazed by the

dogged persistence in spite of the lack of

encouragement or support.

Amanah says:

I'm amazed by the dogged persistence in spite of

the lack of encouragement or support.

This speaks of something of me. Either I'm nuts,

determined, or stubborn. Which ever it is, it shows

me thinking the iv is truth and the ulv/vv having

holes which should call for their rejection.



Nothing much in humans changes overnight,

even when it should. Human nature dictates that

most changes are slow. Dogged persisitence is

often necessary to effect this change.



I think I have a rational mind. Some think not.

What the iv portrays is rational and scriptural.

No one has ever said things which have

convincingly showed it as wrong. I have

examined the counter-arguments given by you

and others. I refuse nothing for a

self-re-examination. My rational mind says I cannot

change my mind when given weak arguments

against the iv.



Luther said something pertinent. I don't

pretend to be a Luther, and would wish to

possess 1/1000 of what he possessed, and yet

remain an Apostolic. Someone told him that the

whole world is against him and his ideas. He

said, 'then I am against the whole world.'



Why would he say this, standing against

majority opinion? But when someone thinks

they are right, then what would motivate

holding any other option? Even if seven billion

people say 1+1=3, nothing they have said

changes the true answer. Only a fool would

change their mind and say other than 1+1=2.

So I stand.



That which I share as the iv, I received from

the Lord. As such, it is his. I am not smart

enough, educated enough, experienced

enough, or close enough to the Lord, to say

that it came about from me. I'm only the vessel

through which it poured.



Drink the Kool-aid. It's

good stuff. Having a drink finds it satisfying.

I'm more and more convinced of the iv as time

goes by. But then I may be nuts, self-deluded,

happy with my happy juice.

Who knows for sure, except for Evang.

Benincasa. He knows without any doubt, even

without meeting me. This man has great

powers of discernment. None should ever doubt

his amazing abilities.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

Almost as if there is interaction with a crude LLM that is compiling arguments and minutiae of comments and spitting them out but lacking reasoning and comprehension...not only that but severely lacking the ability to connect and interact in a way that would lend itself to his goal of persuasion...if persuasion is indeed the real object of the interaction.

What is a crude LLM? Is it different than a refined LLM?



Every thoughtful reader knows that I post

arguments from reason and scripture, though they

are different from the views of the majority.



For Jediwill83 to say that I do not have the ability

to connect and interact is demonstrated how in

postings in this thread? Can Jediwill83 quote one

post demonstrating this? Plz, we'll wait for the

quote.



(Of course, Jediwill83, will not be quoting because

he doesn't come here to demonstrate facts.

Examinations of his posts shows he has not taken

efforts to interact with with logic or scripture, as

he says I should interact. Oh, well.



He has come to persuade you, reader, by means of

expression of his opinion alone, that the iv should

be ignored. Some will believe his opinion-without-

facts-for-basis, but some will not. Check his posts

and you too will see he doesn't present facts.

Opinions require something solid to stand on before

they should be accepted. Like scripture or logical

argument. Jediwill83 will not provide this, though

he is presumedly capable of it. You are capable,

aren't you Jediwill83? Plz show us some of what

you got, instead of just being negative.)



I've talked in the past about 'not expressing

arguments from scripture and logic' when posting.

You did not take my words to heart. Expressing

opinions alone are almost meaningless. Yet here we

are again, with only your opinions. Plz do provide

something of substance which other readers can

take home and share with their friends. You've got

some scripture and reasonings in you, don't you?

Present some Biblical arguments in your next post.



Careful readers, if Jediwill83 gets wound up, he will

blow the arguments of the iv out of the sky. Stand

back! Avoid being hurt by the fallout. I'm baiting

you with that sentence, but don't take the hook.



Opinions without scriptural meat behind them are

almost worthless. You waste our time, when I

presume you've got it in you to do better.



I presume to understand what Jediwill83 means by

his post. I presume to understand his thinking, that

he thinks the iv is so much different than anything

else ever presented on 'head-coverings', that this iv

must be wack.



But that is not how truth is discerned. It is

examined on its own for its merits. If the view is

scriptural, logical, not contradicting other truth,

then it not wacky. Just different than the long

established.



Peter had great difficulty accepting the fact that the

gospel was also for the Gentiles.



He was a dyed-in-

the-wool Jew who had completely embraced the

negative view of Gentiles which most Jews had

embraced. Anything other than this 'long-held

standard of judging' was a hard pill to swallow.

Most then would have said anything new said

contrary to the majority opinion, was wacky, just

because it was different from the long established.



It was hard for Peter to accept the changes

imposed by the Lord, inspite of the great efforts he

had taken to persuade. We see his continued

resistance exhibited in Galatians, where Paul has to

publicly confront and contradict Elder Peter on this

topic. How long after Ac10 this happened is not

known to me. This resistance! Inspite of what God

had very clearly shown Peter in Ac10.



New scriptual ideas contradicting old ideas die

hard, even in Apostolics who say they are

truth-loving.



Those wanting to follow the Jesus way,

like Peter, must adapt to conform to truth, in spite

of peer pressures and personal desires to hang

on to old ways.



The apostle/Word exhibits both what Apostolics

today do and should do. They resist newly-revealed

truth but should then accept it, after careful

examination.



Just being different does not make something

which is scriptural, wacky.

[Amanah]

Hi Don, a few observations

*the formatting of your posts makes reading difficult
*You're not putting out new content, basically just rehashing what you've already said
*I'm guessing that continuing to rehash prior content is not going anywhere as people are basically done with this thread

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

What is a crude LLM? Is it different than a refined LLM?



Every thoughtful reader knows that I post

arguments from reason and scripture, though they

are different from the views of the majority.



For Jediwill83 to say that I do not have the ability

to connect and interact is demonstrated how in

postings in this thread? Can Jediwill83 quote one

post demonstrating this? Plz, we'll wait for the

quote.



(Of course, Jediwill83, will not be quoting because

he doesn't come here to demonstrate facts.

Examinations of his posts shows he has not taken

efforts to interact with with logic or scripture, as

he says I should interact. Oh, well.



He has come to persuade you, reader, by means of

expression of his opinion alone, that the iv should

be ignored. Some will believe his opinion-without-

facts-for-basis, but some will not. Check his posts

and you too will see he doesn't present facts.

Opinions require something solid to stand on before

they should be accepted. Like scripture or logical

argument. Jediwill83 will not provide this, though

he is presumedly capable of it. You are capable,

aren't you Jediwill83? Plz show us some of what

you got, instead of just being negative.)



I've talked in the past about 'not expressing

arguments from scripture and logic' when posting.

You did not take my words to heart. Expressing

opinions alone are almost meaningless. Yet here we

are again, with only your opinions. Plz do provide

something of substance which other readers can

take home and share with their friends. You've got

some scripture and reasonings in you, don't you?

Present some Biblical arguments in your next post.



Careful readers, if Jediwill83 gets wound up, he will

blow the arguments of the iv out of the sky. Stand

back! Avoid being hurt by the fallout. I'm baiting

you with that sentence, but don't take the hook.



Opinions without scriptural meat behind them are

almost worthless. You waste our time, when I

presume you've got it in you to do better.



I presume to understand what Jediwill83 means by

his post. I presume to understand his thinking, that

he thinks the iv is so much different than anything

else ever presented on 'head-coverings', that this iv

must be wack.



But that is not how truth is discerned. It is

examined on its own for its merits. If the view is

scriptural, logical, not contradicting other truth,

then it not wacky. Just different than the long

established.



Peter had great difficulty accepting the fact that the

gospel was also for the Gentiles.



He was a dyed-in-

the-wool Jew who had completely embraced the

negative view of Gentiles which most Jews had

embraced. Anything other than this 'long-held

standard of judging' was a hard pill to swallow.

Most then would have said anything new said

contrary to the majority opinion, was wacky, just

because it was different from the long established.



It was hard for Peter to accept the changes

imposed by the Lord, inspite of the great efforts he

had taken to persuade. We see his continued

resistance exhibited in Galatians, where Paul has to

publicly confront and contradict Elder Peter on this

topic. How long after Ac10 this happened is not

known to me. This resistance! Inspite of what God

had very clearly shown Peter in Ac10.



New scriptual ideas contradicting old ideas die

hard, even in Apostolics who say they are

truth-loving.



Those wanting to follow the Jesus way,

like Peter, must adapt to conform to truth, in spite

of peer pressures and personal desires to hang

on to old ways.



The apostle/Word exhibits both what Apostolics

today do and should do. They resist newly-revealed

truth but should then accept it, after careful

examination.



Just being different does not make something

which is scriptural, wacky.

The way you word this makes me imagine a 50 something school administrator trying to connect with the "young folk" after a contact high and you're supposedly doing this to "bait" me? 😅 Oh Lawd make a way of escape from this mine temptation.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by evang.benincasa

.

part 1


evang.benincasa says

Welcome to blind religion. Let's define blind, shall we? Jesus had also used this word to describe the religious leaders of his day. They had the Word but had misinterpreted the Word for their benefit. The religious elite bent the Word by wrong definition, to keep themselves in power, while also ignoring portions of the Word. They had done so to keep the masses under their thumb. This will be the temptation of any in a ruling class. Even apostolics will have those in their ruling class who bow to this temptation. This should be expected because it is a human problem, not a religion or only apostolic problem. It is always present, to varying degrees. None should ever expect to have organized religion without it.

Evangelist Dominic Benincasa, EB for short would have you believe the iv is hokey-pokey. And what evidence has he presented to support his opinion. Read a compilation of his opinions from his posts, in post 342. I presume that he thinks my compilation is accurate, because he hasn't said it is inaccurate.

You'll see there that he hasn't provided a lot of substance to his claim that the iv is hokey-pokey. As such, he presents mostly opinion without supporting facts. Those reading will then decide whether his opinion is worthy of acceptance or not. I encourage readers to read the compilation. EB is a man actually chock-full of facts. Read them in other threads. He just doesn't present them here in this thread.

Reading the remainder of his comments in this post will see a tactic used, which many others also have used. It is a favourite of politicians, and is very effective to the undiscerning. It is called 'guilt by association'. Associate something bad with someone you want to discredit. Just doing so without facts to back it with, paints a negative picture of them. You need provide no evidence they have done something similar - all you need to do is set it beside their name. EB has done so previously, with the questions he has asked of me, "are you a brahnamite?" "are you a trinitarian?" "do you have a pastor?". He doesn't say I am -- only insinuates I am. Nice trick, which ethical people avoid because they are interested only in facts and truth, not innuendo. Are you a politician, EB?

With that in mind, I invite the reader to re-read this current post of EB 's. Notice the innuendo and lack of evidence presented. Shame, shame, EB . You have such great knowledge you could put to use in counter-arguments, but you instead hit below the belt. You'll fool some of the people doing so, but you won't fool all. Just what is it that you as a licenced apostolic minister want to convey to readers by doing so? where they believe what they believe because they say so. If you critique their belief they will get upset and throw you into timeout. He refers to this:
"This poster won't be replied to by donfriesen1, because many of his responses are only attempts at character assassinations - poor hermeneutics. He has stated in another post that his role is to mock me. Imagine that, an evangelist sees his role is to mock the one he thinks is lost."
yet, they appear to look exactly like us, as to be mistaken to be us. Should we ask EB to define who "us" are. Perhaps he means those who he approves? Or is it the definition that I hold: "anyone who is baptized in Jesus name and has received the Holy Ghost"? This was the defn Jesus gave of "us" in Jn3; those who were part of the kingdom by the new birth. I'm apostolic and part of "us" by that definition, but not by EB 's defn, where I have to believe just like he does on the topics of his choosing not relating to the new birth. Do you here set yourself up as some authority of who "us" are, EB ? Apparently so. Your colours are showing, that you take upon yourself the authority to decide who is "us". that's when people see their deception and discard them. But, they also refuse to hear us. Did you notice the position of authority assumed here in this sentence?Because the religious look like us, and almost sound like us. EB would have you believe that the views of other posters have been ignored by me. Those reading my responses throughout this thread know this is not true. The compilation shown in posts 305, 339, 340, 342; which took great effort to compile, shows this isn't so. I'm often accused of lengthy replies and it isn't because I ignore others opinions and do not present counter-arguments by not replying to them. I reply. EB is blowing smoke. Nice try EB . Regular readers/posters on AFF are asking themselves about you, "what is he doing?" EB is too lazy to present meaningful arguments against the iv, and wants to be believed just because his lips are moving. Sorry, EB , that trick you use only works with the undiscerning.

.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

.

PART 2


Paul didn't rebuke the woman who had the spirit of Python because she wasn't speaking the truth. She was rebuked because she was following them. Rather this: the mouth of the enemy must be stopped when the enemy sets themselves up as the authority who declares if another is speaking truth or not. The enemy of God can't be seen to be setting the standard of who is or isn't speaking for God, even if what they say is true. The disciples rebuked a man who was casting demons out in Jesus name, because the man was NOT a follower. Did Jesus say he was not a follower? No. He was not rebuked by Jesus for that reason. He was not rebuked by Jesus at all. Who was rebuked but the apostles, his own group. What theology was exhibited that gave opportunity for Jesus' rebuke of them? Pray tell, if the man actually cast out a demon, where had he gotten the power? Had God made a mistake by empowering him? The publisher-provided-heading of this passage in my Bible says this: "Jesus Forbids Sectarianism." Jesus said this man is on our side. Jesus also implies this man will be rewarded for what he did, not rebuked. While not saying he is part of our group, Jesus shows he is dangerously close to being so. Are you a sectarian EB ? Why do you colour yourself as one? The portion of scripture immediately above talks of those who argued about being the greatest. Are you the greatest interpreter of scripture, EB? (Did you see what I did there? I used EB 's favourite trick to paint EB . All I did was suggest it.)

Hey EB, do only Apostolic children who die in infancy go to heaven? Or do all infants who die go to heaven, even though they aren't born again? EB would have you believe that Jesus only makes room in heaven for the born again. Yet, Jesus said leave him alone, for no one can do a miracle in Jesus' name and then turn around and speak evil of Jesus Christ. Jesus wasn't condoning the man's theology. What??? What does this story tell us of the man's theology? What negative does Jesus speak of this man? None. But gives negatives about the members of his own group. The members of his group are the ones receiving his negatives. Would Jesus speak negatives of our Evangelist EB ? (did you see what I did there? I again used EB 's favourite trick. Just asked a question without evidence. Or maybe there is evidence.) Just that the man wouldn't be actively suppressing what Jesus was doing. The tares will always grow up with the wheat, and when you know the truth then you can see exactly what a tare looks like. True. A sister in the church was helping a pastor's wife, and mentioned a situation where an individual hadn't been baptized in Jesus' name, and infilled with the Holy Ghost with the initial evidence of speaking in other tongues. The pastor's wife flipped out! Started to go on an ecclesiastical tirade (here EB shows a bias by using a phrase loaded with bias. All ecclesiasticals are evil.) on how there won't only be One God Apostolic Pentecostals in heaven. This is an individual who has been in the UPCI her entire life (don't try to guess who she is. Sadly, you'd probably come up with quite a few names.) Here is a sister who married to a pastor, and defending ecumenicalism in her old age. This didn't happen over night. This lady probably believed that non-apostolic babies went to heaven too. How horrible! How unChristian the thought! (don't forget the facetiousness used in writing this) (Did you see what I did there? I again used EB 's trick. Guilt by association. This apostolic preacher's wife is obviously full of Satan, going to hell because she dares to believe other than EB as an ecumenical. (don't forget, this is facetiousness) This is a slow decay, and the sad situation is this Pentecostal sister never understood the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Apostles. She throws the baby out with the bath water and now see Jesus as inclusive, instead of exclusive. Of course Jesus is exclusive, sending people to hell. Just not how EB says, whose sectarian views send all non-apostolics to hell. (Did you see what I did there. I again used EB 's trick on himself. I said he was a sectarian and we all know sectarianism is wrong. He is guilty when I only suggest he is guilty. But plz don't think that I say the church shouldn't preach Jn3.5/Ac2.38. It should. This is the message Jesus gave to believe and preach. Unlike EB , I believe that Ro5.13 shows that Jesus does judge those who have not heard the Word as if they have heard the Word. EB says in effect, that if you've never heard about the new birth, then tough luck, you fry. Don't be an EB , be like Paul, who shows hope for some who haven't been born again. See a commentary on Ro2/Jn3/Ac2 here: https://bit.ly/4keE4yc ) Just like Don, and all the other Donites out among us. They may not call it by name, but they all preach a doctrine of Inclusion. We prefer to see ourselves as not ignoring any portion of scripture to the detriment of others. Ro2/Ac2/Jn3 are scripture, all should be believed and none ignored. EB ignores. If you have the right view you can see them as complementary, non-contradictory. Preachers who barely have a grasp of eschatology, theology and dimly understand soteriology. Don't forget to include Ro5.13 in it, which show us those who have never heard the Word aren't judged as if they did. To the point that their idea of the Gospel is just water baptism in Jesus name. Whether or not the baptized even understands why he or she is being baptized. Bypassing the initial sign of speaking in tongues, and opting out for something else as the initial sign of indwelling. Don, is religious. Most posters in AFF would admit to being religious to varying degrees. Do you practice true religion, EB , or are you non-religious? Do we all remember Sean? They keep coming at us like an Ecclesiastical Freddy Kruger or an Ecclesiastical Jason Voorhees. No amount of scriptural reasoning will abate them, or persuade them to your logical outcomes. Plz consult post 342 to see the extensive (said facetiously) amounts of"scriptural reasoning" that EB has not done. What motivates the underperforming of yourself seen in the compilation, in this thread, Evangelist Dominic Benincasa ? They we told a doctrine from a manual, and through the years they modified the rest.[/QUOTE]

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Hi Don, a few observations

*the formatting of your posts makes reading difficult
*You're not putting out new content, basically just rehashing what you've already said
*I'm guessing that continuing to rehash prior content is not going anywhere as people are basically done with this thread

* I'm interested in your words about formatting. I only see what is on the screen in front of me. What do you see on your end that I should know about. If you would give me instructions to follow, I would be happy to hear your suggestions. It would be a privilege to be the easiest-read poster ever. Do you view on a PC or a phone? Is it the same formatt on both PC and cell?

* True, I do rehash. Repetition is sometimes good. Sometimes saying the same thing with a different sentence structure comes across differently to different people. Rehashing is not always a bad thing.