This is a sleepless night for me -- fortunately, I keep a computer bedside just in case. If the night leg pains get too intense, I can sit up and research until sleepiness might set in. That is what is happening with me now. I have been paying attention recently to the continued spread of the Moonie cults and former President Donald Trump and company's relationship to it. I have found something extremely disturbing -- Huang Jin Sean Moon founded "Sanctuary Church" a/k/a "Rod of Iron Ministries." I ordered his book, ROD OF IRON KINGDOM and perused it tonight.
This variation of Moon's "True Parents" calls for members to be armed with AR Automatic Assault rifles. The Church believes that January 6, 2021 will be remembered as a sacred and holy day in American history. It also believes it is preparing its people for war. As I showed in an earlier post, Donald Trump went to Korea last year and thanked Unification Church and the Moon founders for vastly improving the planet. The Pennsylvania based Rod of Iron Church has been visited and spoken to by Steve Bannon, Eric Trump, Doug Matriano and other members of the Trump establishment.
They believe they are preparing our country for civil war and they intend to be "God's instruments" fighting it. They take out of context a verse from Revelation (Revelation 2:27) that Jesus will rule us with a "Rod of Iron" -- and of course, since the Moon family think they are the ones completing "Jesus' unfinished work" they are standing in for Him!
They have bought a large compound near Waco, Texas and another in Grainger County, Tennessee.
For the record, Rev. Moon's "new gospel" was that Jesus failed in his mission which was to succeed and replace the race of Adam by marrying and having children. His crucifixion represented "a failure". Rev. Moon says he was called by God to fulfill that mission which he and his wife Jak Ha Moon (currently the head of the international church) did by having their 12 children. Huang Jin Sean Moon tries to sound like a Christian in his book ROD OF IRON KINGDOM. His theology is that his parents are the "True Parents" and their message the "true gospel." If you don't believe me, take a peek at their websites for "Rod of Iron Ministries" and "World Peace and Unification Sanctuary Church".
The Moonies are an important component of the New Age Movement of which I have warned for the past 42 years. One of their important spokesman admitted to me that they were working with Benjamin Creme and Tara Center (January 1983 - Joe Tully). Tully is the same person who assaulted Josette Sheeran's father when he tried to extricate his daughter in 1979 from the Moon cult.
This cult hooked up with the MAGA Movement, with a goal of restoring Donald Trump to the Presidency, treating January 6, 2021's assault on the United States Capitol as sacred, is armed and dangerous. Most certainly, there is no room there for any TRUE Christian. Donald Trump and his close supporters have done nothing to discourage it -- but to encourage it. I submit, that if you are in MAGA and/or Qanon, it is 'time to come out of her, my people."
 |
Another example of NAR Trump idolatry -- this one in my email box from Elijah list this morning! |
Stay tuned -- I will be writing more on this later.
CONSTANCE
1,808 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 1001 – 1200 of 1808 Newer› Newest»As you would expect, Newsom picks a black woman, who happens to be a lesbian, and of course, is a radical abortion proponent.
Report: Newsom Will Choose EMILY’s List President Laphonza Butler to Fill Feinstein’s Senate Seat
https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/10/report-newsom-will-choose-emilys-list-president-laphonza-butler-to-fill-feinsteins-senate-seat/
What's EMILY's List? Watch their short promotional video to find out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aytlne7LB_s&t=46s
But X is a 'pro-life Christian,' and he votes Democrat, so, I guess I'm confused. LOL
10:50 AM The fact that she's black should have nothing to do with it. And you say you're not racist.
Oprah Winfrey and Meghan Markle were said to be on the short list too.
Judeo-Christian is a myth. Jews and Christians do not worship the same God. There is one way to the Father and that is through his son Jesus Christ. A Jew's conversion isn't more special than any other. The gospel isn't about converting Jews or Greeks or Gentiles. The gospel is about bringing Sinners to repentance.
When you're done reading John chapter 8, read Galatians 3, Anon 10:33. White evangelical racism geesh!
1:01 PM
"Judeo-christian" simply acknowledges the truth of the pre-christian Judaic legacy."
To quote the comment section's first poster
https://www.deseret.com/faith/2022/7/2/23188762/what-does-judeo-christian-mean-american-history-donald-trump-ronald-reagan
Yeah, no, it not the Judeo-Christian religion it Judeo-Christian ethics
(thought many were led to believe it's a religion after the the Neo-conservative Global War on Terrorism started)
*Yeah, no, it's not the Judeo-Christian religion it's Judeo-Christian ethics
Sheesh! Darn Dollar Tree glasses
Even the beauty of the conversion story of a Jew can be rendered into a petty quarrel with some commenters. Ah, well. That's the internet for ya.
11:52 AM
Newsom announced ahead of time that he would be picking a black woman to replace Feinstein. By stating such, he excluded all other races, including Asians, Whites, Hispanics, etc. Apparently, you can't see racism in what Newsom did. That's not my problem, that's your problem.
Judaism has a lot of "ethics" alright. Read the entire Old Testament and you will see a long, detailed history of rebelling against God, killing the prophets, sacrificing CHILDREN in the "high places," all while rejecting the coming Messiah.
The Talmud justifies crimes, including murder, against non-Jews. It even justifies pedophilia!
If you want to see Jewish ethics, take a look at the entire entertainment industry, including Hollywood, TV, 'music' industry, etc. By their own admission, Jews own these industries.
Judeo Christian Ethics are not about people, any people, no matter how they kept them or broke them, but the Lord God, the Ancient of Days, Who gave them in God breathed written form to us, called the Holy Bible. The Perfect Law of Liberty when you see the whole Bible front to back to conclude what God has said to the world--to the world!
Dear 1:01 PM
I highly encourage you to look up, and not around, because you have entirely missed the point.
Look up higher than your lower view, that doesn't see what God intends for us all to see.
The Point is about The Author and the Finisher of our Faith.
The whole Point concludes perfectly in God the Father's Yes and Amen, Jesus Christ.
The Alpha and Omega--the King of Glory, the Darling of Heaven, Christ the Lord.
King David of old praised God the Most High and said O how I love Thy Law! Psalm 119:97
Do you not realize God's Word, the Logos, is really talking about Jesus Himself??? (John 1:1 and v 14). That is where those Ethics stem from and find their completion. Your partiaity proves you are not hearing the heart of God in this matter.
Please go to God, through Jesus His Son, to know what you are surely missing.
Nobel Prize goes to scientists behind mRNA Covid vaccines
Published
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-66983060
Excerpt: The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine has been awarded to a pair of scientists who developed the technology that led to the mRNA Covid vaccines.
Professors Katalin Kariko and Drew Weissman will share the prize.
The technology was experimental before the pandemic, but has now been given to millions of people around the world to protect them against serious Covid-19.
The same mRNA technology is now being researched for other diseases, including cancer.
The Nobel Prize committee said: "The laureates contributed to the unprecedented rate of vaccine development during one of the greatest threats to human health in modern times."
Vaccines train the immune system to recognise and fight threats such as viruses or bacteria.
Traditional vaccine technology has been based on dead or weakened versions of the original virus or bacterium - or by using fragments of the infectious agent.
Warning that Covid will 'continue to surprise us'
In contrast, messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines use a completely differently approach.
During the Covid pandemic, the Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines were both based on mRNA technology.
Professor Kariko and Professor Weissman met in the early 1990s when they were working at the University of Pennsylvania, in the United States, when their interest in mRNA was seen as a scientific backwater.
"I would go to meetings and present what I was working on, and people would look at me and say: 'Well, that's very nice, but why don't you do something worthwhile with your time mRNA will never work.'. But Katie and I kept pushing," Professor Wiseman told the BBC's Newshour programme.
Asked about how the pair first reacted to hearing the news that they had won the prize, Professor Kaliko said she thought it was "just a joke" initially.
In a similar vein, Professor Weissman said: "I was you know, sort of overjoyed and then disbelief, and a little bit suspecting that there was some anti-vaxxer playing a prank on us."
"But when we saw the announcement, we knew it was real and there was just a fantastic feeling."....
10:50 AM
https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/10/02/un-approves-kenya-led-force-to-help-bring-calm-to-haiti/
Look around California and I bet you'd find similar scenes as in Haiti.
Newsome is worried (typical spineless politician)
6:44 P.M.
The virus and "solution" was real, but the hoax and all surrounding it was created, perpetrated, basically forced, and continues to create real damage and worse. They aren't done with their successful experiment.
And now they are rewarded.
Globalists have seized the day.
By this time next year what will the world have on it's plate from those who play God?
And God will weigh in....
Hell's gonna be hot.
"The gravity of this message is frightening. It talks of an anti-Christ walking amidst the Cardinals in Rome. And reaching the top of the Church - the top position of the Church. It mentioned a third world conflict, which can be delayed. It mentioned of Cardinals turning against Cardinals and Bishops against Bishops, and open civil-war within the Roman Catholic Church. But yet, the Virgin stipulates and puts emphasis again and again on the fact that - at the end "My Immaculate Heart will triumph"."
- Xavier Reyes-Ayral
https://youtu.be/qjJ2--Qr3-4?si=zL3auUHu1XWd6ZgD
7:53 pm
Ahhhh....You're just sore Robert Malone didn't get credit for "inventing" the mRna vaccine a billion years ago
Let's do the math
COVID-19 vaccines saved 20 million lives worldwide vs Robert Malone's and other anti-vaxxer grifter sponsored vaccine misinformation helped kill an extra 300,000 or so Americans and thousands upon thousands more worldwide who foolishly remained unvaccinated as the delta variant ravaged the country/world in 2021.
Don't stop believing ........
in your Globalist gods then, 10:17 PM.
A fool and the truth are soon parted.
As you wish, have a nice life licking Elitist boots.
Anon 12:15 (from previous set of comments):
You wrote: You have persuaded me about the continuation of some spiritual gifts as a separate issue from the closing of the canon and the apostolic era. I think most of my confusion was in regards to tightly packaging together all three issues.
Well enough. I’d say any of the charismatic manifestations can be weighed against Scripture in a number of ways. I’ve noted that 1 John 4:1–3 provides one test—any spirit claiming Jesus Christ has not come in the flesh is of the spirit of antichrist. If one looks hard enough into the Christology of the various NAR teachers, they teach a separationist Christology, such that Jesus was ‘christed’ in the Jordan River. This is New Age Christology, and it matches the test for antichrist.
Beware of any teacher focusing on “the anointing”. What this typically boils down to is:
Christ = ‘the anointing’
antichrist = ‘against the anointing’
In other words, it’s the converse of Biblical Christology, and matches New Age Christology.
-------
X,
I return to you. Given the conversation here, in all intellectual honesty you must concede that the positions of those individuals in the Ligonier Ministries video I shared are incorrect. The driver of their collective position is an eisegesis of 1 Corinthians 13:8-12, and an argument from silence (despite the various ‘charismatic revivals’ over the centuries, e.g.) regarding the continuation of ANY of the “sign gifts”.
From here I’ll copy what I stated earlier:
I’ve shown your selective cessationism to be lacking Biblical support. (In fairness, you are far from the only one adhering to this manmade reactionary doctrine.) In fact, I’d say it’s “religious rhetoric” and both unbiblical and anti-bible. More pointedly, I’d say it’s eisegesis as an attempt at apologetics—even though other Scriptures, in proper context, could instead be used to counter the excesses we see in false charismaticism.
In our exchange on this issue, with each response you made I was able to—using one of your favorite words—debunk it.
What say you now?
Ugh: it’s the converse of Biblical Christology should be it's the PERVERSION of Biblical Christology
This is from Mike Bird about the Apostle Paul. I found it quite interesting in light of the little debate that broke out about the word "judeo-Christian."
Six Things I Bet You Did Not Know About the Apostle Paul!
https://michaelfbird.substack.com/p/six-things-i-bet-you-did-not-know?publication_id=313362&post_id=136656305&isFreemail=true
#1 Paul was not a Christian
Paul was a Jewish Christian (or Judean Messiah-follower in technical scholarly parlance). But he was not a Christian as something that superseded or replaced Jews and Judaism.
Paul did not, in his mind, belong to a religion called “Christianity” and think of himself as a “Christian.”
Paul saw himself as a Jew, who adhered to a Jewish way of life as a Messiah follower not despite being a Messiah follower.
Yes, we can have big debates about Paul and his “former way of life in Judaism” (Gal 1:13), then there is Paul and the “parting of the ways” between Christianity and Judaism, but Paul does not see himself abandoning or abrogating Israelite religious hopes, fixtures, and identity as expressed in the Jewish scriptures.
Paul was not a Christian, he was a Jew, a somewhat anomalous and idiosyncratic Jew due to his messianic beliefs, but a Jew all the same.
Some scholars even prefer to talk about Paul as an example of “apostolic Judaism.”
#4 Paul was a Diaspora Jew
The word “diaspora” means “dispersion,” you know, think of the American diaspora with all the American people who live outside of America. In Paul’s day, 80% of all Jews lived outside of Judea! Paul was a Greek-speaking Jew of the Diaspora who grew up in the region of Cilicia, in the city of Tarsus, and was a Roman citizen.
Now, Paul did have something of a Jewish education, he followed the traditions of the Pharisees, he had spent considerable time in Judea, and some of his biblical interpretive techniques could be called proto-rabbinic.
However, Paul really is a product of the Hellenistic east, the Greek culture that permeated the eastern Mediterranean since the time of Alexander the Great. Now, Hellenism existed in different forms and frames in the eastern Mediterranean, it was not monolithic, and it intersected with local cultures, whether one is talking about Cilicia or Arabia.
Paul wrote in Greek, he read his Bible in Greek (i.e., the Septuagint), and he was clearly aware of Greek rhetoric and philosophy.
So, when we think of Paul, we need to think not only of Judaism and Jewishness, but also a Hellenistic intellectual with messianic beliefs and forms of devotion.
Paul is a figure who stands between the Jewish, Greek, and Roman worlds.
Lest I overstate it, although Paul thought of himself as Jewish, the one thing he taught all the churches was to imitate Jesus Christ. The word "Christian" means "little Christs."
As Michael Bird says in his second point:
#2 The One Thing Paul Taught in All the Churches
What is the one thing Paul said he taught in all the churches?
Inerrancy? Justification by faith? Women must be silent? Nope, not even close.
Listen to these words from 1 Cor 4:16-17
I appeal to you, then, be imitators of me. For this reason I sent you Timothy, who is my beloved and trustworthy child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ Jesus, as I teach them everywhere in every church.
I learned this from my former PhD student Jason Hood (see his awesome book, The Imitation of God).
What Paul tells all of his converts in all of the churches is to imitate him as he imitates Christ.
I have to tell you that nothing is more mind-blowing than reading 1 Corinthians, Philippians, and 1 Thessalonians and paying attention to all the times that Paul mentions imitation of Christ and imitation of other Christ-followers.
The Pauline life is the imitatio Christi life.
10:45 AM,
I'm going to take some time to respond to each of your comments separately and one by one. I'm going to start here.
Where did you get your information about the Talmud? I have to wonder if your authors have studied it first hand or gotten their information second hand from historically unreliable scholars who keep passing it on to other unreliable scholars.
The Talmud Unmasked
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Talmud_Unmasked
The Talmud Unmasked (Latin: Christianus in Talmud Iudaeorum: sive, Rabbinicae doctrinae Christiani secreta. English: The secret rabbinical teachings concerning Christians) is a book published in 1892 by Justinas Bonaventure Pranaitis (1861–1917). The book, generally regarded as antisemitic,[1][2][3] is a collection of purported quotations from the Talmud and Zohar that purports to demonstrate that Judaism despises non-Jews and promotes the murder or injury of non-Jews in some instances. Pranaitis drew on the earlier works of Jakob Ecker and August Rohling.[1]
Please note especially this portion:
Pranaitis could not read Aramaic (the primary language of the Talmud),[5] and probably used works by August Rohling and others as his sources.[citation needed][relevant?]
The book includes numerous quotations from the Talmud and the Zohar.[6] His ignorance of some simple Talmudic Aramaic concepts and definitions, such as "hullin", was demonstrated during the Menahem Mendel Beilis blood libel case in which he testified as a "Talmud expert".[7][8]
And this one:
Scholars classify The Talmud Unmasked as an anti-semitic and anti-Talmudic work, comparable to Der Talmud Jude by August Rohling (1871) and The Traditions of the Jews by Johann Eisenmenger (1700).[1][2][3]
This is also interesting:
Jeffrey Kaplan describes how the book was used by cults to support apocalyptic theories, particular relating to the end-of-times.[6]
Maybe you could be so good as to name your source(s), and we can start with that?
9:13 AM
I lived in Phoenix AZ for many years, and the Phoenix library has the Talmud in its Reference Room.
I looked up the passages referred to in some conspiracy book I was reading many years ago, that I cannot remember the title of now. The passages are there!
10:45 AM is spot on!
The Talmudic Jews are the children of the Devil, just as Christ stated!
9:45 AM,
Be careful when you condemn the spirit of hatred that you do not become guilty of the same sin.
9:45 AM,
There is not a single book called "The Talmud." It consists of a set of books.
The Talmudic Jews are the children of the Devil, just as Christ stated!
9:26 AM
Jesus was speaking to the last generation who inhabited Jerusalem before the Romans burned it. Of that last generation, a remnant were saved. That last generation finally came under the covenant curse as they had been warned by Moses would eventually happen.
The story of the Old Testament doesn't demonstrate how wicked Jews are. It demonstrates how sinful humans are and points to the need for our Redeemer.
If you miss this, you miss the boat.
No, I didn't miss THE BOAT. I don't condemn, nor hate Jews. My own blood family has Jews on both sides!
The Lord's faithfulness to Israel demonstrates the depth of His grace.
10:30 AM
I never stated that the Talmud was one big book! It does make the Encyclopedia Britannica seem almost like a booklet though.
No wonder the Jews make good legal wranglers.
Most Christians fail to realize the prophetic significance of Christ throwing the money changers out of the temple.
SITUATION CRITICAL! The Enemy From Within is Destroying America...
youtube.com/watch?v=7AdHldZzTE8
https://www.sefaria.org/texts/Talmud
The Talmud is the textual record of generations of rabbinic debate about law, philosophy, and biblical interpretation, compiled between the 3rd and 8th centuries and structured as commentary on the Mishnah with stories interwoven. The Talmud exists in two versions: the more commonly studied Babylonian Talmud was compiled in present-day Iraq, while the Jerusalem Talmud was compiled in Israel.
Generations of rabbinic debate about law, philosophy, and biblical interpretation.
I wonder what we could come up with by quoting from generations of debate about philosophy, theology and law among Westerners?
I could actually imagine a terrorist cherry picking from Western philosophy tomes to prove that Americans really are the blue eyed devil children of the Great Satan, America. You could cherry pick everything from hedonism to nihilism.
What about generations of biblical interpretation, including every heresy that ever was? That would provide a rich source material to pick some doozies.
Generations of debate about law...I suppose you'd have to include the Salem Witch Trials and Jim Crow, not to mention these 45 silly laws that are still on the books:
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/50041/50-weird-laws-still-books
saying never again is only asking for it
change your behavior not your enemys
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1703502731959250945.html
Is this for real? or are they just trying to gin up waning US support?
saying never again is only asking for it
Are you talking about the Holocaust?
change your behavior not your enemys
The Bible teaches the Holy Spirit changes your behavior first to your salvation. Then sometimes the same Holy Spirit changes your enemy's behavior after that, although there are no guarantees. If the enemy's behavior does not change, it works to his or her ultimate destruction. We do our part but leave outcomes up to God. We might never even know outcomes.
When it comes to violent brawls, it always seems to involve a certain group of people.
Massive Brawl at Louisiana High School — 14 Students Arrested
https://rumble.com/v3mnyfu-massive-brawl-at-louisiana-high-school-14-students-arrested.html
Excellent, brief history and how the internet helped speed up the desire of the elites to create their dream of a one world government:
NEW WORLD DISORDER
The race to global government: A timeline
By Scott Lively
https://www.wnd.com/2023/10/race-global-government-timeline/
12:53 PM
I feel no need to answer your interrogation, but. . .
"Flying in the Face of God" - Titanic Survivor
https://youtu.be/RH-Hndxc_ZM?si=0W_IXuQBO8-Nq-3u
HTH
The whole point of Apostle Paul's ministry>>>>
Philippians 3:8-10
"8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,
9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;"
"1 Corinthians 2 1 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power."
Apostle Paul called himself a bond-servant of Christ.
Exactly what we all are to be, that call ourselves believers in Christ Jesus.
And furthermore, as a Jew who had come to saving knowledge of Christ, Paul's identity as a Jew was a sideline compared to his new identity with Jesus Christ.
And Paul wrote this to the Galatians>>>>
"Gal. 3 Verses 28 to 29 [28] There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. [29] And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's (spiritual) offspring, heirs according to promise."
All the mincing and hair splitting about this is not edifying.
Apostle Paul would have believers edify one another with Scripture and he taught from the Old and New testament both.
Only Paul's two shortest epistles, Titus and Philemon, contain no quotes from the Old Testament. It's obvious from these figures that Paul used the Hebrew Scriptures to support his teaching. In fact, he constantly used the Old Testament as the authority for his teaching!
The sectarian stuff needs to go, folks.
One further note>>>
Acts 11:22-26
22 Then news of these things came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent out Barnabas to go as far as Antioch. 23 When he came and had seen the grace of God, he was glad, and encouraged them all that with purpose of heart they should continue with the Lord. 24 For he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And a great many people were added to the Lord.
25 Then Barnabas departed for Tarsus to seek Saul. 26 And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.
Paul was with Christians because he was one himself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hVVlRCPm4M
And the fight continues...
Just to be safe, it might be wise to turn off all 'smart devices' (even unplug?) Wednesday, October 4th for about two hours (2:00~4:00 ET or 1:00~3:00 CT).
____________________________________________________________________________________________
FEMA Nationwide Emergency Alert Test Wednesday, October 4, 2023 @ 2:20 PM Eastern (1:20 PM Central)
Messages Will be Sent to All TVs, Radios and Cell Phones
WASHINGTON -- FEMA, in coordination with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), will conduct a nationwide test of the Emergency Alert System (EAS) and Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) this fall.
The national test will consist of two portions, testing WEA and EAS capabilities. Both tests are scheduled to begin at approximately 2:20 p.m. ET on Wednesday, Oct. 4.
The WEA portion of the test will be directed to all consumer cell phones. This will be the third nationwide test, but the second test to all cellular devices. The test message will display in either English or in Spanish, depending on the language settings of the wireless handset.
The EAS portion of the test will be sent to radios and televisions. This will be the seventh nationwide EAS test.
FEMA and the FCC are coordinating with EAS participants, wireless providers, emergency managers and other stakeholders in preparation for this national test to minimize confusion and to maximize the public safety value of the test.
The purpose of the Oct. 4 test is to ensure that the systems continue to be effective means of warning the public about emergencies, particularly those on the national level. In case the Oct. 4 test is postponed due to widespread severe weather or other significant events, the back-up testing date is Oct. 11.
The WEA portion of the test will be initiated using FEMA’s Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS), a centralized internet-based system administered by FEMA that enables authorities to send authenticated emergency messages to the public through multiple communications networks. The WEA test will be administered via a code sent to cell phones.
This year the EAS message will be disseminated as a Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) message via the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System-Open Platform for Emergency Networks (IPAWS-OPEN).
All wireless phones should receive the message only once. The following can be expected from the nationwide WEA test:
Beginning at approximately 2:20 p.m. ET, cell towers will broadcast the test for approximately 30 minutes. During this time, WEA-compatible wireless phones that are switched on, within range of an active cell tower, and whose wireless provider participates in WEA, should be capable of receiving the test message.
For consumers, the message that appears on their phones will read: “THIS IS A TEST of the National Wireless Emergency Alert System. No action is needed.”
Phones with the main menu set to Spanish will display: “ESTA ES UNA PRUEBA del Sistema Nacional de Alerta de Emergencia. No se necesita acción.”
WEA alerts are created and sent by authorized federal, state, local, tribal and territorial government agencies through IPAWS to participating wireless providers, which deliver the alerts to compatible handsets in geo-targeted areas. To help ensure that these alerts are accessible to the entire public, including people with disabilities, the alerts are accompanied by a unique tone and vibration.
Important information about the EAS test:
The EAS portion of the test is scheduled to last approximately one minute and will be conducted with the participation of radio and television broadcasters, cable systems, satellite radio and television providers and wireline video providers.
https://www.fema.gov/press-release/20230803/fema-and-fcc-plan-nationwide-emergency-alert-test-oct-4-2023
12:53 PM
I feel no need to answer your interrogation, but. . .
"Flying in the Face of God" - Titanic Survivor
https://youtu.be/RH-Hndxc_ZM?si=0W_IXuQBO8-Nq-3u
HTH
3:07 PM
I feel no need to pay attention to your cryptic comments.
Anon 6:06 PM
Just to be safe, it might be wise to turn off all 'smart devices' (even unplug?) Wednesday, October 4th for about two hours (2:00~4:00 ET or 1:00~3:00 CT).
So testing the emergency broadcast system is now a problem? you want us all to perish in an emergency like Maui? Methinks the conspiracy theories are looking more and more like The Conspiracy Theory.
Anon 8:52 AM,
You wrote: The word "Christian" means "little Christs."
I’m curious where you arrived at that.
The Greek term (as found in Acts 11:26; 26:28) is Christianos (apparently from the Latin) and means “Christ-follower”, or one who is associated with Christ, according to BDAG. In F. W. Danker’s The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, the lexicographer defines it as ‘an adherent of one called Christ’, Christ-follower, Christian.
Nowhere do I see “Christian” defined as akin to a diminutive of Christ (little Christ), such as duckling is to duck or booklet is to book.
6:33 PM
You must be one of those 'woke' people who are sound asleep (since you are so clueless about this).
9:50 PM Clue us in then.
Rumors on X(Twitter) are that the alert will activate a Zombie Apocalypse caused by a combination of vaccines, 5G poisoning and a bat-borne disease. QAnons are alerting their followers to shut off their cellphones on the day of the test.
If you're not QAnon and you know the real scoop, clue us in with some facts. What is the danger in testing the emergency alert system?
Who Will Stand for Palestine Christians?
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/who-will-stand-for-palestinian-christians/
A few years back (first) a fir tree up and died just like that right in front of our north facing window. Well it improved the view to the wooded hillside across the way but then one day a few months later I looked and up on that hill and there was a big communication tower of some kind. I asked my other half - when did they put that up? She didn't know but when I became a little too oppressed about it (knowing my other obsession with Tolkien) she said - good thing it's not Two Towers ( - :
It still is a strange coincidence to me the tree died IYKYK
Craig 7:05 PM,
I've encountered the claim that Christian means "little Christ" in a variety of sources, but I traced it back to C.S. Lewis. Even though he didn't actually say that "Christian" means "little Christ" in Greek, he first popularized the term "little Christ" in his book, Mere Christianity.
This is beside the main point, which was that the one thing that the Apostle Paul preached to every church, was that he imitated Jesus Christ, and he exhorted disciples to do the same.
Alert from local Emergency responders this morning:
Do you have a hidden phone?
Even if it's on silent, your phone may make a noise, vibrate, or read out the alert. If you have a second phone due to domestic violence, please remember to shut it off during the test.
4:45 PM,
The disciples of Jesus Christ were first called Christians in Antioch by others. It's thought by many historians that at first, the label of Christian was not intended as a compliment. Many historians think that early Christians culturally reclaimed the term "Christian" over time.
Anon 8:43 AM,
Thanks for explaining "little Christ". Your original context made your intent clear, but my mind went to the Kenneth Copeland et al "little gods" doctrine. Given that this tern came from C. S. Lewis, and that his writings predate all that nonsense, it makes perfect sense.
----
Anon 8:13 AM,
Strange coincidence indeed.
Anon 8:50 AM,
Yes indeed.
In Acts Christ-followers were referred to as followers of "The Way", both positively and negatively.
Letter From a Concerned Follower
It’s weird to think of all the things
That have not been keeping up with the times
It’s ten o’clock the sun has now
Just begun to set the western hills on fire
I hear you don’t change
How do you expect to keep up with the trends?
You won’t survive the information age
Unless you plan to change the truth
To accommodate the brilliance of men, the brilliance of men
Some folks think we’re better now
Social evolution’s new synthetic
Will keep us on a straighter path
As better men use brand new math
With no wrong answers
I’m just a little bit worried
Do you have some sort of plan?
Have you been finally defeated
By the cunning of these fully evolved men?
I hear that you don’t change
How do you expect to keep up with the trends?
You won’t survive the information age
Unless you plan to change the truth
To accommodate the brilliance of men, the brilliance of men
Pedro the Lion - Letter From a Concerned Follower
From the EP The Only Reason I Feel Secure Is That I Am Validated By My Peers.
The Josiah Manifesto - Occult Secrets of Witchcraft/Feminism - Big Food Scandal
theopenscrollblog.com/videos/JosiahManifestoSuffrageConspiracy.mp4
While they are saying, "Peace and safety!" then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape (1 Thess 5:3; NASB).
Invention
crazy people know the special place to go
when the pressure's on
neurons re-align 'til the feeling is fine
or the trouble is gone
they're in the business of inventing saviors
there's always trouble
so tell yourself again
that help is on the way
and safety abounds
when you need some kind of guarantee
that you're protected
you start to trust the things that deeper comfort brings
before you've checked it
you might be waiting for a long time
and safety abounds
safety abounds...
Pedro the Lion - Invention
From the 1999 EP The Only Reason I Feel Secure Is That I Am Validated By My Peers.
Ain't it the truth, business as usual in this ole world.
No "peace and safety" for you! by the government saviors, religious saviors, any other brand "savior" that glazed eyes and hearts are want to follow to fall for every devil's trick in the book.
Everything but go to The Book and it's true Savior to trust Him alone.
:(
Thumbs up, 9:35 AM, Craig.
8:50 AM
And either way, the name stuck.
Apostle Paul let himself identify with them..
It will be wonderful to see the "first love" of the early Church come to believers in the Lord Jesus of our day and time when apostasy is now going on at full tilt.
Persecution will sort all of that out.
Are we ready???
Anon 9:58 AM,
For some their preferred savior is Big Pharma, the Medical Industrial Complex, Legacy Media, the Military Industrial Complex, and the doctrines of men--doctrines at odds with the truths of Scripture.
No joke, Craig 10:28 AM. They're at odds with God, and, of course, His Word, and their fellowmen, since there is no true unity that can form (just uniformity) to follow those "saviors".
And some call themselves Christians, but by their admixed ideologies and practiced beliefs, they really end up denying the Lord.
"Lord, Lord, didn't I, didn't I..??.."
It is sad to see the level of low so many people will settle for.
God is not mocked. Galatians 6:7
Marjorie Taylor Greene Endorses DJT for Speaker of the House: "We Can Make Him Speaker and Then Elect Him President!"
thegatewaypundit.com/2023/10/marjorie-taylor-greene-endorses-donald-trump-speaker-house/
DJT as Speaker of the House would finish the job he started - completely destroy the republican party leaving everything he touches in utter chaos.
Before G**gle took over (don't be evil my a**)
Gary Webb: In His Own Words (2002) | CIA Cocaine Dark Alliances
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJkNEtgMulw
11:59 AM
Biden on day one set to destroy what little then, was left of the 'democracy'. The Republic died over 100 years ago.
Fixed it for you
Now THIS is funny!
I Broke Fox News! 😂 (Now I'm Banned for Life)
Mark Dice
Many people are saying I prank called Fox News live on the air, but it was a culture jam, not a prank call. Culture jamming is when you subvert the media in a creative way in order to use that same form of media to critique media itself.
He proved his point!
Craig 8:01 am yesterday said: I return to you. Given the conversation here, in all intellectual honesty you must concede that the positions of those individuals in the Ligonier Ministries video I shared are incorrect. The driver of their collective position is an eisegesis of 1 Corinthians 13:8-12, and an argument from silence (despite the various ‘charismatic revivals’ over the centuries, e.g.) regarding the continuation of ANY of the “sign gifts”.
It seems you are still struggling with your position of partial cessationism (there are no more Apostles -- that we agree upon, I think).
The Ligonier video contained various positions you didn't address and was just a clip of a larger video from an entire conference (I think) which you didn't address.
How can you affirm charismatic revivals as supposed evidence of historic continuationism without confirming or allowing for all the much longer documented roman catholic supposed signs and miracles?
I believe all the 20th and 21st-century charismatic "revivals" were really just shipwreck carnivals where people desperate for and overemphasizing pursuit of spiritual gifts (like their false leaders and the 52 AD Corinthians whom Paul corrected for such) traveled hoping they themselves could witness (or perform) signs and wonders, only to realize they were just acting, God wasn't going to speak to them no matter what they tried and resulting in the shipwrecking of thousands.
As John MacArthur has often pointed out (paraphrasing him) -- of all the people in the world God could choose to give any gifts to, were He in the business today of dooling out such gifts...it wouldn't have been or be any of those false teachers so far outside of scripture.
I, personally, still maintain the different word Paul uses for the end of the gift of tongues in 1 Cor 13:8, is a good indication that such sign will certainly "cease" by itself, as it did at the end of the apostolic age (it is seemingly not dependent on coming of the "perfect", for it will already have ceased). After all, there is no need to verify the true messages from God arriving in various languages at the foundation of the Church once the Scripture was given.
For further edification beyond 1 Cor 12-14 see Todd Pennington's book:
"A Biblical Case for Cessationism: Why the Miraculous Gifts of the Spirit Have Ended"
Published August, 2023 and available on Amazon: https://a.co/d/7pbT2Y9
Or listen to Pastor Pennington's sermon and take your fight up with him.
A Case for Cessationism (Tom Pennington) (Selected Scriptures)
https://youtu.be/9o0z-J4RnwE?si=juNRzj35SX-bzJzS
x
p.s.- I survived leaving my phone and even my I-watch on during the brief test of the national emergency system today. Did anyone else survive it too? What a relief
5:04 PM Reporting in as SAFE from Zombie Apocalypse. Alert came over three cell phones in our vehicle this afternoon, we all survived. The sun continued to shine and all traffic continued as normal in their designated lane. As expected, just another QAnon nothing-burger. We have nothing to fear, but fear itself!
Learned a new word today: Conspirophile
December 20, 2002 issue. https://larouchepub.com/other/2002/2949moonification.html
Excerpt. . ."But agnosticism, is only Gnosticism in disguise, and in this form, as a reincarnation of the ancient cult heresy, we shall find it at the heart of the "theology" of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon.
"To understand what makes the Moon clock tick, is to know the real history of the 20th Century, not the fairytale version set forth in schoolbooks and newsstand gossip sheets. We shall show you in this article that the Moon cult is the spinoff of two British intelligence operations of the 1920s and 1930s, in which the figures of Bertrand Russell and H.G. Wells play the prominent role.
"Russell and Wells, who orchestrated so much of the evil of the 20th Century, were by birth and upbringing, men of the 19th Century, grown to manhood under the British Empire at the peak of its power, nursed on the tales of Kipling and the notion of the inborn superiority of the Anglo-Saxon race. Yet, they were clever enough to foresee its demise, and early on set themselves to the task of shaping a new world empire, more fearful and more evilly conceived than the openly declared global tyranny which was Victorian England. . .
Good stuff Maynard ( - :
An Apple watch!?
"Remember that when you leave this earth, you can take with you nothing that you have received - only what you have given: a full heart, enriched by honest service, love, sacrifice and courage." ~ St Francis of Assisi
X,
You wrote: It seems you are still struggling with your position of partial cessationism...
As usual, you straw man. I'm a continuationist, as the Scriptures plainly illustrate. Apparently, you are OK with men perverting Scripture--in this case 1 Cor 13:8-12, for these verses plainly illustrate that the nine gifts enumerated in 1 Cor 12:8-11 continue until Christ returns.
You wrote: The Ligonier video contained various positions you didn't address and was just a clip of a larger video from an entire conference (I think) which you didn't address.
Those Scriptures are read through their eisegesis of 1 Cor 13:8-12. In any case, I plan to write a separate blog post addressing all the Scriptures used in the clip I provided--though I've been REALLY busy as of late (today is a bit of a reprieve).
You wrote: How can you affirm charismatic revivals as supposed evidence of historic continuationism without confirming or allowing for all the much longer documented roman catholic supposed signs and miracles?
I don't need to. Each case is its own and needs be assessed on a case by case basis.
Nice red herring, though.
You wrote: I, personally, still maintain the different word Paul uses for the end of the gift of tongues in 1 Cor 13:8, is a good indication that such sign will certainly "cease" by itself, as it did at the end of the apostolic age (it is seemingly not dependent on coming of the "perfect", for it will already have ceased). After all, there is no need to verify the true messages from God arriving in various languages at the foundation of the Church once the Scripture was given
Wait, what? Why are trying to eisegetically isolate that word--and verse--from its larger context? Paul is making a 'lesser to the greater' argument, as he is wont to do. And each element in verse 8 is set in syntactical parallel, such that (NASB) prophecy goes with will be done away with; tongues goes with will cease; and, knowledge goes with will be done away with. Please explain how "will cease" is substantially different from "will be done away with". Once you've managed that (you can't), then you can try to justify wresting this element of v. 8 from the larger context in which it is clear Paul terminates the gifts at Christ's coming and NOT before.
How can you possibly assert that tongues of any kind (whether speaking a different real language or a 'heavenly' language [cf. 1 Cor 14:14]) have ceased with the Apostolic age? Have you personally heard every single Christian since the Apostolic age any and everywhere; that is, are you omniscient/omnipresent?
You are taking the doctrines of men over the clear Word of God. You should rethink that.
X,
I’m not going to listen to the Pennington video, but I did glance at the transcript. As I suspected he goes to 1 Corinthians 13.
Beginning @ 4:10:
There are a couple of New Testament passages that imply that the miraculous gifts will continue until Christ returns. Their [The continuationists’] favorite example of that is 1 Corinthians 13:10, "When the perfect comes, the partial will be done away." They argue that that means that only when Christ returns will the partial gifts of tongues and prophecy cease. However, as you know, this is a very highly disputed passage and there are a number of possible interpretations. There are disagreements about how to interpret that passage on both sides of the issue.
I don’t see how any intellectually honest exegete can interpret 1Cor 13:10 as anything other than that the nine spiritual gifts enumerated in 1Cor 12:8-10 continue until Christ returns.
His straw man [t]hey argue that that means that only when Christ returns will the partial gifts of tongues and prophecy cease is his own pretext and straw man of the continuationist perspective.
This is the crux of the issue, and it is at this juncture that Tom Pennington fails.
5:24 PM
Thank you for your cooperation, dear consumer - er - I mean citizen
Sincerely: your government
PS: don't even try to op out ) - :
To go a bit further to debunk your strained eisegesis on tongues in 1Cor 13:8, I note that all three verbs are future tense-forms. The first two are plural to match their respective plural nouns to which they refer (prophecies, tongues), while the latter is singular to match the singular noun (knowledge) to which it refers. So, why would we interpret tongues as ceasing prior to the other two when all three are in syntactic parallel--most especially when tongues is between both prophecies and knowledge?
Makes no sense at all to pluck tongues from the middle of the other two.
Great point, Craig.
It's because tongues have a place in any time after the Apostalic age, but with the caution that they belong to the Spirit of Christ, used at His discretion, not to be abused by men as we have often seen done, yet others in the world even in our current times have witnessed used to the glory of God, specific to the use and intent God said in His Word. Tongues are spoken of in 1 Corthinians 12 goes further into detail, to any and all generations reading God's Word in Chapter 14.
All exercized manifestations of signs, wonders, gifts, belong to God for His purpose, not our own. He put no stated time limit on them except when they are done away with as mentioned in 1 Corinthians 13:8-10.
Typical x.
Tries to fix what ain't broken.
No wonder he loves globalism and his favorite government gods.
I just learned some believers expected to be raptured when the FEMA alert sounded. Only in America would they think a cell phone ping sounds like the last trumpet. Craig and X are still here. It's safe to assume we didn't miss the last call.
But then where is our Constance?
Anon 7:23 PM,
The rapture--the resurrection of the dead first, then the living raptured--only occurs AFTER the revealing of the lawless one (2 Thess 2:3-4).
---
Anon 7:14 PM,
You wrote: ...All exercized manifestations of signs, wonders, gifts, belong to God for His purpose, not our own.
And this is where most all 'charismatics'--what I call hyper-charismatics--err (or worse). We don't CHASE signs and wonders; they accompany yielded vessels in furtherance of the Gospel, AS HE WILLS (1 Cor 12:11; Hebrews 2:4).
1 Cor 13:8-10 refers to love's lastingness or permanence as a divine quality. Love outlasts all failures. Paul strengthens his point, as he is prone to do, by comparing it to the spiritual gifts that the Corinthians so highly prized; prophecy, knowledge and tongues, all of which will have an end.
To be "done away with" indicates that something will put an end to those two functions...something like the "perfect", perhaps. Contrast that with "ceasing" which implies it will just end itself as it obviously has at the end of the Apostolic age.
"Tongues" refers to the real gift of tongues as established in Acts 2:1-13 - the ability to speak in real languages unknown to the speaker. There is no biblical teaching of any special angelic language that people could learn to speak. If Paul had such ability he never wrote about it and in 1 Cor 14:4, for example, Paul admonishes those Corinthians speaking in a counterfeit pagan gibberish tongue.
Again, the "perfect" is arguable. It is probably not the Scripture since there is still operation of those two gifts (knowledge and prophecy) and will be in the future kingdom. I think it could be referring to the foundation of the church (BB Warfield) after all the Apostles and those Prophets they personally enpowered at themselves passed away. But likewise, the perfect isn't the rapture of the church or the second coming of Christ, since the kingdom to follow will have an abundance of preachers and teachers.
As far as "the larger context"... Paul is not trying to teach the Corinthians when the gifts will cease but that there will come an end to the knowledge conveyed through those gifts they are overly chasing, pursuing and abusing. “The partial” does not refer to the gift of prophecy itself but rather to the partial (and, at the same time, infallible) knowledge that results from the exercise of this gift. This partial knowledge is contrasted not with a perfect gift of knowledge but with the perfect, comprehensive knowledge believers will enjoy when they come face to face with Christ. With that in view, you can back away from the details of the text to discover the point. Paul is not trying to teach the Corinthians when the gifts will cease but that there will come an end to the knowledge conveyed through those gifts be it when they cease OR go away.
As MacArthur wrote in his book Strange Fire (this makes a lot of sense):
It is important to note that Paul’s purpose in this chapter was not to identify how long the spiritual gifts would continue into later centuries of church history, as that would have been essentially meaningless to the original readers of this letter. Rather, he was making a point that specifically pertained to his first-century audience: when you Corinthian believers enter the glorified perfection of eternity in heaven, the spiritual gifts you now prize so highly will no longer be necessary (since the partial revelation they provide will be made complete). But love has eternal value, so pursue love because it is superior to any gift
To be sure, we were warned. One prophecy that’s easy for us to agree upon is where Peter warned that just as "false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep” 2 Pet 2:1-3.
That prophecy has come true, particularly with continuationists run amok.
x
7:39 PM
That's right.
Real manifestations, signs, wonders, gifts, are His.
The phony stuff is of men.
And that was what I was saying. The real things of the Spirit look and do what God wants of them and don't step out of the bounds of His Word like in the passages I was writing of in my post.
They give true glory to God, not people.
Anon 8:56 PM,
I was agreeing with your post.
X,
Your argument makes no sense. If this supposedly is to ‘prove’ that the sign gifts have ceased, where is healing in this passage? This by itself should cause you pause.
You must look both at the larger context and the local context. As I keep stating to near the point of ad nauseum, Paul’s argument begins at 12:1 and includes nine gifts (12:8-10). As the late Gordon Fee notes, it’s a representative nine and not an exhaustive list. These nine lie in the backdrop of the three he uses in 13:8-11. Note also he briefly mentions faith again in 13:2, but does not continue with it in his tentative conclusion here with respect to love.
Paul also makes it clear that 13:8-13 is a unit, for he employs a chiasmus, a chiastic structure. I wrote about this very Scripture four years ago: Palindromes and Chiastic Structures. You can see how Paul pairs the lines to develop and then close his argument in this section.
Faith, hope, and love are paired with prophecies, tongues, and knowledge. He opens with “love never fails” and closes with “greatest…is love”. Item D is where the argument moves from antithesis to thesis: 11 When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. Note that he is using “speak” as a reference to tongues, going from the lesser to the greater (child to man).
And he uses the greater to the lesser in verse 10 (perfect, partial) and reverses to the lesser to the greater in 12 (now, then). To be sure, he’s not meaning to divorce tongues from prophecies and knowledge (note, again, the syntactic parallelism within 9), for, as just noted, he employs a similar lesser-greater in 11.
The key to his point here is in 12: For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully, just as I also have been fully known.
Are you going to tell me and the readers here that with the closing of Apostolic age (or the Canon) the ‘in part’ knowledge became a ‘known fully’ knowledge?! And to whom did Paul refer in “as I also have been fully known”? Your argument falls apart right there.
The “perfect” clearly refers to the eschaton, to Christ’s return. Paul had been fully known by Christ, and when He comes all gifts will cease because there will be no need for them. And we Christians will see Him “face to face”.
You wrote: …But likewise, the perfect isn't the rapture of the church or the second coming of Christ, since the kingdom to follow will have an abundance of preachers and teachers. That is a reflection of your eschatology. You might want to rethink that, as well.
And as I stated before, evidence of the false does not negate the true. We all know there is a wide path and a narrow one. Many are they on the former and few are they on the latter.
[cont]
[cont]
Regarding tongues, reflect on 1 Cor 13:1: If I speak with the tongues of mankind and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. Why did Paul add “of angels”?
And how ‘bout 14:2, 4: For the one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people, but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries… The one who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but the one who prophesies edifies the church.
And the following is, admittedly, a bit perplexing:
14:14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unproductive. 15 What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit, but I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit, but I will sing with the mind also. 16 For otherwise, if you bless God in the spirit only, how will the one who occupies the place of the outsider know to say the “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you are saying? 17 For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not edified. 18 I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all; 19 nevertheless, in church I prefer to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue.
This is how to understand Paul’s larger argument which began at 12:1. The Corinthians apparently had an over-focus ON TONGUES, at the expense of the other gifts. Paul wanted them to prophecy for the edification of the assembly.
I cannot say I understand all this, but regarding the “perfect” Paul is crystal clear with those ‘with ears to hear’.
Hear, hear!
Being loving is x's biggest failure.
He really should scrap posting Scripture.
His politics are a huge fail also.
It's non-stop crap.
Way too much clang, clang, clang.......
Craig at 6:04 pm
That's kind of disingenuous. Pennington acknowledges for about 1 minute out of an hour plus message that 1 Cor 13 is susceptible to many interpretations supportive of multiple views so he carries on away from it.
I think I'm coming to understand why...
It's all you've got to support your partial continuationism.
A (false) dichotomy where cessationism either dies or continuationism lives solely on 1 Cor 12-14.
Well tongues is clearly indicated to be ceasing at some point after 55 AD after Paul pens 1st Corinthians and it makes sense that for Paul's audience then and even now that partial prophecies and partial knowledge will pass away when they/we, individually, are face to face in the Lord's presence.
Perhaps the movie will explain more to the both of us, leading to understanding of this second tier issue.
x
6:29
The gift of tongues is a singular gift (Acts 2:1-13)
They may both ("cease" & "will pass away") be future-tensed but, that doesn't necessarily mean all tie/relate to the future event being "when the perfect comes".
For we KNOW in part and we PROPHESY in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial WILL PASS AWAY. 1 Cor 13:9-10 (emphasis mine)
There WERE persons speaking in tongues AND, haphazardly, some speaking a gibberish counterfeit pagan ecstatic speech tongue (gibberish can't be plural -- there are not various non-languages so it's easy to spot where Paul refers to each) in 55AD. So, of course, the gift of tongues had not yet CEASED in 55AD. Paul was warning them to love at that point in time knowing that their love would endure, gifts would cease or pass away, especially tongues. The fact tongues did cease should be clear from it's absence from any other books in the NT, excepts Acts, that it ceased to be an issue of record or practice in the early church...as the Scripture continued to be written and, finally, it's absence throughout church history since the first century.
x
X,
As usual you just won't concede the point.
There is only ONE correct way to interpret "the perfect" in its context. It refers to Christ's return when we see him face to face. We don't see the Apostolic age face to face. We don't see Scripture face to face.
And the only Entity that had fully known Paul when he penned his epistle is Christ/God.
It's the (selective) cessationist side that posits the false dichotomy: It's either (selective) cessationism or continuationism construed as hyper-charismaticism.
I'm asserting NEITHER is correct.
And 1Cor 12-14, properly exegeted, not only proves continuationism, it disproves (selective) cessationism.
You can choose to eisegete the passage any way you wish in order to support your manmade doctrine. That's your prerogative. Follow the doctrines of men.
I will follow Scripture--wherever it leads. I may not understand it all, but I refuse to make the Scriptures bend to my wishes--at least to the best of my abilities, as led by the Spirit.
I've searched ten different commentaries, and all agree: The perfect is the eschaton, Christ's return.
Anon 12:15 PM from the previous set of comments provided helpful commentary:
You have persuaded me about the continuation of some spiritual gifts as a separate issue from the closing of the canon and the apostolic era. I think most of my confusion was in regards to tightly packaging together all three issues.
This is precisely what the (selective) cessationist side does. It tries to compartmentalize all three in such a way as to confuse the issues. There is an Apostolic age. It roughly correlates to the closing of the Canon. The Spiritual gifts are a separate issue, but cessationists try to fishnet the three. It breaks apart in 1Cor 12-14, though the cessationists try REALLY hard to keep the net intact.
X,
You over-confidently wrote: The fact tongues did cease should be clear from it's absence from any other books in the NT, excepts Acts, that it ceased to be an issue of record or practice in the early church...as the Scripture continued to be written and, finally, it's absence throughout church history since the first century.
Once again, your implicit claim of possessing omniscience and/or omnipresence, plus omnitemporality. You are special.
Gibberish? Yeah that's what it sounds like, childlike gibberish.
I used to ask when I was a skeptic why don't you record it? The reply was rather cool, like if you recorded it you'd be a scoffer.
I also knew someone who said it was their private private prayer language, then they told me one time they were at a lecture of some sort and a gentleman from Africa sang his countries national anthem. It was their prayer language.
I don't know however to ever convince anyone (not that I feel the need) but when it comes it gives a lightness and the chickens smile ( - :
Healing was a temporary sign gift used by Christ, the Apostles, the seventy, and a few associates of the Apostles. This ability was identified as a gift belonging to the Apostles (see 2 Cor 12:12). Although Christians today do not have the gifts of healing, God certainly still heals and answers the faithful prayers of His children.
Your palindrome/chiastic structure kind of falls apart with "For we know in part and we prophesy in part". If only it said "For we speak in part" too?
I have no problem with true prophecy and knowledge continuing until either I'm in heaven "face to face" or on earth "face to face". Since the completion of Scripture, prophecy has not been a means of new revelation, but is limited to proclaiming what has already been revealed in the written word.
On the other hand, the one who prophesises speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation 1 Cor 14:3 ESV
14:3 contrasts the bedlam of counterfeit tongues. It produced the buidling up in truth, the encouragement to obedience, and the comfort in trouble that God desired for his church. Spiritual gifts are always for the benefit of others, never self.
1 Cor 13:1 "of angels" was not literal. It was obviously written in general hypothetical terms by Paul. Like saying if the Corinthians could speak in all the tongues of men and even some language of the angels but did so without love, it's still lacking/nothing.
Like I said before, there is no biblical teaching of any special angelic language that people could learn to speak.
1 Cor 14:2 & 4 are good examples of Paul differentiating between the gift of tongues and the singular tongue referring to the false gibberish of the counterfeit pagan ecstatic speech. Also, the "but to God" might be better translated "to a god". You speak/read Greek is it not the same word as Acts 17:23, "the unknown god"?
1 Cor 14:14 Paul continues to speak sarcastically about counterfeit tongues, so, to be clearer, he used the singular word "tongue" again, referring to the fake gift. He was speaking hypothetically to illustrate the foolishness and pointlessness of speaking in ecstatic gibberish. What virtue is there in praying to God or praising God without understanding. No one can say "Amen" to nonsense.
Hope this helps you understand my position. I do not require or demand you assume it. The path is narrow and we both are aware of many deviations among those on the continuationist path. Tread carefully.
x
X @ 11:12 PM,
You wrote: They may both ("cease" & "will pass away") be future-tensed but, that doesn't necessarily mean all tie/relate to the future event being "when the perfect comes".
They are all in syntactic parallel in 8. Prophesy and know are mentioned in 9, but tongues is mentioned in 10 in a similar manner.
You cannot just slice 'n' dice mid-context.
It's all part and parcel to Paul's argument here en route to his larger argument continued into chapter 14: 'Don't selfishly focus on tongues, but desire prophecy in order to edify the assembly'.
Nevertheless, this all distracts from the main point: How does this text 'prove' the "sign gifts" have ceased? Or are you saying it was only tongues that ceased while the other "sign gifts" had continued?
X,
You wrote: Your palindrome/chiastic structure kind of falls apart with "For we know in part and we prophesy in part". If only it said "For we speak in part" too?
You missed the point I made (see item D), but whatever. In any case, tell that to the three or four commentary writers who specifically note the chiastic structures in 1Cor 13.
X,
You wrote: The path is narrow and we both are aware of many deviations among those on the continuationist path. Tread carefully.
Why do you have to frame things so? I'm not on some "continuationist path". It isn't a "path" to tread.
The Anti-Catholicism of H. G. Wells
Karl Keating • 2013
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-anti-catholicism-of-h-g-wells
Excerpt. . .The Outline of History was praised by many historians, not a few of whom shared Wells’s philosophic presuppositions, but it was a work with many weaknesses that left it open to widespread criticism. The most persistent critic was Hilaire Belloc, who in 1926 published A Companion to Mr. Wells’s “Outline of History.” Belloc objected to Wells’s overarching thesis but particularly to his niggling and ham-handed portrayal of Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. He said, for example, that Wells devoted more space to ancient Persia’s war with Greece than to Jesus Christ. In a series of two dozen articles that appeared in various Catholic periodicals and eventually were collected in his Companion, Belloc tore into Wells relentlessly, criticizing not just The Outline of History but also Wells the man. Wells responded with six articles of his own but had trouble getting them published. They came out as a fifty-six-page book called Mr. Belloc Objects to “The Outline of History.” Like Belloc, Wells made use of ad hominem attacks. Belloc closed the exchange with another short book of his own, Mr. Belloc Still Objects to Mr. Wells’s “Outline of History.”
Wow, sounds like the internet. Cool
X,
You opined: 1 Cor 14:2 & 4 are good examples of Paul differentiating between the gift of tongues and the singular tongue referring to the false gibberish of the counterfeit pagan ecstatic speech. Also, the "but to God" might be better translated "to a god". You speak/read Greek is it not the same word as Acts 17:23, "the unknown god"?
I cannot believe you are actually stating this. Show me one--ONE--Bible translation that reads "to a god". I don't what your PhD is in, but you better stop these childish 'interpretations' of the Scriptures.
Just because theos (here as the dative theō̗) is anarthrous (lacking the article) does not mean it's "a god". Perhaps we should use your 'logic' in, e.g., John 1:18: "No one has ever seen a god..."
Amateur hour is over. Go get some sleep.
Craig,
What happened to you saying "But perhaps I'm wrong"?
To what purpose would tongues (or for that matter gifts of miracles, healing and the interpretation of tongues) need to continue? Their purpose was to authenticate the Apostles and their message as the true word(s) of God, until God's written word was completed and became self-authenticating (and/or the foundation of the church was completed ala BB Warfield).
Since there has been no new revelation, I don't need to be omnipresent and/or anachronistic to discern that the authentic Apostolic gift of tongues has ceased. There are no true Apostles bestowing such gifts anymore and, again, for what purpose would they?
And again... 1 Cor 13 teaches nothing directly about when the gifts cease. Paul is once again correcting the Corinthian believers—the knowledge they so highly prized, which came as a result of prophetic gifts, would one day be outshined by the enduring character of love. Rather than trying to show up one another with ostentatious displays of their giftedness, they, like us, should focus their energy on loving one another.
We both could do better at that last phrase.
x
12:32 am
You tend to frame it hyper-charismata to the left and cessationism to the right with somewhere in the middle being the right path.
I think and frame (I guess you'd call it my presupposition in contrast to your presupposition above) that partial continuationism/partial cessationism is "treading" closer to the abuse typical of the hyper-charismata that we both find heretical and, therefore, I represent cessation as the more conservative less dangerous narrower path where no one is faking anything or putting parishioners in the position of needing or wanting to fake anything.
In Fox News speak -- spin
x
12:42 am
I asked you --- why is it "an unknown god" in Acts 17:23?
You're the greek expert, not me.
The context of John 1:18 dictates the use of the translation as it should here in 1 Corinthians 14.
Here in 1 Corinthians 14 Paul is admonishing the Corinthians for praying in one of two conterfeit manners...
1. speaking a real language, perhaps showing off and speaking in an ancient Hebrew, that no one there in the congregation or attendance (especially the yet unbelievers) understands (but obviously God understands), or
2. Uttering the gibberish of worship to pagan deities, speaking to "an unknown god" or "AN UNKNOWN GOD" like in Acts 17:23. The gibberish "tongue" is meaningless, and showy, with no intention of being understood at all. Furthermore, there is no biblical record of any incident of any believer ever speaking to the one true God in any other than normal human language.
Perhaps also then the "spirit" by which they spoke was not the Holy Spirit, but their own human spirit or some demon; and, the mysteries they declared were the type associated with the pagan mystery religions of the region and totally unlike the ones mentioned in Scripture, which are divine revelations of truths previously hidden.
A big part of the purpose of 1 Corinthians 12-14 was Paul confronting the false religious practices of the church in Corinth caused by counterfeit spiritual manifestations. Paul was instructing and informing the church on this subject and its behavior would be regulated by the truth and the Spirit.
x
X @ 2:08 AM,
Wow. I’m flabbergasted. You will stop at nothing to ‘prove’ yourself “right”, to the point of blatantly perverting the Scriptures.
You actually stated: The context of John 1:18 dictates the use of the translation as it should here in 1 Corinthians 14.
I want to be sure I completely understand you. Are suggesting a methodology in which John 1:1c should be, “and the Word was a god”, and John 1:6 should be, “There was a man sent from a god”, and John 1:12 should be “children of a god”?
You wrote: You're [meaning me, Craig] the greek expert, not me.
I’m hardly an expert, and I’ve never claimed to be an expert.
You wrote: I asked you --- why is it "an unknown god" in Acts 17:23?
Take a gander at the different translations at BibleHub.
You are WAY out of your depth. And on this you really--no hyperbole--need to repent.
X @ 12:58 AM,
You wrote of me: You tend to frame it hyper-charismata to the left and cessationism to the right with somewhere in the middle being the right path.
No, I've never framed this as any sort of political Left/Right thing at all.
And I reject your false dichotomy.
X @ 12:50 AM,
You wrote: Since there has been no new revelation, I don't need to be omnipresent and/or anachronistic to discern that the authentic Apostolic gift of tongues has ceased. There are no true Apostles bestowing such gifts anymore and, again, for what purpose would they?
Your argument is circular. You are merely stating the things you assume.
Interesting discussion about the history of believing things to be the mark of the beast in Christian history.
https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/84655/did-identifying-various-things-as-the-mark-of-the-beast-only-start-in-late-1900s
It is likely that the earliest identification of "the mark of the beast" in Revelation 13:17-18 was written down by Ireneaus (circa 175 A.D.) He believed it to be the name Lateinos [Greek for 'Latin']. He wrote:
"It seems to me very probable; for this is a name of the last of Daniel's four kingdoms; they being Latins that now reign."
It's worth reading a comment in the thread about this book:
The Mark of the Beast: Dispelling the Lies & Escaping the Mark
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/60473304-the-mark-of-the-beast
The one thing this book does well is to break down all aspects of that passage in Revelation 13 which speaks about the Mark. No guesswork, no fanciful ideas. Everything backed by scriptures.
Brief Summary:
And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
Revelation 13:16-18
Right Hand: signifies the power you have to carry out your will. The things you do through your strength or your ability to get it done through other means. (Exodus 6:1, Genesis 31:29, Exodus 15:6, Deuteronomy 11:18-19, Psalm 77:10-12)
Forehead: represents the things we hold in our minds (hearts) and the principles we live our lives by. This we speak and the things in our hearts and our minds. (Deuteronomy 11:18-19, Deuteronomy 6:6-8, Exodus 13:9, Luke 6:45, Matthew 19:17)
Name: To have the name of someone or something is to be under the authority or identity of that person or thing. (John 12:49, John 5:43, John 14:8-9, 1 Samuel 25:5, 2 Chronicles 2:1)
Number (666): Represents Solomon and the actions he took by breaking the commands of God and succumbing to the lust for money and the things of this world. (1 Kings 10:14, Matthew 12:42)
Buy or Sell: This is equivalent to the etymological definition of the word trade. Trade signifies occupation or the ability to generate and income--make money. Not being able to buy or sell, denied income, is a punishment of the Beast.
To worship is to do the commands of the thing you worship. To worship the BEAST, which is a kingdom (highlighted in Daniel 2:31-45, Daniel 2:39, Daniel 7:3, Daniel 7:23), is to follow the commands and practices of that kingdom. To worship God is to do the commands and requirements of God.
A Godless Age and its Theocratic Religion
https://michaelfbird.substack.com/p/the-sexual-revolution-as-theocratic?publication_id=313362&post_id=136739497&isFreemail=true
I love listening to podcasts on my drive to Ridley College, and I just happened to listen to two podcasts back to back which, it turned out, were about the same topic albeit in curiously different ways.
First, The Rest is History, had an episode on the Marquis de Sade where Tom Holland explained the biography of the mischievous and masochist Marquis of 18th/19th century France. But he also pointed out how Sade was in his philosophy a man way ahead of his times. Sade, who reviled Christianity as a grotesque moral and sexual horror, believed that nature offered an ethic of fulfilling sexual desire and rewarded the avarice of the powerful. Yes to women’s equality and gay rights for Sade, but also, yes, to rape, murder, and even genocide. Only Nietzsche exceeded Sade in seeing what a post/anti-Christian philosophy might actually look like in practice. Only Freud exceeded Sade in regarding sex as the single most controlling aspect of desire and identity. You have pure autonomy, the self utterly free to pursue all desires, even those that are ravenous, rapacious, malevolent, sordid, and brutal. That is a post-god world. There is no god but power and sex is her prophet.
Next, I listened to the Quilette Podcast with Jonathan Kay interviewing Kushal Mehra about Canada’s sexual and racial politics. It was very interesting, especially to get an Indian perspective on things like trans-identity politics and ethnic issues. What stood out for me is how Kay acknowledged and even lamented how a post-Christian society is making sex and power the default state religion. He thinks it no coincidence that immediately after the rise of the new atheists came the sacralization of sexual identity as a kind of gap-filler to stand in the place of religion. Whether it is exorcising the body of the demon of heteronormativity, or discovering the authentic self like attaining enlightenment, there is a strange religious quality to much of progressive culture.
I urge you, I challenge you, to listen to both podcasts back to back. The two podcasts are different, one is historical biography, while the other is political commentary. But it is truly staggering how they both come to the same point of seeing the present cultural moment as an expression of a re-ordering of society situated between sex and power in a post-god world.
As I keep saying, in a godless age, there will be gods. What replaces religion is either the quest for power or the lust for pleasure, the clenched fist or a phallus, an M-16 or sex toys, Putin or Pornhub. Or, in a more grim prospect, sex and power are combined, the strong dominate the weak in rituals of orgiastic violence, a domination that is social as well as sexual. Imagine a world ruled by Nymphs following the philosophy of Nietzsche.
This brings me to my next point, how an anti-religious and anti-god movement can so easily turn into a theocratic state religion.
I’ve been reading French philosopher Bernard-Henri Georges Lévy’s The Testament of God which is a critique of many things including Marxism and Anarchism. But he makes a good point in that the death of god leads to the cult of politics. In a godless age, God is immanetized into political life. Where there is no religion, politics becomes the religion.
"In fact, contrary to received opinion, real theocrats are always recruited eleswhere, from among the murderers of God rather than his worshippers. Saint-Just, for example, who killed the absent God, that is God himself, only in order to make the Supreme Being the omnipresent governor of his ‘republic institutions, was, in the strict sense, a theocrat. Marx and Nietzsche, who executed Christ only in order realize him more fully, to resurrect him everywhere, in the body of the new man, who on the ruins of the end of history, or those of the eternal return, were also theocrats. The terrorists of Germany and Italy, who chant ‘Neither God nor master’ only in the name of a holier God, more divine master, a superstitious law whose text they tattoo and machine-gun on the flesh of their victims are also theocrats. If we call ‘theocratic’ the will to confuse, to embody God in the world, then a revolutionary politics is always theocratic in nature; and it always, in practice, leads to barbarism."
Lévy is right. Atheists make the best theocrats.
The most zealous theocrats are the anti-religious revolutionaries. For they must exhibit the wrath of a merciless god in order to expunge the state of the contamination of the former regime and any remnants of religion. Only a state with godlike power and that demands god-like devotion from its subjects can rescue the people from the pieties of the faithful and the failures of the past. A past which is not so much critiqued as it is erased entirely. Pieties which are not outlawed per se, but must now be directed at the celebration of the new revolutionary order.
The godless void is filled, not with bread and circuses, but with the state’s ability to fulfill the most debased desires and impose the tariff of death on dissenters. A government that basks in spectacles of pleasure combined with a reign of terror. Unfettered debauchery as a reward for the compliant and the perpetual danger of being de-personed if one dares to pray to a power beyond the palace. Opiates and orgies for those who prostrate themselves before the regime, but exile or execution for those who dare to hope that one day:
The kingdom of the world has become
the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah,
and he will reign forever and ever
Rev 11:15
This critique certainly applies to Fascist, Stalinist, and Maoist states, the extreme varieties of authoritarianism, and whatever expression they might attain today. Yet that would seem far from us. Even the most regressive Western nation is more Oprah than Orwell. Yes, on the one hand, in liberal democracies, Christianity has virally entered the political DNA, so that our culture wars are merely variations on a theme. That is why libertarians and progressives share the same ancestor hanging up on the cross, the one from whom both groups champion the promise of freedom. But on the other hand, there is still the prospect of a state, whether to the left or to the right, that might one day aspire to types of power that make it, not divine, but accede to the office of prophet, priest, and king. A more deadly seduction because such a state pretends not to be absolute while acting as if it is. Alas, theocracies come in both naked and disguised varieties.
Craig,
You may be "flabbergasted" as your presuppositions fall apart?
John MacArthur, "Speaking in Tongues" says:
To say that what the Corinthians had was the true gift of tongues, being truly exercised, is to counter-argue against the most basic truth of spirituality. The Corinthian church could never have been manifesting a true gift in the spiritual state that they were in. They were worldly, divisive, opinionated, cliquish, carnal, fleshly, envious, strife-ridden, argumentative, puffed up, self- glorying, smug, immoral, compromising with sin, defrauding each other, fornicating, depriving in marriage, offending weaker Christians, lusting after evil things, idolatrous, fellowshiping with demons, insubordinate, gluttonous, drunken, selfish toward the poor, and desecrating the Lord's Table. How could they be expressing a true gift of the Holy Spirit? Well, the answer is obvious. It would defy every single principle of spirituality if that were true. A believer either walks in the flesh or he walks in the Spirit. There is no argument about what the Corinthians were doing. They were walking in the flesh. And when you are walking in the flesh you are not manifesting a true gift in the true power of the Holy Spirit. It can't happen....
...
As you come to 1 Corinthians 14, you must not conclude that the Corinthians were exercising the true gift of tongues, or you will violate every basic truth about spirituality and how the gifts operate. The only possible thing that could have been happening here was a misuse of the true gift. Why? Because everything else was wrong in their lives. Paul wrote the first thirteen chapters of 1 Corinthians to correct the errors in their assembly, and he wrote chapter 14 because their selfish, pagan use of ecstatic speech was being justified as the gift of languages given by the Holy Spirit. Apparently, even those who had the true gift had perverted it, and were using it to speak in their own private way, as well as in the assembly when unbelievers weren't even present. They used the gift of tongues as a way to lift themselves up to a level of spiritual superiority. The Corinthian church had let every system in the world engulf them. Why would it be any different with the world's approach to religion?
1 Cor 14:26 KJV - .... Let all things be done unto edifying.
As far as me being out of my depths with regards to 1 Corinthians 14:2, perhaps you should take that up with John MacArthur yourself.
Speaking In Tongues - by John MacArthur
[I cued it up to 25:08 when MacArthur discusses the pagan practices of Corinth and interprets 14:2 as (paraphrased) "He that speaks in this ecstatic gibberish, speaks not unto men, but unto a god. For nobody understands him, including the true God. That's not His kind of talk. However, in his spirit he is speaking mysteries."
https://youtu.be/KNrGc5Ko784?si=jACGyCGcZQsYvAzC&t=1508
x
1 Corinthians 14:40 ~ “Let all things be done decently and in order.”
2 commands here. They are not suggestions.
1) Let all things be done.
2) Done decently and in order.
The things are what Paul delineated in the Corinthian passages. Signs, miracles, gifts, of any and every kind, that God wants to do in and through His people, let those be done putting no limits, or quenching, on the Lord's Spirit at work. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, so He has no limitations, but He does put parameters around men, and He uses His discretion, never going against His Word.
And how are they to be done?
To the Glory of God, unto the furtherance of the Gospel, and His sanctification work in His saints, and a lost world can see the power is not of men..
That the credit belongs to God, done as He has prescribed in His Word.
Thanks Craig, for holding the line against the small mean circle of limiting God in His ways and purposes, while the gaslighter attempts to use Scripture to do it.
The largess in God is not in him.
While some choose to argue on and on and on about spiritual gifts that will change virtually no one's mind, America is faced with this:
From Revolver https://revolver.news/2023/10/love-is-love-gay-population-is-creating-and-spreading-drug-resistant-diseases/
Love is love? Gay population is creating and spreading drug-resistant diseases…
In 2015, Barack Hussein Obama legalized gay marriage under the banner of “love is love,” as if to send a clear message to Christians that their faith and teachings don’t matter. Unfortunately, many conservatives felt pressured and guilted into supporting this move, mainly because gay activists lied and said, “All we want is to hold hands in public and get a tax break.” This acceptance from Christians led to a permanent distortion of the traditional, Biblical meaning of marriage and is part of the reason for the downfall of Christianity in this country today.
So, nearly a decade has passed since the law was enacted, and what’s the situation now? Well, the left is actively grooming children into the LGBTQ army, and everyone’s lopping off their genitals and switching genders. Oh, and in case you haven’t heard, “men” can now give birth. In short, it appears that things are unfolding just as the left had hoped. So what’s the payoff for all this LGBTQ activism over the past decade? Well, aside from creating division and promoting deviance, it looks like drug-resistant plagues and diseases are also coming out on top. Hooray! It turns out that since the passing of “love is love,” grotesque sexual diseases are skyrocketing in the United States with no end in sight.
Part 2
NSDDC
The data show a 74% increase in syphilis over five years, as well as 2,800 congenital syphilis cases in 2021, including 220 that resulted in infant deaths. The data also show chlamydia rates that have risen up to pre-pandemic levels after cases went undetected during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.
But aside from the spread of treatable STDs, there’s even worse news on the horizon. U.S. health officials are now creating a “morning after” pill for gay men, thanks to the rise in STD’s, but the “cure” they propose to slow down the massive spread of these disgusting diseases will also likely make the diseases stronger and the drugs useless down the road.
AP:
U.S. health officials plan to endorse a common antibiotic as a morning-after pill that gay and bisexual men can use to try to avoid some increasingly common sexually transmitted diseases.
The proposed CDC guideline was released Monday, and officials will move to finalize it after a 45-day public comment period. With STD rates rising to record levels, “more tools are desperately needed,” said Dr. Jonathan Mermin of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The proposal comes after studies found some people who took the antibiotic doxycycline within three days of unprotected sex were far less likely to get chlamydia, syphilis or gonorrhea compared with people who did not take the pills after sex.
The guideline is specific to the group that has been most studied — gay and bisexual men and transgender women who had a STD in the previous 12 months and were at high risk to get infected again.
[…]
Doxycycline, a cheap antibiotic that has been available for more than 40 years, is a treatment for health problems including acne, chlamydia and Rocky Mountain spotted fever.
The CDC guidelines were based on four studies of using doxycycline against bacterial STDs.
One of the most influential was a New England Journal of Medicine study earlier this year. It found that gay men, bisexual men and transgender women with previous STD infections who took the pills were about 90% less likely to get chlamydia, about 80% less likely to get syphilis and more than 50% less likely to get gonorrhea compared with people who didn’t take the pills after sex.
[…]
Part 3
The guideline is specific to the group that has been most studied — gay and bisexual men and transgender women who had a STD in the previous 12 months and were at high risk to get infected again.
[…]
Doxycycline, a cheap antibiotic that has been available for more than 40 years, is a treatment for health problems including acne, chlamydia and Rocky Mountain spotted fever.
The CDC guidelines were based on four studies of using doxycycline against bacterial STDs.
One of the most influential was a New England Journal of Medicine study earlier this year. It found that gay men, bisexual men and transgender women with previous STD infections who took the pills were about 90% less likely to get chlamydia, about 80% less likely to get syphilis and more than 50% less likely to get gonorrhea compared with people who didn’t take the pills after sex.
[…]
The drug’s side effects include stomach problems and rashes after sun exposure. Some research has found it ineffective in heterosexual women. And widespread use of doxycycline as a preventive measure could — theoretically — contribute to mutations that make bacteria impervious to the drug.
So, it’s true. According to the CDC, the gay community is essentially contributing to the development of new, stronger, and more potent sexually transmitted diseases that will eventually affect the broader population. It seems that “love is love” is becoming more than just a slogan—it’s also turning into a catalyst for disease, illness, and shame.
As stated by Corey J. Mahler: "The homosexual population creates and spreads drug-resistant plagues. This is a curse from God ..."
I, respectfully, believe it's really
"But all things should be done decently and in order." 1 Cor 14:40 ESV
It's not bifurcated, there are not two "dones" and there is no comma. Further, the "But" of the original should not be omitted. It is a final caution against the abuse of the permission accorded in the last clause..."Decently"; that is, "with decorum"; and, as oft repeated, for edification "order".
As Elliotes Commentary instructs/interprets it:
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers :
(40) Let all things be done decently.—The former verse reiterates in a condensed sentence the principles laid down regarding the gifts in the first part of the chapter (1Corinthians 14:1-25). This verse similarly deals with the general principle laid down in the latter part of the chapter regarding the style and order of public worship. The object of all church assemblies is to be the building up of the Body of Christ, which is His Church; and therefore seemliness and ordered regularity are absolutely necessary to this end. Here again, as in so many other instances in this Epistle, while the particular and unique circumstances which called forth the apostolic instructions have for centuries passed away, the writings of St. Paul are of permanent and abiding application, because of the general and eternal principles on which his instructions are based. The strange outbursts of incoherent fanaticism which have occurred from time to time in the after-history of the Church are condemned by the principle with which St. Paul combatted the disorder of the gift of tongues in Corinth; and the practice of the Roman Church, in performing her public services in a tongue not “understanded of the people,” is at variance with the principle which in this chapter he reiterates with varied emphasis—that all public utterance of prayer and praise should be such as those present can join in, not only with emotional heart but with clear and understanding intellect.
x
12:14 pm said: In 2015, Barack Hussein Obama legalized gay marriage
Say what?
Have you read Obergfell v Hodges? Obama's name isn't on it. It was issued by the Republican-controlled US Supreme Court, and specifically written by Justice Kennedy, an orthodox roman catholic of the opus dei persuasion.
Things are unfolding just as the far-right intended...division, fear, the destruction of our institutions, etc and the alt right commenters at Revolver have fallen for such hook, line and sinker.
Remember the US Supreme Court overturned Bill Clinton's Defense of Marriage Act defining marriage as between one woman and one man.
Nice try to spin it.
x
The Pope and the Vatican supports this. Again, the Pope and the Vatican supports this! They are right there in the middle with the totalitarian One World Government cabal.
Agenda 21 Means No Farmers, No Food: Will You Eat Ze Bugs?
https://rumble.com/v3n4uoh-agenda-21-means-no-farmers-no-food-will-you-eat-ze-bugs.html
Sitting here in NW Portland watching some confused young man walking up and down the street bare cheasted wrapped in a blanket with one shoe on and one shoe off wearing women's stockings. Pretty sad to see.
BTW men can't get pregnant no matter what the Media says. Women masquerading as men can through.
*can't
*never mind
Pope Francis’ Synod Sees Deep Division, as GLOBALIST PONTIF HINTS AT the possibility of BLESSING GAY COUPLES and Ordering Women as Priests
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/10/pope-francis-synod-sees-deep-division-as-globalist/
Prediction: the pope, if not this one, the next one, WILL sanction homosexuality under the false, Satanic mantra "love is love," while justifying their rebellion against God by distorting the meaning of "God is love."
The White House was lit up in the "rainbow colors" on Obama's watch.
He completely opened the floodgates for what has happened now on the slippery slope, what was a trickle before.
You can't wish that away, X.
And Obama obviously approves debauchery, it has been shown openly about his fantasies for same-sex acts.
He has been accused of engaging in it.
His book about Frank Marshall Davis sheds lots of light on this subject, too.
Your squeaky clean Biden and hedonistic Obama are the worst combination that ever happened to the Presidency of the "Untied States."
America is toast and they are flamethrowers like none other.
Thanks for following your "heart" to vote them into office.
But you would "teach" us all a thing or two about right and wrong, eh?
You are in a very dark place, dude.
All of a sudden, Biden wants to build a border wall...
Biden, Mayorkas PANIC as US border INVASION of America turns DEMOCRATS against the regime.
Hmmm... wonder why???
https://www.brighteon.com/7efdad99-3214-48e6-9870-608831b33cb6
The Biden administration announced it waived 26 federal laws in South Texas to allow border wall construction Wednesday, marking the administration's first use of a sweeping executive power employed often during the Trump presidency.
https://www.newsmax.com/us/border-wall-illegal-immigration/2023/10/04/id/1137027/?
In other words... TRUMP WAS RIGHT.
1:07 PM
Pope Francis is very popular with the mainstream. For example. . .
"Rules are for fools. That's why I like the new Pope. He seems very open-minded." Madonna Louise Ciccone
https://www.musictimes.com/articles/96656/20231005/madonna-produces-iconic-hoodie-featuring-tongue-cheek-nod-pope-look.htm
Why do people want to believe silly stories?
Quote. . ."Deny him the communion of saints, and he’ll settle for a vast Judeo-Masonic or Lizard Men conspiracy; refuse him angels, and he’ll take fairies."
The Fairy Skeleton of the Chilean Desert -Charles A. Coulombe
https://www.takimag.com/article/the_fairy_skeleton_of_the_chilean_desert_charles_coulombe/
Bur, Coulombe also writes. . ."Human beings seem to have a universal need to be frightened or at least unsettled by the unseen."
For example. . .
Little People of the Pryor Mountains (Documentary) MT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewrz0zeNAZo
X @ 10:34 AM,
You wrote: You may be "flabbergasted" as your presuppositions fall apart?
You mean ‘as MacArthur’s pretexts eisegetically pervert the Scriptures’. Because that’s what he does when he wishes to support his manmade doctrines. Here’s a perfect example, in this case the ‘pre-tribulation Rapture’ doctrine:
“…People often ask, ‘Where does the Rapture come in?’ It’s in the white spaces between [Revelation] chapters 3 and 4 [ED: !]. You have the Church on earth in chapters 2 and 3; all of a sudden we appear in heaven in chapter 4” [Truth Endures, p 132].
So, “It’s in the white spaces”, eh? And Revelation nowhere states the bolded portion above. It would be an argument from silence, except for the remaining text and context. The universal Church is made up of “the saints”. This is consistent throughout the NT. If JMac is correct, there would be no more mention of “the saints” in the remainder of Revelation. But there is. In fact, there are quite a lot of mentions of “the saints”. JMac has orphaned these saints. All in order to support his manmade doctrine.
Now, let’s scrutinize JMac’s eisegesis in 1Cor 14:2.
MacArthur in the vlog you provided: now notice verse 2—and this is important. Here's why tongues is secondary: ‘For he that speaks in a tongue speaks not unto men but unto God for no man understands him however in the spirit he speaks mysteries’. Now listen to what he said: ‘He that speaks in a tongue speaks to men speaks rather not to men but to God.’ And the Greek literally says, ‘But to a god.’
No, that’s NOT what the Greek “literally” says. It’s an interpretation. A unique one here. As an analogy, it is grammatically permissible to render John 1:1c, and the Word was a god. But it’s contextually and theologically wrong. Of course, that scarcely stops the JWs. The JWs eisegetically pervert the Scriptures to support their manmade doctrines.
So, why is JMac’s eisegetical interpretation wrong? It doesn’t fit the context. I’ll use the NASB—since it is mostly a formally equivalent (“literal”) translation —but I’ll insert JMac’s “to a god”:
14:2 For the one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people, but to a god; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries. 3 But the one who prophesies speaks to people for edification, exhortation, and consolation. 4 The one who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but the one who prophesies edifies the church. 5 Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but rather that you would prophesy; and greater is the one who prophesies than the one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edification.
JMac’s eisegesis does not work. The Apostle Paul is clearly contrasting the two spiritual gifts, in order to show why prophesying (‘forthtelling’, NOT ‘foretelling’) is superior to this tongues-speaking to God. Apparently, there were quite a few verbally speaking this kind of tongue, which made the assembly disorderly (14:40).
Anon 11:55 AM,
You wrote:
Thanks Craig, for holding the line against the small mean circle of limiting God in His ways and purposes, while the gaslighter [X] attempts to use Scripture to do it.
The largess in God is not in him.
You're welcome. And the rest of your comments in that particular comment are spot on. The "small mean circle of limiting God" I do believe will realize the errors of their ways in the next age. But it's so much easier to impose one's own doctrine upon the Scriptures to eliminate something that makes one uncomfortable. Throwing the baby out with the dirty bath water is not the right path.
And anyone who knows me at all KNOWS I'm far from being any sort of charismatic. But I DO believe we have to take the Scriptures as they are IN PROPER CONTEXT.
Craig,
It works perfectly in context when you understand Paul is contrasting speaking in a “tongue” (singular = pagan gibberish, what Corinth is being instructed about for doing wrong as a continuation of a correction Epistle for the many errors taking place in Corinth) and speaking in tongues (plural, true gift of being able to speak many unknown languages).
Gibberish is singular because there is only one kind of gibberish non-sensical pagan “language” versus many tongues (many languages).
Read this way makes it clear that even as a private prayer language it is not of the Holy Spirit because that is not the purpose of the true gift of speaking in tongues…to edify others. In other words, verse 4 is an admonishment, not instructional, to the showy Corinthians who were standing up speaking pagan gibberish for the appearance of piety only…exulting themselves.
Many today would do well to heed such instruction.
X
P.S. - MacArthur hasn’t suggested any such change or interpretation of John. Nice straw man.
Craig,
We don’t limit God in the least (how could we? - how silly). Cessation merely understands individual Christians (and Churches) should not exult themselves and/or try to steal Gods glory by pretending to have any of the apostolic miraculous gifts. What would be the point of such gifts anymore, the foundation is complete once and for all time.
And “in proper context” must include the entire corrective Epistle and be understood in the context of the receivers of the letter in time and place.
How do you even test gibberish? It must be thrown out.
How would we know if we were being deceived if we couldn’t test the spirit (because it’s speaking a tongue ..gibberish)?
X
X @ 12:20,
You wrote, in response to 11:55 AM,
I, respectfully, believe it's really
"But all things should be done decently and in order." 1 Cor 14:40 ESV
It's not bifurcated, there are not two "dones" and there is no comma. Further, the "But" of the original should not be omitted. It is a final caution against the abuse of the permission accorded in the last clause..."Decently"; that is, "with decorum"; and, as oft repeated, for edification "order".
First of all, verse 40 is the conclusion to a longer thought begun in 39, with 39 containing two imperatives, while 40 contains one, all bolded below (NASB):
39 So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But all things should be done decently and in order.
The “all things” minimally refers to what was discussed in chapter 14: speak in tongues (5) to God (2); revelation, knowledge, prophecy, teaching (6); manifestations of the Spirit [ESV]/Spiritual gifts [NASB] (12); interpretations of tongues (13); a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation [ESV] (26); If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret (27); But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God (28); Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said (29); If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent (30); the women should keep silent in the churches (34).
That’s a lot of “things” right there! And it appears not to exclude any Spiritual gifts (12).But all should be done decently and in order.
X @ 9:06 AM,
It works perfectly as a pretextual eisegesis. But JMac’s eisegesis fails the context. The claim that it’s ‘gibberish’ fails, for why would Paul wish they all would speak in tongues (5), and, given that Paul has no trouble being direct with his addressees, why didn’t he call it ‘gibberish to a pagan god’ (consider, “Oh, foolish Galatians”, e.g.), or something of the sort?
And the example of John 1:1c was an analogy—as I specifically wrote, “As an analogy…”—not a straw man. Nice straw man, X. This unequivocally PROVES you’ve no intention of fair engagement here.
And your Ellicott quote actually militates AGAINST JMac’s eisegesis in the very portion you cite! I will include Ellicott’s brief commentary on v 39 for broader context. Bold for emphasis and ALL CAPS for further emphasis:
(39) Wherefore, brethren.—The practical summing up of the whole matter. Seek earnestly to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. The phraseology intimates the relative importance of the two gifts in the estimation of the Apostle, which was inverted by those to whom he wrote at Corinth. This [prophesy] ought you to do, but not leave the other undone [tongues].
(40)…The strange outbursts of incoherent fanaticism which have occurred from time to time in the after-history of the Church are condemned by the principle with which St. Paul combatted the disorder of the gift of tongues in Corinth; and the practice of the Roman Church, in performing her public services in a tongue not “understanded of the people,” is at variance with the principle which in this chapter he reiterates with varied emphasis—that all public utterance of prayer and praise should be such as those present can join in, not only with emotional heart but with clear and understanding intellect.
X @ 9:36 AM,
You frame this in circularity, intending to 'prove' the very thing at issue. Again, you've no intention of fair engagement.
You wrote:
We don’t limit God in the least (how could we? - how silly). Cessation merely understands individual Christians (and Churches) should not exult themselves and/or try to steal Gods glory by pretending to have any of the apostolic miraculous gifts.
How could we limit God? Maybe by quenching the Spirit and despising prophecies. Maybe by not walking in the Spirit.
Cessationism goes much further than 'merely understanding Christians shouldn't exult themselves. It demonizes anyone not sharing such hyper-dogmatism. And continuationism understands individual Christians (and Churches) should not exult themselves. Now, hyper-charismaticism is whole different animal...
Craig at 10:39
Well, again, you seem to be expanding upon the meaning of the admonishment in Verse 2 and probably other incorrect references to a tongue (gibberish), as well as abusing the verse 40 anachronistically.
In other words...
Verse 39 refers to the actual gift of that time "speaking in tongues" (plural) = legitimate languages, limited in purpose and duration, but as long as this gift was still active in the early church (and not ceased) it was not to be hindered. But, yet, prophecy was the most desirable gift to be exercised because of its ability to edify, exhort, and comfort with the truth.
Verse 40 - "decently and in order" harkens back to verse 33
For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints 1 Cor 33 ESV
The church at worship before God should reflect his character and nature because he is a God of peace and harmony, order and clarity, not strife and confusion.
Perhaps the appropriate question might be .... If Paul's instructions were to do things "decently and in order", how and what did Paul define or describe as being "not decent" and "not in order"? Isn't the overriding purpose of chapter 13 & 14? Seems to me continuationists read Chap 13 & 14 as everything goes, including the hypothetical tongues of angels (13:1) and an unending gift of tongues Paul specifically indicated "will cease" regardless of the perfect coming (13:8)
Against the backdrop of carnality and counterfeit ecstatic speech learned from the experience of the pagans, Paul covers three basic issues with regards to speaking in languages by the gift of the Holy Spirit.
1. its position, inferior to prophecy (verses 1-19);
2. its purpose, a sign to unbelievers, not believers (verses 20-25); and,
3. its procedure, systematic, limited and orderly (verses 26-40)
*note also the KJV recognized the difference between tongue and tongues by putting the word "unknown" before every singular form (verses 2, 4, 13, 14, 19 & 27). The difference is foundational to the proper interpretation of Chapter 14. "Tongue" refers to the counterfeit gift of pagan gibberish and the plural, "tongues" the genuine gift of a foreign language.
Thank you again for helping me to understand this issue more clearly from both sides. I don't anticipate changing your mind or being persuaded; but, I hope to remain humble and teachable myself in anticipation of the day/time we both shall "know fully".
x
X @ 11:50 AM,
Among other nonsense, you wrote:
"Tongue" refers to the counterfeit gift of pagan gibberish and the plural, "tongues" the genuine gift of a foreign language.
Then why is it singular in 14:27? And note the singular in 14:13: Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret. Can we interpret pagan gibberish?
It’s not all so clean and tidy as you wish it would be.
There is no doubt Paul is speaking of two types of tongues. One is a foreign language (v. 27, e.g.). The other is language “to God” v. 2—which I will expound on further below.
What on earth is going on at the Vatican? Weird, strange, crazy stuff!
https://rumble.com/v3n5vmw-what-on-earth-is-going-on-at-the-vatican.html
Craig @ 11:35 AM
How is not agreeing with you not being fair or engaging "unfairly"?
(oh..I see...missed that earlier post) - It's a strawman in that you pretend/ignore that form of God/god is used differently by Acts 17:23 and the strawman is the implication John MacArthur seeks to rewrite/reinterpret that greek word every time it appears. You more than anyone here, perhaps, knows the same greek words get used for many english words throughout scripture. Neither I, nor John MacArthur suggested such. Perhaps a good example in reverse would be me claiming your position is Acts 17:23 really says the true God versus "AN UNKNOWN GOD" (a position you never took).
Moving on... we disagree...that's fine.
And as far as "quenching the spirit" are you indicating there were problems along the lines of spiritual gifts in Thessalonica, that people were not following the instruction, say, of 1 Corinthians, 12, 13 and 14, not understanding those principles that are given there and that I (or cessationists, in general) are doing the same?
And where have I despised prophecies or not walked in the spirit?
As John MacArthur points out in his book Our Sufficiency in Christ :
... First of all, I believe that the mysticism of the charismatic movement, while promising and purporting to exalt the Holy Spirit’s work, really quenches His sanctifying purposes. And that’s a very difficult thing to say, I know, and to hear, and perhaps even to believe, because if there would be anything we would assume to be true about the charismatic movement, it would be that they, above all others, exalt the Holy Spirit. They’re always talking about the Holy Spirit. They’re always talking about the gifts of the Spirit. They’re always talking about the power of the Holy Spirit. They’re heavy into that kind of Holy Spirit theology which they have highly developed, but the fact of the matter is no matter how much they talk about the Holy Spirit’s work, they are in fact quenching the true sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit by misrepresenting it, and offering a counterfeit substitute for the real thing. It is a quenching of the Holy Spirit of severe proportions.
The charismatics have reduced the Holy Spirit to some sort of divine genie, who does only things that are seen, felt or heard. If they aren’t seen, felt or heard, He didn’t do them, and He does them on demand. And so, while the charismatic movement has an obsession with the Holy Spirit, it is at the same time a quenching of the true sanctifying work of the Spirit. And when you establish a false standard of sanctification, a false standard of spirituality, you quench the Spirit.
x
No, it's not our Constance that is calling for this, it's ... (although she's probably in agreement with the Bitter Wicked Witch from NY):
Hillary Clinton Calls for ‘Formal Deprogramming’ of MAGA ‘Cult Members’
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2023/10/05/hillary-clinton-calls-for-formal-deprogramming-of-maga-cult-members/
Psychosis, Panic Attacks, Hallucinations: Bizarre Psychiatric Cases Among the COVID Vaccinated
https://jellyfish.news/psychosis-panic-attacks-hallucinations-bizarre-psychiatric-cases-among-the-covid-vaccinated/
12:13 pm
Easy....chapters 13, 27 and 28 refers to a single person speaking a single genuine language and, generally, how to regulate such gift (v27-28)
1. only two or three persons in a service;
2. only speaking in turn, one at a time; and,
3 only with an interpreter*
*Absent such one was to meditate and pray silently
Craig said: There is no doubt Paul is speaking of two types of tongues. One is a foreign language (v. 27, e.g.). The other is language “to God” v. 2—which I will expound on further below.
Great...already answered adding now...
Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers 1 Cor 22 (ESV)
How could there be a separate gift of tongues to speak a second secret language (gibberish) with God that is in any way "for unbelievers"?
Why doesn't Paul differentiate between the supposed two types of tongues here?
x
"The charismatics have reduced the Holy Spirit to some sort of divine genie"
Agreed.
But they answer for that.
True, though, is that others can also be as capable of abuse from the very opposite standpoint, the "hypers" tend to add, and you tend to take away, to diminish and corner God in particulars when God is the One Who can righteously and beautifully goes outside of our finite bounds, no explanation needed either. And does, as long as there has been a Holy Spirit and Logos He operates from.
He doesn't need your permission.
So Scripture itself does not answer to any of us.
Any of us.
You either.
Can you ever find it in yourself to be gracious and allow for God and others to be unlike you? Can you ever look beyond needing to affix blame and/or your explanation (that often darkens counsel with your words) in every tiny little thing? Especially since all things, whether spiritual or secular (but actually end up touching the spiritual also) are not your judgment call, but God's?
Let the Bible speak and stand in awe of the breadth of it's possibilities without your limits upon it.
You treat it like you treat other believers--as though it is your own word that is final.
That's a shameful way to quench - and - grieve the Spirit of God.
Your fight is with yourself.
But you need an audience..
Some thought for those of you that cheered our blind support for the corrupt nation of Ukraine. Is Ukraine really worth this risk?
Putin Warns That When Russia Nukes America “There Is No Chance of Survival” and “There Will Be No Single Enemy Left”
President Vladimir Putin has threatened the West with total nuclear destruction leaving ‘no chance of survival’ in the event of a strike on Russia.
In a ranting anti-US speech, the dictator said his powerful ‘Satan-2’ and ‘Flying Chernobyl’ missiles are ready for deployment in an ominous doomsday warning.
Putin told a conference in Sochi: ‘From the moment the launch of missiles is detected, no matter where it comes from – from any point of the world ocean or from any territory – such a number, so many hundreds of our missiles appear in the air in a retaliatory strike that there is no chance of survival there will be no single enemy left, and in several directions at once.’
And now the Sarmat is ready. It is the most advanced intercontinental missile in the entire world by a very wide margin, and Putin says that the Sarmat will be put on combat duty “in the near future”…
He also claimed: ‘We have actually finished work on Sarmat [Satan-2] on the super-heavy missile…’
This ‘unstoppable’ 15,880mph Armageddon intercontinental missile system is the size of a 14-storey tower block.
‘We just need to finish some of the procedures in a purely administrative and bureaucratic way and move on to mass production and putting them on combat duty,’ Putin said.
‘And we will do this in the near future.’
Meanwhile, hopelessly outdated Minuteman missiles that went into service in the 1970s still form the backbone of our strategic nuclear arsenal.
https://americafirstreport.com/putin-warns-that-when-russia-nukes-america-there-is-no-chance-of-survival-and-there-will-be-no-single-enemy-left/
We seem to have a lot of amateur psychiatrists on here, don't we? And possibly some mediums with crystal balls.
Lucy
Free Psychiatric Advice 5 cents
12:54 pm
"Jellyfish.news"???, really???
A completely anecdotal piece overstating reports of mild adverse events that even acknowledges the supposed limited phenomenon it's reporting upon is caused by and impossible to delineate from the actual Covid virus that about 99.9% of us have endured to some degree (symptomatic or not).
At least they aren't dead or more severly depressed and mentally injured after any more serious covid case they incurred absent inoculation. If the vaccine did this in a limited exposure to the spike protein, these persons were very much at risk from a full blown natural wild covid infection running amok on their systems.
x
12:54
No kidding.
I believe in the perfect Sovereignty of God.
Praise God.
I've in no way limited God (how could I?) or suggested God is limited to or by His revealed word.
He does as He pleases.
I do not possess or express the final word about anything.
As for the rest, that's your judgment, I guess.
x
Double-minded 1:25 PM
Your blanket statement is one thing, but all of your otherwise combined posts say that your blanket is not covering what you actually post to blame and (over)'splain' since your protruding feet are sticking out from under your blanket.
You are the picture of say one thing and do another.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P04eEWk-1KI
Tyrus speaks!
No one likes her-----since forever! LOL
1:33 pm
Is that your judgment?
Perhaps your fight is within yourself
But you need my audience.
I shall ignore you entirely for two days.
give you time to consider the things you say.
Have a nice weekend.
x
Must I spell this out for you?
Your posts say that.
Ad nauseam.
And you can ignore me completely and forever X.
Don't care. It means nothing if you address me or not.
But, you really do need an audience.
The world knows that.
X @ 12:54 PM,
My point was merely to refute your overly simplistic singular vs plural re tongues. So, now you concede this doesn’t work.
Regarding 14:23, put it in the context of 14:22 and within in the larger context of 28-29 and figure it out for yourself. Note the verbiage at the end of 28, comparing it to 14:2 (it’s the same ‘spelling’ for God).
X @ 12:31 PM,
I think you may need to slow down in order to comprehend what I write. Maybe that’s the issue here.
JMac (re)interprets 1Cor 14:2 “to God” as “to a god” apparently on the basis of the lack of the Greek article (in some manuscripts) preceding “God” (theos, but in this verse as the dative theō̗). When the article is present theos (in any of its forms) ALWAYS refers to God. When absent, it may or may not, depending on context. In the context of the inscription referred to in Acts 17:23 it is absolutely clear it refers to a god other than God. The coincidence that the form of it (‘spelling’) is dative and the same as 1Cor 14:2 is quite beside the point (and see the Greek at the end of 1Cor 14:28). The point is the lack of the article. And John 1:1c lacks the article, and it is precisely for this reason that JWs render it “a god”. So, I used an analogy—as I specifically stated.
And I never stated, nor intimated, that JMac was wont to apply the methodology in any and every context. I think you may be assuming one thing because you misunderstood the other—in other words, my point.
You wrote:
< And where have I despised prophecies or not walked in the spirit?
My intention was to refute your rhetorical question framed as ridicule, “How can we [limit God]”? The absolutism in cessationism regarding Spiritual gifts may well be ‘quenching the Spirit’.
X refuses to walk in love.
That his biggest quench of the Spirit.
After that is his know-it-all absolutism attitude and demeanor here.
The gaslighting, straw manning antics. His hair-splitting that goes out of context.
Where's his brotherhood?
Pfft.
Did someone post he is impossible to converse with here?
That person nailed it.
Out of the abundance of his disagreeable (not disagreeing) heart his posts speak.
Craig,
Again...in the context of 1 Cor 13 & 14, it is clear in verse 2 it refers to a god other than God.
{paraphrasing your words} - "When [the article] is absent, it may or may not refer to a god other than God, depending on context.
So we disagree on the context.
Do you have scripture indicating "cessationism regarding the Spiritual gifts may well be 'quenching the Spirit"?
Nobody has to be an "absolute cessationist" but we do have to test the spirits. Have you tested gibberish? How do we test gibberish?
x
X,
Listen to most related to the NAR. They speak gibberish--repeating the same -ish over and over.
I cannot know what the Corinthians were speaking. I wasn't there. Were you?
X, I don't think this is complicated.
The Spirit is our teacher and always glorifies Christ Jesus, not men, doesn't exalt the flesh of men's minds or make displays that distract from the Lord and His Word.
If really keyed in with the Spirit we can test them and know the difference. I have seen some unexplainable things that can only be chalked up to the Lord speaking to me in a personal and profound way. Right after the death of my Mother was one time that I really have no words for but God's peace was palpable in that moment. It was with my Bible open to a passage that spoke directly to a precise situation and my heart about it, that only God and I knew about. This is not a common event, but I do know what I know because of the assurance that came with it. What I saw, actually saw, at that time no man can replicate. It almost seemed it was a loving wink and nod across the room from God to me it was such a personal miracle.
Thus far we have been able to discern there is a lot of gibberish because there are many abuses that do exalt men and not God. And God knows the hearts that will glorify Him with His things.
Leave room for God to do what He will according to His Word which according to Him is still living, powerful, and active, right this minute.
You really should leave room for things God has said and can still do today, to which you can only say "I don't know, but God does".
The flesh of your mind is why you are making this complicated and not letting you discern that there have been already and are those possibilities happening now, somewhere and all over the world, that are the work of the Spirit according to 1 Corinthians 14 (and 12 & 13).
Really, you complicate many issues here at this blog.
Why?
This is a long read, but well worth the time.
This is the woman that Constance vigorously attacked when I posted a link to one of her articles.
"What credentials does this he, she, it have?" said the Dear Death Cult leader Cumbey
If you have not figured it out yet, Cumbey is a RINO/CINO pharisee, and deserves only contempt.
tierneyrealnewsnetwork.substack.com/p/heres-what-you-need-to-know-october
Well, in all fairness, she does need our prayers, but following her pharisaic 'wisdom' will lead you nowhere good!
X,
You wrote:
So we disagree on the context.
So, let's put your version in context, using the ESV, as you used earlier, substituting "a god" for "God":
14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to a god; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit... 4 The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church.
How can he be speaking pagan gibberish and yet "utter mysteries in the [Holy] Spirit? How does speaking gibberish to a pagan god 'build oneself up'?
5 ...The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up.
How can pagan gibberish be interpreted? And how can such interpretation 'build up the church'?
In all fairness, 1:48 PM, I've ignored his posts for quite awhile now.
PS: the difference between gibberish and blather is all a matter of degree ( - :
Ahh, I remember those days (though by the time this was taped I had moved on to Catholicism 20 years before)
Wake Up America - Dumitru Duduman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPIZZU8KonU
I also remember that about the time this was taped Russians and Romanians began arriving around here, and boy did they think Americans were dense (suckers even). Anyway, if this guy started telling me about my wife like that I would of told him to shut up. All Dumitru would have to do is take one look at this guy and know where the weakness lay.
*more like 1O years TBH
Craig @ 6:50 pm
It makes sense to me...and check the greek on "spirit" vs "Holy Spirit"...
MacArthur summarized his view/interpretation of 1 Cor 14:2 in his sermon titled "Speaking in Tongues" as:
So, perhaps what Paul is saying here in verse 2 is, "He that speaks in this ecstatic gibberish, speaks not unto men, but unto a god. For nobody understands him, including the true God. That's not His kind of talk. However, in his spirit he is speaking mysteries." (Remember, the term mystery was a big word in all the pagan mystery religions.) In other words, "When you speak in your ecstasies, you are not speaking to anybody." Right there is the first perversion of the gift of tongues, because all gifts were intended to build up somebody other than yourself. If they're not used to speak to men, they are perverted.
Continuing the sermon into Verse 4...
"He that speaketh in an unknown tongue [i.e., gibberish] edifieth himself, but he that prophesieth edifieth the church."
I pointed out to you in the last lesson, that the self- edification mentioned in this verse is not a good thing. In 1 Corinthians 8:10, we looked at an illustration of a bad kind of edification--building somebody up to a position where he will fall. We also saw that in 1 Corinthians 10:23-24 Paul says, "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient; all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. Let no man seek his own [edification] , but every man another's [edification]." So, since self-edification and the wrong kind of edification are already in Paul's vocabulary as negatives, I think it's easy to see it here. What he is saying is somewhat caustic and sarcastic-- pointing out their self-centeredness. He's saying, "He that speaks this gibberish is only building himself up, but the one who prophesies truly builds up the church. So in the assembly, there's no place for this kind of ecstatic speech."
As far as Verse 5, it refers to the true gift of tongues (plural) and if one who provides prophesies does so using the gift of tongues in a language not everyone/or anyone understands but does so with an interpreter, such that the church may be built up, it is ok.
x
Craig asked:
I cannot know what the Corinthians were speaking. I wasn't there. Were you?
I was not.
But Plato (or Socrates - I'm really not getting into this much further) and Paul were.
I came across this, it's oddly layed out, probably been parked on the internet a long while and, seemingly from someone from in the Church of Christ where, I believe, musical instruments are forbidden?. That's not really relevant to our discussion but the history of Corinth and paganism is as it relates to 1 Cor 14:
1 Corinthians 14:23: Speaking in Tongues - Plato and Madness
1 Corinthians 14:23: with everyone speaking in tongues, Paul and Plato saw this as madness: Plato thought that it was good, Paul condemned it. It was the experience and nature to be attracted to the pagan rituals and we are told of music that only females and the effeminate fall into it....
... SPEAKING IN TONGUES: Paul warned that by speaking in tongues they were speaking to god and we believe that was Juno or one of the various "wind" gods of the pagans. This is confirmed by 14:9 when Paul said that they were just "speaking into the air." This was the common practice of speaking to the god or ghost who was believed to be in the air: a principality and power of the air. Furthermore, we have no evidence that any of them had any spiritual gifts and we know that their sexual tolerance was much like that of the surrounding Greek religions.
Platonic love was "the love of a man for a young boy" and Paul seriously addressed this in the Roman letter. All of these facts conspire to warn us that Corinth had not yet moved out of the "carnal" life of paganism and into a spiritual (rational) relationship with a rational God Who is pure or Holy Spirit.
He clearly warned in 1 Corinthians 14:23:
If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? 1 Corinthians 14:23
The "sign" for the unbelievers was not of a spiritual meeting but to mark them as just another group involved in pagan religion. Based upon his second letter, we doubt that Corinth ever totally rejected the madness of speaking in tongues because some would fall for their claim that they were inspired.
Madness is from: Manteuomai (g3132) mant-yoo'-om-ahee; from a der. of 3105 (mean. a prophet, as supposed to rave through inspiration); to divine, i.e. utter spells under pretence of foretelling: - by soothsaying.
"From mantis, a seer, diviner. The word is allied to mainomai, "To rave," and mania, "fury" displayed by those who were possessed by an evil spirit represented by the pagan god or goddess while delivering their oracular message." Vine
Mainomai (mainomai) (g3105) mah'ee-nom-ahee; mid. from a prim. maoÑ , (to long for; through the idea of insensate craving); to rave as a "maniac": - be beside self (mad)
But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak forth the words of truth and soberness. Acts 26:25
Plato's dialog between Socrates and Phaedrus (this continues for a long while giving Socrates's observations of Corinth).
Source: https://www.pineycom.com/Hs1CorPlato.html
x
X,
I've already shown your singular tongue vs. plural tongues to be fallacious methodology. It's clear in this context Paul is referring to the same type of tongue/tongues in 14:2, 4, and 5, for he compares and contrasts tongue/s and prophecy throughout.
As for S/spirit, I'm well aware. It is unqualified, meaning without hagios, "Holy" following it, so it could be either one: human spirit or Holy Spirit. So, the interpretation must rely on other contextual factors--such as the repetition of tongue/tongues in 2, 4, and 5, and the use of "God" in 14:28 in a similar local context (even using the same verb for "speak"). And I only used the ESV because of your personal fondness of it earlier.
JMac's interpretation is quite the straining. Among the dozen or so commentaries I've consulted, not one even comes close to such eisegetical 'reasoning'. JMac is hell-bent on demonizing any Spiritual "sign" gifts post-Apostolic era that he'll stop at nothing to 'prove' his positions. Kinda like his 'methodology' to support the pre-trib rapture.
X,
I'm somewhat familiar with the Church of Christ, and yes they do forbid music. They also believe that each person within the CofC is destined to eternity conditioned upon their state of sinlessness prior to death. That is, they do not believe in election or once-saved-always-saved, but ANY unconfessed sin at death means eternal damnation. There cannot be but a moments gap between sin and its confession for fear of eternal separation from God, and if you were to die just before your confession, you would fail to make it.
In light of their overall beliefs, I don't think we can rely on their interpretation of 1Cor 14.
Craig @ 8:46 pm
You've accomplished no such thing (talk about disingenuous debate).
And MacArthur's interpretation/reading of 1 Cor 14:2-4 is certainly less of a "strain" that inferring a whole 'nother Angelic 'tongue' out of a hyperbolic phrase in 1 Cor 13:1.
Do continuationists also have the ability to physically "remove mountains" too? (1 Cor 13:2)
x
p.s.- In all fairness, if you are going to knock out everything the Church of Christ scholars might say about the bible or 1st century history in Corinth and dismiss an entire denomination, why not provide your denomination to see if I/we can dismiss it as well. Is there a list of acceptable resources I'm not aware of? I thought the contribution, affirming others think 1 Cor 14:2 is referring to "a god" and explaining the Corithians were still very much practicing pagans rituals and, perhaps, had women signing and/or speaking gibberish to pagan Gods, perhaps pretending to be "speaking in tongue/tongues" might make sense considering Paul's admonishment of women speaking, let along, speaking in tongues, in the church. Again, this Epistle is very early in the church overall and especially in Corinth.
X,
Did you forget that you wrote?:
It works perfectly in context when you understand Paul is contrasting speaking in a “tongue” (singular = pagan gibberish, what Corinth is being instructed about for doing wrong as a continuation of a correction Epistle for the many errors taking place in Corinth) and speaking in tongues (plural, true gift of being able to speak many unknown languages).
I refuted that false dichotomy with:
Then why is it singular in 14:27 [If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret.]? And note the singular in 14:13: Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret. Can we interpret pagan gibberish?
"JMac's interpretation is quite the straining"
You want to talk about straining?
It is quite noticeable that X is spiritually constipated.
Is x unemployed and live in a basement somewhere?
Good grief. He's camped at his computer and this blog like none other.
He does as much straining as he does squatting.
X's circular conversation (junk posting) is becoming a tightening circle like noose around his neck! Ha Ha!
He fails to make his point because he tends to major on all the minors.
10:10 pm
And I already explained the difference somewhere above today.
Tongue, singular, is used by Paul to indicate the false gibberish (verse 4, 13, 14, and 19), for gibberish can't be plural.
Paul uses the true gift of "tongues" plurally in verse 6, 18,22, 23 and 29.
But "tongue" is also used, as in 14:13, 14:27 and 14:28 when Paul is referring to and instructing a singular person exercising the true gift of tongues speaking a singular genuine language. Obviously, the true gift can be referred to both singularly and plurally as there are many languages or many people who may be exercising the true gift together or separately, one language at time.
As I stated, in this regard...I beliee it works perfectly with the context and considering the known history and practices of Corinth at that time.
x
Peter Helland
The Heresy of 1776 on Display on Jan. 6th
https://youtu.be/Lgvz6G2BzkU?si=RGA8gYULKDMJBry-
Recorded January 11th 2021
X,
I see, so in 14:4 The one who speaks in a tongue [ho lalōn glōssē̖] builds up himself is the singular false tongue (spoken by a singular person), yet in 14:13 Therefore, the one who speaks in a tongue [ho lalōn glōssē̖] should pray that he may interpret is the singular true tongue, spoken from a singular person. Yet we can still say the singular tongue = false, while the plural tongues = true. So, except for the exceptions.
Sorry, doesn't work.
11:35 PM
It actually does work but even MacArthur admits it's difficult, but there is no alternative.
From MacArthur's Speaking in Tongues sermon:
Praying for an Interpretation (v. 13)
"Wherefore, let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue [i.e., `gibberish'] pray that he may interpret."
This is a very difficult verse to interpret. What does Paul mean when he says, "Let him that speaks in gibberish pray that he may interpret"? Well, let's look at it.
1) The Meaning
As we know from our study already, the Corinthians were speaking in a private kind of ecstatic communication with a pagan god and thinking that they were praying to the true God. But praying in gibberish was never the intention of the gift of tongues--it was the perversion. What Paul is saying is this: "Look, the one praying in gibberish ought to pray with the purpose of interpreting what he's praying." In other words, I think Paul is being a little sarcastic and saying, "Hey, you that are so busy praying in your gibberish, why don't you pray for something that will have some meaning to somebody?"
In case you think that's forcing the issue, read carefully through 1 Corinthians. You'll find that such sarcasm and irony is introduced on many, many occasions. In other words, "Let the one who is so anxious to pray in his private little language, pray instead for the gift that's intelligible. Let him ask God for something that the rest of the body can be benefited by, because what he's doing is so very selfish."
2) The Misunderstanding
Somebody is probably saying, "You really pushed that interpretation into that verse." Well, there's only one other way to interpret it. The other alternative is this: "Wherefore, let him that speaks in an unknown tongue, pray that he may receive the gift of interpretation." Now if we interpret it that way, the verse is saying that we can seek certain gifts, right? It's saying that if we want the gift of interpretation, or any other gift, all we have to do is pray for it. Well, is that true? No! First Corinthians 12:11 says that the Holy Spirit gives the gifts to whomever He wills. And in 1 Corinthians 12:30 it says, "...Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?" What is the answer implied by the Greek construction? No! God never said that we can pray for any gift we want or that we can seek for any gift we want. Therefore, this verse can't be saying that we ought to seek the gift of interpretation.
Interesting, right?
Again...it's certainly not as straining an interpretation as saying verse 14:4 means Paul was informing the Corinthians that they were personally getting some benefit, individually, from praying some secret babbling gibberish language (somehow of Angels), while saying that the gift of tongues was for the unbelievers.
x
No matter what you think of MacArthur's interpretation, you really must agree that one of Paul’s major points of emphasis in Chapter 14 is that if one employs his gift of tongues (or unknown tongue) before an audience that cannot understand the language spoken, and no interpreter is present to translate the message (gibberish can't be translated anyway), such would be a violation of God’s will. In fact, it would be an act of vanity, and not a demonstration of love for the listener.
This is the precise point of 13:1 as well. To speak in tongues, when no one can understand the words, is an act void of love. Such would be nothing more than a sound (an irritating noise); it would not be an instructive message. The implication behind the argument is this. If the gift were exercised properly, i.e., in conjunction with an interpreter, the audience could understand the instruction, and such would evince the speaker’s love.
But the identical point is made whether the allusion is to “the tongues of men” or to the “tongues of angels.” Even the tongues of angels, if it were possible to exercise such in an appropriate way, could be understood. There is nothing there suggesting a “gibberish” sort of utterance; just the opposite is the case.
x
X,
Yes, JMac's interpretation strains the text. And your attempt to finely delineate "tongue" vs. "tongues", though with exceptions, does not work.
You've mentioned context, to include the entire epistle. There are a representative nine gifts enumerated in 12:7-10. Paul is not being at all sarcastic here. Instructive, not sarcastic. Along with various kinds of tongues is the interpretation of tongues. And this list is in parallel. Paul reiterates this in the rest of chapter 12.
Love is noted as the higher way in 13. He mentions a representative three from the representative nine that will eventually pass away. Like the nine, these three are in syntactic parallel (though you try to pluck one out of the middle). And this scarcely means only the three, but intends to yet include all nine. The Corinthians apparently have an over-focus on a desire for tongues to the exclusion of the others. In 14, Paul contrasts tongues with prophecy, illustrating it as one--not THE ONE, but one--of the greater gifts. Why not just this one? In the very beginning of 14 he commands to desire Spiritual gifts--plural. Tongues edifies the individual; whereas, prophecy edifies the assembly. Let's edify the entire assembly, and whatever is to be done is be done orderly.
Nowhere are we to eisegete gibberish as the interpretation of tongues (or "tongue" singular). You and JMac are anachronistically imposing modern hyper-charismaticism onto the text as part of your overall means by which to demonize both the 1st century Corinthian congregation and ALL continuationists throughout the centuries.
X,
Let’s take JMac’s reasoning here:
Somebody is probably saying, "You really pushed that interpretation into that verse." Well, there's only one other way to interpret it. The other alternative is this: "Wherefore, let him that speaks in an unknown tongue, pray that he may receive the gift of interpretation." Now if we interpret it that way, the verse is saying that we can seek certain gifts, right? It's saying that if we want the gift of interpretation, or any other gift, all we have to do is pray for it. Well, is that true? No! First Corinthians 12:11 says that the Holy Spirit gives the gifts to whomever He wills. And in 1 Corinthians 12:30 it says, "...Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?" What is the answer implied by the Greek construction? No! God never said that we can pray for any gift we want or that we can seek for any gift we want. Therefore, this verse can't be saying that we ought to seek the gift of interpretation.
So, what about the example in the parable of the persistent widow? More pointedly, how else are we to earnestly desire the spiritual gifts (14:1)? Sure the Holy Spirit gives the gifts to whomever He wills, but might he be persuaded by persistent prayer?
And regarding 1Cor 12:30, of course “no” is the implied answer; but, we must look more closely at the question. The key is ALL. The point is that not ALL should seek one gift. One body, many ‘parts’—remember?
---
Of late this particular song by a band in NZ has caught my attention:
The Clean – Slug Song
Said don't ever change
Or rearrange your mind
Don't ever go and rearrange
Your mind, your mind, your mind
Your mind, your mind, your mind
Well anyway
Don't ever bend
To the hip, the grip
Of the insipid
I said well anyway
Don't ever bend
Don't ever change
Don't ever change
I said don't
Don't ever change
And misarrange your mind
Your mind, your mind
I said don't ever change
Your mind, mind
Let's Examine Some Real Crimes Committed By Presidents
It's quite the list...
zerohedge.com/political/lets-examine-some-real-crimes-committed-presidents
Bitter old nazi devil Hillary, calls for "Formal Deprogramming of Trump cult members".
There's a bitter old CINO/RINO devil here, who might just agree with Killery.
thegatewaypundit.com/2023/10/here-we-go-hillary-clinton-calls-formal-deprograming/
Craig @ 7:54 AM
I fully agree with what you have posted here, but, is it not obvious, that you're trying to convince X, who exhibits a granite skull, is an exercise in futility?
It just brings more cash into X's bank account.
X & Craig's charismatic discourse is reminiscent of the Ukraine War.
Ukraine is not going to win, and Russia will never withdraw from Ukraine and Crimea.
Why don't you two hammer this out thru personal emails. The entire discussion is pointless in that neither one of you will ever convince an opponent to your views.
By the way, admittedly, I haven't read through all of your posts. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe either one of you addressed the Pentecostal claim that 'speaking in tongues' is the true sign of being baptized by the Holy Spirit, aka, the New Birth.
At the core of Pentecostalism is the fact that their FEELINGS and EXPERIENCES trump the authority of God's Word. I've had quite a few experiences with these people and know this to be true.
Craig at 6:20
First, tongues do not edify the individual. From chapters 11-14, Paul deals with the meeting together of the assembly of the Corinthian church. None of it has reference to a private time or a personal relationship with God. It all speaks to how they were to behave in the assembly. Therefore, in 1 Cor 12:31, 14:1 and 14:39-40, Paul is not speaking about an individual Christian seeking an individual gift.
The question becomes is "But earnestly desire the best gifts" a command to us today?
Here's what MacArthur says:
... In reality, 1 Corinthians 12:31 is not an imperative. Grammatically, the form of the verb desire can also be rendered as a statement of fact (indicative), and the context here supports that translation....
I'm not going to cut and paste large selections from his response to John Piper after his Strange Fire conference...I'll just link to it as my counter to your arguments this morning.
Biblical Prophecy and Modern Confusion
1 Corinthians 12:7–31; 1 Corinthians 14:1; 1 Corinthians 14:39–40
https://www.gty.org/library/Print/Blog/B140310
x
p.s. - Here's a string of commentaries on Luke 18:1-8 to help you better understand that the Parable of the Widow as a parable of contrast, not comparison...about praying to a God that loves us (how much more is He than the judge that doesn't love).
Here's one example: J Vernon McGee agrees writing: "Now, I have heard many Bible teachers say that this parable teaches the value of importunate (troublesomely urgent, overly persistent in request or demand) prayer. Although I don’t like to disagree with men who are greater than I, that isn’t so. This is not a parable on the persistency or the pertinacity of prayer—as though somehow God will hear if you hold on long enough. This is a parable by contrast, not by comparison....If this unjust judge would hear a poor widow because she kept coming continually, then (BY WAY OF CONTRAST) why do you get discouraged going to God who is not an unjust judge, but Who actually wants to hear and answer prayer?"
Source: https://www.preceptaustin.org/luke-18-commentary
"You and JMac are anachronistically imposing modern hyper-charismaticism onto the text as part of your overall means by which to demonize both the 1st century Corinthian congregation and ALL continuationists throughout the centuries."
Craig you have, once again, made the correct assertion that reveals the x techniques (aka antics) of blatant manipulation of other people's words, including God's, to force his narrative onto a subject. Just take your pick and his gasbag approach gets the wind knocked out of it, yet he comes back for more.
He is constant in his effort to arrogantly blame people, and good grief, it's the early church that is his target this time. Always bent on highlighting and/or gaslighting symptoms but never gets to the actual cure. No wonder he votes Democrat/Uniparty, at all costs, it's keep the cash cows, power hogs going...
This is only another example of why I am convinced he is globalist to the gills. Pushing to "fix" what isn't broken, determined on "fixing" it till it is is, it's the calling card of the globalist ilk.
His is a losing battle going against the eternal Word of God however..he's posting from a poisoned well.
But whatever.
11:32...
Yes...it's not unlike trying to explain to maga-qanon'ers that they are, in fact, espousing maga-qanon beliefs and disinformation while they completely deny any association with the teachings (of maga-qanon)
but then thanks for adding more kindling.
I would surmise Craig and I agree such beliefs "at the core of Pentecostalism" are errant as an extreme interpretation of 1st Corinthians (and other Scripture?) and devaluation of Scripture/prophesy.
Please read your bible.
Craig has probably already written out his views on the subject:
Try this search:
https://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/?s=Pentecostalism
x
11:32 AM
One of the unintended consequences of the UKr vs RU war is, apparently, some NATO arms have made there way into Israel yesterday. Sow the wind. . .
11:32 AM
"At the core of Pentecostalism is the fact that their FEELINGS and EXPERIENCES trump the authority of God's Word."
That's a rather broad brush, and your opinion, but perhaps not accurate enough to be the rule?
I became a true believer, long ago, through the preaching of an Independent Fundamentalist Separatist Baptist preacher, and I'm thankful for that church's dedication to evangelism. It doesn't get any more Baptist than that! Their FEELINGS were, that if you are a guy, and your hair is military short, and your wife wears a dress, and NOT pants, you're probably a good Christian.
There simply are no perfect denominations. They all have stubborn traditions that often "trump" God's word, that they cling to.
X is the pharisee 'lord it over' everybody type.
12:04 X,
Could well be you are so immersed in Legacy Media, that you couldn't understand the truth if it bit you on the arse!
You and comrade Cumbey are so fearful of NAR, MAGA and Qanon, that you can't see the greater danger of your myopic, and much more dangerous devotion to this dying worlds 'reporting', of what you consider reality! Your both 'wide path' kindling!
Aren't the Baptist churches hyper patriotism, and rejection of sound doctrine(false rapture teachings etc.) much more a danger to followers of Christ, than, even NAR, and MAGA etc.? I think you two should look in the mirror to see what the accusers/persecutors, of the brethren look like!
You yourself X have an obvious violent tendency, and a desire to please TPTB, instead of Christ! The same is equal for your comrade.
Your only purpose here is to divide, subvert, and be contrary 24/7/365
You X, are the weirdest 'baptist' Iv ever had the displeasure to have my stomach turned by.
ALERT!! 12:30 PM Anonymous Comrade is Russian troll, back at it again.
1:06 PM I feel bad about your poor mental and spiritual health.
Get well soon
x is John MacArthur religious Baptist in belief and Andy Stanley secular Baptist in practice.
Double-minded much.
Pray for the peace of Jerusalem. Psalms 122:6-9
https://www.the-sun.com/news/9272531/death-thousands-rockets-fired-israel/
Meanwhile how long before the "peace and safety" guy shows up on the scene? 1 Thessalonians 5:2-11
Getting closer by the day.
https://twitter.com/SKMorefield/status/1710105405483868559
Kentucky Sen. @RandPaul makes the case for why Dr. Fauci deserves prison time
Hi Craig,
Over several months the Lord impressed upon me the scriptural principle of "not casting pearls before swine" multiple times.
In these times we have to be very alert to God's leading and exercise decernment with our efforts.
Be careful you are not steered off mission by the enemies weapon of " mass distraction" that rob time and energy from the the work that the Lord would really have you doing.
Anon 11:32 AM,
I will answer your question in this way: I've addressed this only insofar as it relates to hyper-charismaticism. Bill Johnson claims Jesus Himself received the "baptism in the Holy Spirit" (aka, "Christ anointing", “the presence of God”, "the outpouring of the Spirit”) when the Spirit descended as a dove following His baptism in the Jordan River. This has the effect of reducing Jesus to a mere man who was empowered by the Holy Spirit (for Johnson, "Jesus is our model"). One can see the ramifications of such heresy.
But to reduce ALL of Pentecostalism to something like this is surely erroneous.
Sorry, the above comment is by me. Wasn't properly signed in.
GrantNZ,
I appreciate the admonition. On this, I do believe it important enough to illustrate that, while it's prudent to counter NAR-type heresy and error, we should not go so far as to improperly lump others into this same category in order to categorically dismiss them also.
X,
First, I will take your point re Persistent Widow. However, surely you are not suggesting there are no Scriptures to back up persistent prayer.
As to the link to Grace to You (gty), just in the first paragraph one can see JMac’s framing as ‘my way or the highway’ hyper-dogmatism (his “the sufficiency of Scripture”= his interpretation of it). This sort of thing is not helpful. This is compounded in the third paragraph: “It genuinely confuses me that such erudite and sound-thinking brothers like John Piper, Wayne Grudem, and others could get this issue so wrong.” And it’s further compounded by his parenthetical statement, “though he [Piper] has expressed his own confusion over this doctrinal issue”. JMac mistakes (or frames) Piper’s graciousness and fairness for confusion (read “weakness”).
In a similar, though worse manner he does not engage with Gordon Fee’s position only to say that Fee recognizes the possibility of the verb in 1Cor 12:31 as indicative over imperative (COMPLETELY ignoring Fee’s strong assertion that 14:1 and 14:39 can only be imperative, which implies 12:31 should ALSO be imperatival over indicative), thereby implying Fee has entirely conceded this. (In light of these unfair tactics, we might rename MacArthur’s organization “No Grace to You”.) Fee’s position makes far better sense of 12–14 than MacArthur’s straining.
Fee thinks (rightly) that 12:31 should be considered a new segment to Paul’s argumentation. And I should note, this position goes at least as far back to the early 20th century, as evidenced by the great grammarian A. T. Robertson’s ICC commentary on 1 Corinthians. Though Fee doesn’t state this, his position can be bolstered in two further ways, thanks to new work and insights in both discourse analysis and linguistics, which were developed well after Fee’s commentary of 1987.
As necessary background, Koine Greek was written with absolutely no breaks between words and no punctuation. So, writers would employ various measures to mark breaks. (Greek is a highly inflected language, meaning words are spelled to indicate function; i.e., an accusative is spelled differently than a nominative, though some forms are ambiguous in that they can be one of two, like zēloute, “zealously desire” here.)
The coordinating connective de (the second element in 12:31) is sometimes used as a development marker, that is, as a new sub-segment. And words are sometimes repeated to provide linguistic framing devices, indicating beginning and ending (and continuation) of a subsection. Taking these two devices together, it is clear that this is what Paul has done here. Thus, “But [or “So”] eagerly desire the greater gifts” marks the new subsection of his argument, and the repetition of “eagerly desire” signals that 12:31 through 14:39-40 is an entire unit (linguistic frame), with 14:1 indicating continuation. Accordingly, the three verbs are all imperatival, commands.
Thus, the point is: ‘So eagerly desire the greater gifts, which are characterized by love for others, and an example of such is prophecy, which edifies the entire assembly.’ Again, overall Paul is being instructive not sarcastically castigating them.
And while we all recognize God’s sovereignty, there’s no reason to view God (the Holy Spirit) as fatalistic to the point that would render praying for Spiritual gifts futile.
Anon 3:06 PM,
Absolutely! He knew; moreover, he was most certainly behind the squelching of the lab-leak theory/hypothesis.
You and comrade Cumbey are so fearful of NAR, MAGA and Qanon, that you can't see the greater danger of your myopic, and much more dangerous devotion to this dying worlds 'reporting', of what you consider reality! Your both 'wide path' kindling!
You are very confused by the trickle down effect of the common grace doctrine as applied to conservative American contemporary politics, which is part of "this dying world."
In my Bible, Christians are exhorted to discern and call out heresy and to be in the world but not of the world. It's both.
There is nothing at all in the Bible that tells Christians it's okay to eat meat that has been sacrificed to only the little idols of the lesser gods and goddesses of the Roman pantheon, as long as you don't worship at the temple of Zeus.
My Bible doesn't present any sort of idolatry as a "gnat" to ignore because it's a lesser evil compared to the "camel" of a bigger idolatry.
The "gnats" of the Pharisees were the gnats of legalism. Not gnats of idolatry.
Constance is not doing anything wrong to come out of political idolatry and call out church heresy. You are wrong to attempt to discourage her from these things under the guise of your scripture twisting and confusion.
Please pray for discernment. Please pray to find a better pastor.
"The "gnats" of the Pharisees were the gnats of legalism. Not gnats of idolatry."
Actually they were both! It goes back to the Garden of Eden.
Constance isn't 'coming out of political idolatry' at all. She is just choosing a bigger idolatry.
The Pharisees always gravitate towards the most vile.
Your arguments are not according to wisdom, but according to your passions, and personal selection.
Quite boring really!
The Last Days of the Covidian Cult
Can genosse X, and his clinging to 'false science' be passed over lightly in light of his calls for secular punishments for the unvaxed, whether or not followers of Christ or not?
X is a neo-nazi, and Constance is largely of the same spirit!
Birds of a feather goose step together. Both are enemies of the biblical Jesus, as they fashion their own woke version. If any here, place overmuch faith in politics they set the bar high.
cjhopkins.substack.com/p/the-last-days-of-the-covidian-cult
The early Christians gathered together as brothers and sisters in Christ persistently, in spite of their house church gatherings being slandered as Bacchanalian-like gatherings. For centuries the early Christians were martyred because of being slandered in this way in ancient Rome. Still it was important for the body of Jesus Christ to come together as brothers and sisters. The Holy Spirit led them to continue to lay this foundation in spite of the persecution.
But when their members began to behave in a way that really did start to resemble Bacchanalia-- as some church sisters did in the church planted at Ephesus where the temple of Artemis was located--these church sisters were rebuked.
In other words, the early church Apostles didn't react to the slandering in such a defensive way that they didn't rebuke their church members for any behavior within that really could begin to justify any of the slandering and gossip that was coming from the outside world.
Because they rebuked church behaviors that were unbecoming of the bride of Christ, it did not mean that the Apostles were in allegiance with the world who slandered them and gossiped about them for claims to behaviors that would have been unbecoming of the bride of Christ.
It is wrong for the world to slander all Christians. It is also wrong for Christians to tolerate behavior that really is starting to become as bad as the slander.
When you say, "Your arguments are not according to wisdom, but according to your passions, and personal selection," it seems to me you are projecting.
This is why it's so important to get your own eyesight checked out before examining the eyes of your fellow Christians and picking at them.
9:57 AM
There hasn't been a whole lot of gathering together as brothers and sisters here!
This is largely a secular venue, and the foundational acts of aggression here have been launched from the left of center. So you're speaking into the wind.
"There hasn't been a whole lot of gathering together as brothers and sisters here!"
You got that right.
"So you're speaking into the wind."
Better than spitting into the wind, I guess.
I made my point. I'm not going to belabor it. You'll get it or you won't, and whatever will be, will be.
Que Sera, Sera
That's your world, not mine. I will pass on your twisted logic. I prefer my food served hot.
Have a nice day
Post a Comment