₦airaland Forum

Welcome, Guest: RegisterLoginWith GoogleTrendingRecentNew

Stats: 3,329,786 members, 8,442,252 topics. Date: Thursday, 09 July 2026 at 08:29 PM

Toggle theme

Enigma's Posts

Nairaland ForumEnigma's ProfileEnigma's Posts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 (of 198 pages)

Christianity EtcRe: Who Is Jesus ? by Enigma(m): 12:24am On May 15, 2012
Deep Sight:
ijawkid:
---
Like deÉp sight said that verse is an exact extract from psalm chapter 45....
- - - And Psalm 45 SAYS NO SUCH THING!

Perhaps Enigma is following in the lying footsteps of "Saint" Paul. . .
smiley
Christianity EtcRe: Who Is Jesus ? by Enigma(m): 12:18am On May 15, 2012
Deep Sight: ^^^ Bros, I thought you allotted me only one response? You are in generous spirits today, I must say. . . .
I just wanted to show up your idiocy --- once again

And of course, the subtlety in my post is lost on you --- as usual; the unstated thing in that post which you are too thick to discern is that I should not even have replied your first question at all; (though I achieved my aim with the response). It is just not worth it in your case.

Waste of time as already pointed out twice on this thread.

Finally, take the same advice I gave the other fellow: continue in your ignorance and/or deliberate dishonesty.

cool
Christianity EtcRe: Who Is Jesus ? by Enigma(m): 11:53pm On May 14, 2012
Hebrews 1:3

The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.
cool
Christianity EtcRe: Who Is Jesus ? by Enigma(m): 11:41pm On May 14, 2012
^^^ You need to go and read up; in this kind of situation I tend to recommend starting with "consubstantiality"; you can start from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consubstantiality

What I notice is that you don't really understand what it means to say: The Father is God AND Jesus is God AND the Holy Spirit is God.

This of course would then mean that you really do not understand the Trinity doctrine.

Finally, I do not wish to force you or convince you to believe the doctrine. It is entirely up to you to satisfy yourself about what you believe.

cool
Christianity EtcRe: Who Is Jesus ? by Enigma(m):
A demonstration of why some types of people are simply best ignored smiley


1. Previously posted here: https://www.nairaland.com/497445/trinity-doctrine-invented-council-meeting/2#6979732

I might as well add this post from elsewhere [/b]here as well.

According to the author of Hebrews God was speaking to and of the Son in Psalm 45:6. And what did God say to/of the Son? [b]God called the Son God
!

Hebrews 1:8
But to the Son He says: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
If God the Father thinks and says that the Son is God and so calls Him God, oh boy do I agree with God the Father!

cool
And guess who was the chief antagonist on that thread? wink



2. And even before then, previously posted here: https://www.nairaland.com/531625/evidence-deity-christ/2#6979524


3. Oh, by the way any genuinely intelligent and honest person can easily see that the author of Hebrews applied Psalm 45 to Jesus ------- as I had already pointed out on two previous occasions.


4. And speak of pot calling (electric) kettle black wink --- would it not have been an easy exercise to quote all the relevant bits of Hebrews 1? wink Dishonesty, much? smiley

cool
Christianity EtcRe: Who Is Jesus ? by Enigma(m): 10:45pm On May 14, 2012
smiley

cool
Christianity EtcRe: Who Is Jesus ? by Enigma(m): 10:42pm On May 14, 2012
Whatever! smiley

You already have my advice: continue in your ignorance or deliberate dishonesty. wink


Next!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

cool
Christianity EtcRe: Who Is Jesus ? by Enigma(m): 10:31pm On May 14, 2012
Ptolomeus: Let's see.
I've put up here call me satanist, heretic, ignorant, but you call me dishonest is something I will not allow.
You are an idiot and illiterate fan does not entitle you to call me dishonest. I will ask that from now on again, watch your expressions with me. I have a clear his fanatrismo exacerbates it, you blind, and in the absence of arguments comes the insult, because you education and common sense. Instead of reading the Bible, you should go back to school to learn education.
Once that clarification step to answer.
Lord dishonest and rude.
If you say that Jesus is God, be faithful because it is a spiritualist religion and worship the spirit of the dead is something they do animistic religions.

Now, I advise you to return to school, study education, and drink plenty of milk, as for a whippersnapper like you to call me dishonest, should grow much yet.
Greetings, Mr. animist.
Yes, let's see indeed.

1. You insult me by asking me to read something other than the Bible. That is very daft of you; extremely daft. smiley

2. You spread falsehood here. I am entitled to point out that you are spreading falsehood. At first, perhaps ignorantly; but if after being given better information, you continue to spread the falsehood, then it is reasonable to suspect you of deliberate dishonesty because of some pathetic agenda of yours.

3. You now call me an illiterate! And you do not have enough sense to see how verily daft that is! wink

cool
Christianity EtcRe: Who Is Jesus ? by Enigma(m): 10:12pm On May 14, 2012
^^^

smiley

God The Father Himself referred to The Son as God. wink

Hebrews 1:8
But to the Son He says: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
cool
Christianity EtcRe: Who Is Jesus ? by Enigma(m): 9:59pm On May 14, 2012
Ptolomeus: We pull the same thing, right?
Please read something other than the Bible ... sometimes positive. . . . .
Please continue in your ignorance and, most probably, deliberate dishonesty as well. smiley


cool
Christianity EtcRe: Who Is Jesus ? by Enigma(m): 9:53pm On May 14, 2012
No and totally Wrong. If you read properly, you would have seen by now that Christians accepted Jesus as God and accepted The Trinity loooong before the Nicaea Council.

Of course, people can choose to be ignorant or to continue peddling falsehoods.

cool
Christianity EtcRe: Who Is Jesus ? by Enigma(m): 9:49pm On May 14, 2012
Christians had recognised Jesus as God and had recognised The Trinity looooooooooooooooooooong before the Nicaea Council. It is ignorant or dishonest to continue to refer to the Council as the source of a concept that predated the Council.

cool
Christianity EtcRe: Who Is Jesus ? by Enigma(m): 9:46pm On May 14, 2012
Deep Sight: ^^^ Hi there. Just one question. Lets say you are adderssing a genuinely confused christian. Do you not think that there is sufficient scripture within the bible to suggest to anybody that perhaps Jesus is not God - and as such, become genuinely confused - Or is it your view that anybody who sees verses that suggest that to him, is simply being dishonest.

For example, if a Trinitarian Christian sees a verse in which Jesus says " Do not call me good, only God is good" - and thereby becomes confused or doubtful about the doctrine of the trinity -

1. Would you agree that such a christian can truly be reasonably confused and/ or doubtful about the doctrine OR

2. Would you conclude that such a christian is simply being dishonest.

Thanks, and hoping you will respond. Cheers.
I will answer only this question from you on this thread; I was heavily tempted not to answer but have chosen to do so solely for reasons of my own.

1. As for Christians who may be confused about "The Trinity", I will advise them to study the Bible carefully; learn, read up on and understand and not be/remain ignorant of important doctrines of the historic Church.

2. As to the point about "dishonesty" ---- I have referred to three things: (a) ignorance, (b) intellectual dishonesty, and (c) intellectual fraud.

cool
Christianity EtcRe: Who Is Jesus ? by Enigma(m): 9:16pm On May 14, 2012
For the benefit of those who ignorantly or dishonestly still continue to claim the Nicaea Council as the souce of Christian recognition of Jesus as God, I repost a rather long old post from here: https://www.nairaland.com/497445/trinity-doctrine-invented-council-meeting/2#7181702


I would like to add this Wikipedia entry to this thread and for a graphic presentation will actually make an extensive quotation of the entry. I would argue that it should be clear that to maintain or insist that the 'Trinity' was 'invented' at a council meeting smacks of either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty if not indeed intellectual fraud.

From Trinity of the Church Fathers

The Trinity formula, in the sense of an expressed conjunction of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit occurred very early in the history of the Christian Church. This conjunction appears in two New Testament texts: 2 Corinthians 13:14 and Matthew 28:19. The context of 2 Corinthians 13:14, which is the closing of a letter, suggests the church's conjunction of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit may have originated as a doxological formula, while the context of Matthew 28:19 shows that the verbal conjunction of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was used early on as a baptismal formula. The oldest extant work in which the exact word "Trinity" (Greek Trias, triados) is used to refer to Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is Theophilus of Antioch's second-century To Autolycus. The relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit was not explicitly expressed in the writings of ante-Nicene Church Fathers exactly as it would later be defined during the First Council of Nicaea (325) and the First Council of Constantinople (381), namely as one substance (ousios) and three persons (hypostaseis). But their Trinitarian concepts did become defined with greater detail over time in this period.
Early second century: Ignatius of Antioch

Ignatius, second bishop of Antioch, who was martyred in Rome around 110 AD [1], wrote a series of letters to churches in Asia Minor on his way to be executed in Rome. The conjunction of Father, Son and Holy Spirit appears in his letter to the Magnesian church.

“ Study, therefore, to be established in the doctrines of the Lord and the apostles, that so all things, whatsoever ye do, may prosper both in the flesh and spirit; in faith and love; in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit; in the beginning and in the end; with your most admirable bishop, and the well-compacted spiritual crown of your presbytery, and the deacons who are according to God. Be ye subject to the bishop, and to one another, as Jesus Christ to the Father, according to the flesh, and the apostles to Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit; that so there may be a union both fleshly and spiritual. ”

(Epistle to the Magnesians, Chapter 13 [SR]).[2]


First half of second century or late first century: Didache

This source uses the gospel of Matthew only and no other known gospel, and thus it must have been written before the four-gospel canon had become widespread in the churches, i.e. before the second half of the second century when Tatian produced the Diatessaron. Given its literary dependence on the Gospel of Matthew, it is not surprising that the Didache follows the Gospel of Matthew in designating the Trinitarian formula as a baptismal formula:

“After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water…. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

(Didache 7:1).[3][4]


ca.151: Justin Martyr

Even though he does not use the word "Trinity" explicitly, Justin Martyr's First Apology, written around AD 150, reveals a primitive theology of the Trinity, in which God is in first place, Christ in second, and the Spirit in third,

“We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein.”

(First Apology 13:5–6).[5]


169-181: Theophilus of Antioch

Theophilus of Antioch's Ad Autolycum is the oldest extant work that uses the actual word "Trinity" to refer to Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The context is a discussion of the first three days of creation in Genesis 1-3.

“It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all; for he can in no way be contained in a place, The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity, God, his Word, and his Wisdom. ”

(To Autolycus 2:15).[6]


Third century: Trinitarian theology in response to Patripassianism and Sabellianism

In the early third century Tertullian and Hippolytus of Rome wrote Against Praxeas and Against Noetus, respectively, which may be considered the first extant expository treatments of Trinitarian theology. Both authors use the word Trinity (Latin: Trinitas; Greek: Trias). They wrote these works to combat Patripassianism, the view that the Father suffered on the cross along with the Son. In the third century there were also Trinitarian theologies expressed in writings against Monarchianism, Sabellianism and Modalism.


216: Tertullian

Tertullian's treatise against a Patripassian heretic named Praxeas, who claimed that the Father had suffered with the Son on the cross, is arguably the oldest extant treatise with a detailed explicit Trinitarian theology. In his Against Praxeas Tertullian wrote:

“And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the three are the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. ”

(Against Praxeas 2).[7]


ca. 220: Hippolytus of Rome

In the early third century, Hippolytus of Rome wrote a treatise Against Noetus, in response to a Christian from Smyrna named Noetus who had been promoting Patripassian views, which Hippolytus deemed heretical. Noetus and other Patripassians, such as Praxeas (see above), claimed that the Father as well as the Son had suffered on the cross.[8] Like Tertullian, Hippolytus explicitly used the word Trinity in his treatise against Patripassian views.

“The Father's Word, therefore, knowing the economy and the will of the Father, to wit, that the Father seeks to be worshipped in none other way than this, gave this charge to the disciples after he rose from the dead: "Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matt 28:19) And by this he showed that whosoever omitted any one of these, failed in glorifying God perfectly. For it is through the Trinity that the Father is glorified. For the Father willed, the Son did and the Spirit manifested.”[9]


ca. 225: Origen

Origen's On First Principles (De Principiis or Peri Archon) is the oldest extant Christian theological treatise. Origen develops Trinitarian theology is developed in this treatise, which reveals that by this time the use of the word Trinity to refer to Father, Son and Holy Spirit is standard in orthodox churches.

“For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds every sense in which not only temporal but even eternal may be understood. It is all other things, indeed, which are outside the Trinity, which are to be measured by time and ages . . . .

It seems right to inquire into the reason why he who is 'born again through God' to salvation has need of both Father and Son and Holy Spirit and will not obtain salvation apart from the entire Trinity, and why it is impossible to become partaker of the Father or the Son without the Holy Spirit. In discussing these points it will undoubtedly be necessary to describe the activity which is peculiar to the Holy Spirit and that which is peculiar to the Father and Son”[10]


ca. 256: Novatian

Novatian, presbyter of Rome, wrote the oldest extant Christian treatise that is specifically dedicated to and entitled On the Trinity.[11] It was written in response to a number of views deemed heretical by Novatian, and particularly against Sabellius, who had maintained that the Trinity was divided into three prosopa, or "characters by which God is revealed to man, the Trinity being one of revelation, not essence." [12]

For Scripture as much announces Christ as also God, as it announces God himself as man. It has as much described Jesus Christ to be man, as moreover it has also described Christ the Lord to be God. Because it does not set forth him to be the Son of God only, but also the son of man; nor does it only say, the son of man, but it has also been accustomed to speak of him as the Son of God. So that being of both, he is both, lest if he should be one only, he could not be the other. For as nature itself has prescribed that he must be believed to be a man who is of man, so the same nature prescribes also that he must be believed to be God who is of God…. Let them, therefore, who read that Jesus Christ the son of man is man, read also that this same Jesus is called also God and the Son of God.”

(Treatise on the Trinity 11).[13]


262: Pope Dionysius

According to Athanasius of Alexandria, in the mid-third century Pope Dionysius (Dionysius of Rome) a letter to Dionysius of Alexandria criticizing Sabellius's views on the relations between the Son and the Father, as well as some who attempted to refute Sabellius's views. Athanasius quotes parts of Dionysius' letter in On the decrees of the Council of Nicaea .[14] In this letter it is clear that Dionysius used the word Trinity (Greek Trias) to explicate the relations between Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

“Next, I may reasonably turn to those who divide and cut to pieces and destroy that most sacred doctrine of the Church of God, the Divine Monarchy, making it as it were three powers and partive subsistences and godheads. I am told that some among you who are catechists and teachers of the Divine Word, take the lead in this tenet, who are diametrically opposed, so to speak, to Sabellius' opininons; for he blasphemously says that the Son is the Father, and Father the Son, but they in some sort preach three Gods, as dividing the sacred Unity into three subsistences foreign to each other and utterly separate. For it must be that with the God of the Universe, the Divine Word is united, and the Holy Ghost must repose and habitate in God; thus in one as in a summit, I mean the God of the Universe, must the Divine Trinity be gathered up and brought together . . . .

Neither, then, may we divide into three godheads the wonderful and divine Unity, Rather, we must believe in God, the Father Almighty; and in Christ Jesus, his Son; and in the Holy Spirit; and that the Word is united to the God of the universe. 'For,' he says, 'The Father and I are one,' and 'I am in the Father, and the Father in me'. For thus both the Divine Trinity and the holy preaching of the Monarchy will be preserved”[15]


265: Gregory the Wonderworker

Gregory was Bishop of Neocaesarea in Asia Minor,[16] and wrote a Declaration of Faith which treats the Trinity as standard theological vocabulary.[17].

There is one God, There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged. Wherefore there is nothing either created or in servitude in the Trinity; nor anything super-induced, as if at some former period it was non-existent, and at some later period it was introduced. And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever."
Christianity EtcRe: Who Is Jesus ? by Enigma(m): 9:02pm On May 14, 2012
^^^

Ask yourself why Jesus called Himself "The Almighty". smiley

Rev 1:8
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End," says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."
cool
Christianity EtcRe: Who Is Jesus ? by Enigma(m): 8:27pm On May 14, 2012
^^

Jesus is God The Son. wink

His Father is God The Father.

cool
Christianity EtcRe: Who Is Jesus ? by Enigma(m): 8:15pm On May 14, 2012
It is a LIE that Christians had to wait till the Council of Nicaea to recognise Jesus as God.

This LIE has been previously put to rest. Anyone interested in learning and in intellectual honesty can start from this old thread: https://www.nairaland.com/497445/trinity-doctrine-invented-council-meeting

cool
Christianity EtcRe: Who Is Jesus ? by Enigma(m): 8:10pm On May 14, 2012
jmoore: I ignored it because it is a waste of time and you gave the wrong interpretation, you also did misinterpret the quotes I gave. . . . .

THEY WORSHIPED HIM!!! THEY WORSHIPED HIM BECAUSE HE IS GOD!!!
Of course, it's a waste of time.

Jesus IS God!

End of. smiley

cool
Christianity EtcRe: Be In The World But Not Of The World. by Enigma(m): 12:07am On May 13, 2012
@ijawkid

I understand your line of thought but can I suggest you read about William Wilberforce? Starting e.g. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce

cool
Christianity EtcRe: Next Time You See Someone Speaking In Tongues In Church, Slap Them by Enigma(m): 1:24pm On May 11, 2012
Goshen360: Good morning guys. Can we continue verse by verse please.
Please continue but I don't think I will join in each verse; I will chip in contributions now and then. smiley

cool
Christianity EtcRe: Possiblity Of Aliens And Religious Implications. by Enigma(m): 12:15pm On May 11, 2012
Christianity EtcRe: Next Time You See Someone Speaking In Tongues In Church, Slap Them by Enigma(m): 8:21am On May 11, 2012
I like to add one thing especially for the benefit of ijawkid.


When it says "if there be tongues, they shall cease" ---- it does not necessarily mean that the gift of tongues has ceased for the whole Christian church. It does not necessarily mean that God by the Spirit can still not give a particular person the gift and power of tongues today.

One way of looking at it is this: even if an individual is given the power or gift of tongues, it is temporary anyway and he will not always (continue to) speak in tongues.

So, "tongues shall cease" is not necessarily a dispensational thing; but can be seen as a realistic acceptance that the individual given the gift, at any time in history including today will not necessarily always have it. Even for the people in Acts, it is just recorded that they spoke in tongues the once, we don't know that they repeated it. The only hint we have that it could have been a repeated experience for some is Paul saying "I thank God I speak in tongues more than you all." However, even that does not suggest that it continued indefinitely for him.

One interesting thing so far on this thread is that the active participants seem to be agreed that the most prevalent practice today does not match what the Bible says.

cool
Christianity EtcRe: Where Does Bishop Oyedepo Get The Cash To Build All His PRIVATE ESTABLISHMENTS?? by Enigma(m): 11:44pm On May 10, 2012
@Bernimoore

With the background of slapping "witches for Jesus" etc, I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to also highlight two more things from the scriptures you quoted:

[size=14pt]- temperate

- not violent[/size]



cool
Christianity EtcRe: Is God Dead? by Enigma(m): 11:30pm On May 10, 2012
Yep, but we must first humble ourselves.

To be honest, "all" that we really need to know to relate with God are very simple.

The "intellectual" stuff are additions really; they can be very good if we handle them carefully; but they can be stumbling blocks if we handle them wrongly -------or if we fail to do the first thing i.e. to humble ourselves. smiley

cool
Christianity EtcRe: Is God Dead? by Enigma(m): 11:04pm On May 10, 2012
Cool smiley

We all have sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much to learn.

If only we all realise this . . . .

cool
Christianity EtcRe: Next Time You See Someone Speaking In Tongues In Church, Slap Them by Enigma(m): 10:53pm On May 10, 2012
Very good questions, Goshen. I offer one explanation, one viewpoint.

For the first question i.e. "no one understands": paint this scenario. I come to visit you in New York and we meet with you and your family/crew. We decide to 'fellowship' together. Then, I start to speak in Chinese. None of you and your family/crew understands Chinese; even I do not understand Chinese. But here I am, on the face of it, praising God in Chinese.

No one understands me! Even I do not understand; only God does!

You see now that in such a situation, I am uttering "mysteries" unto God? "Mysteries" as far as my company, your family/crew, is concerned; "mysteries" even as far as I myself am concerned. Only God understands the "mysteries".


To part 2 of question 1 i.e. praying in tongues: of course if I'm speaking to God, praising God, speaking His wonderful works ----- I am thus praying to God. If I do it in a language that I do not understand, e.g. Chinese, then of course my understanding is unfruitful since I do not even know what I am saying! The positive is that I am "edified"; I am uplifted, I am elated, that the Spirit is evident in me and has spoken through and in me.

There is a little key to understanding these points: Paul is concerned about what the people were seeking. He was saying the people should be more concerned with spiritual gifts that will benefit the whole assembly e.g. prophecy; that is what they should be seeking more to receive; and less so gifts that could only really benefit an individual or so among the assembly.

Bear in mind also, that Paul reminded them of the original purpose of "tongues" as first given in Acts ----------- to witness especially, though not only, to unbelievers! What real use was it then among the Corinthian church at that particular time that it was what people were seeking instead of gifts that would be more beneficial to the whole community?


To question 2 i.e. that the tongues in Acts was understood by men: but of course! It was human languages; foreign human languages --- at least as heard and understood by the people in Acts 2. In Acts 10 Peter confirmed that the tongues of Cornelius' household was as that of Acts 2 ---- thus we can conclude that that as well must have been human languages. We have no reason to believe that the tongues in Acts 19 was any different.

Turning to 1 Corinthians 14 --- if we bear in mind that the people were seeking to speak in tongues, and this is what Paul plays down, then the logic that the 1 Cor 14 tongues as well must be human languages is easy to follow. The people too were seeking to be able to speak foreign human languages; Paul plays it down in saying it is not a bad thing per se for them to seek that (i.e. to seek what happened in Acts) but that it is better for them to seek even higher spiritual gifts.

Hope this helps. smiley

cool
Christianity EtcRe: Next Time You See Someone Speaking In Tongues In Church, Slap Them by Enigma(m): 9:11pm On May 10, 2012
@Goshen360

Let us try one more exercise.

From verse 6 in 1 Cor 14, Paul was discouraging the people from seeking so much to speak in tongues (or at least he was discouraging them from abusing speaking in tongues).

Could you go through the chapter again and consider: which type of "tongues" was Paul speaking about in the chapter? Was it the tongues spoken as in Acts or was it the "unknown" tongues?


cool
Christianity EtcRe: Is God Dead? by Enigma(m): 8:02pm On May 10, 2012
Graffito somewhere or other:

"God is dead" - Nietzsche

"Nietzsche is dead" - God.
cool
Christianity EtcRe: Is God Dead? by Enigma(m): 7:24pm On May 10, 2012
Sorry, I'm not contributing anything of particular substance.

However @ Master 1, I suggest you google the words 'Alvin Platinga'. wink

cool
Christianity EtcRe: Next Time You See Someone Speaking In Tongues In Church, Slap Them by Enigma(m): 6:49pm On May 10, 2012
@Goshen360

Neither Paul nor any of the other apostles made this distinction you are making between tongues "spoken" and "unknown" tongues.

Let us start with the word "unknown". If you look carefully in the KJV the word "unknown" in the context of the gift of tongues is always written in brackets like this - [unknown]. Do you know why? Simple, the KJV added the word "unknown" for purported clarification. Check other Bible versions/translations and see if they all add the word "unknown".

For Paul and the apostles, as far as we can see, "tongues" was just "tongues". The evidence we have is that it refers to languages ---- languages that are not the [primary] languages of the person(s) given the gift of tongues. This is why I kept asking if the "unknown" tongues was 'languages' or not. As there is no distinction made by the apostles as to 'tongues' ----- just 'tongues' ---- and as the evidence we have is that the 'tongues' spoken by the early Christians refers to languages, the conclusion is that 'tongues' whether in Acts or in 1 Corinthians refers to languages.
'
The one quibble that someone can raise is the statement of Paul in 1 Cor 13 i.e. 'if I speak in the tongues of men or of angels'. Context suggests to us that he was speaking figuratively. Compare "if I swim the oceans or climb the mountains". There is no evidence or even indication that any of the early Christians spoke in the "tongue of angels". The only "tongues" they spoke were languages ------------ tongues of men.

Praying in the Spirit does not automatically mean praying in "tongues". The Spirit could even enable one's prayers in one's own language or 'tongue' e.g. Yoruba.

What I have said by no means suggests that the Spirit cannot still give a person the gift and power of tongues today. However, the picture I would expect would be of someone not previously knowing a foreign language being given the power and gift to speak that language in witness --- e.g. a Nigerian being given the gift and power to speak in say Chinese, Japanese or Arabic.

cool
Christianity EtcRe: Next Time You See Someone Speaking In Tongues In Church, Slap Them by Enigma(m):
So how do we know:

1. whether the tongues in Acts 10:46 were "spoken tongues" OR unknown tongues?

2. whether the tongues in Acts 19:6 were "spoken tongues" OR unknown tongues?

3. whether the tongues in 1 Corinthians were "spoken tongues" OR unknown tongues?


Also, please clarify where Paul or any other of the apostles made a distinction between "spoken tongues" and unknown tongues.

I realise I'm simply asking questions for now; I will also be happy to present another view of understanding "tongues".

cool
Christianity EtcRe: Next Time You See Someone Speaking In Tongues In Church, Slap Them by Enigma(m): 3:27pm On May 10, 2012
I read your post well, Goshen. smiley

I understand you are saying the tongues in Acts (edit including my two examples) were used to spread the gospel. But I have just shown you (my) two examples of "tongues" in the same Acts that were not used to spread the gospel!

Also, I still would be grateful (not compulsory of course) if you would answer this question: are unknown tongues also human languages?

cool

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 (of 198 pages)