Did you "receive Jesus" the Jesus way, or man's way?

[TallMan]

The Jesus way is:
At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. (John 14:20)

What day was that?
- the day they receive the Holy Spirit:-
v17Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it sees him not, neither knows him: but ye know him; for he dwells with you, and shall be in you.
v18I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

How did they know?
- by God's sign of speaking in tongues:-
they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance . . . Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear (Acts 2:4, 33)

Is there another way?
- no:-
For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call (Acts 2:39)

if he that comes preaches another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him (2 Cor.11:4)

[jlay]

They will know you are my disciples by your love for one another.

The spirit gave them utterance. That is how the spirit manifest itself at that time. I would not take that to mean that the sign of tongues was the only way to know one has the spirit of God. There are plenty of accounts in the NT of conversion that do not mention tongues. And we clearly know that tongues in Acts 2 was specifically Jews of the dispersion hearing the disciples in their OWN native language. Not something heard as babbling. I have never personally witnessed anyone speaking where those of different languages listening were able to understand in their own tongue. If you have I would enjoy your testimony.

[TallMan]

They will know you are my disciples by your love for one another.

Disciples are those who are disciplined to follow Jesus teaching, that begins by becoming born again.

Love requires getting salvation right as many who call Jesus Lord and who think they are active "church members" will be told "I never knew you".

The spirit gave them utterance. That is how the spirit manifest itself at that time. I would not take that to mean that the sign of tongues was the only way to know one has the spirit of God.

I wouldn't say the giving & receiving has changed since Acts time. It is wrong and completely un-disciplined to say so . . .

"Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto" (Gal.3:15)

Other covenants were marked with a specific sign, this one is no different.

Jude 3 speaks of "the common salvation (same for all), it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" - that faith was first delivered at Pentecost, Jude goes on to speak of those who don't have the Spirit and contrasts with those "beloved" who pray in the Spirit which 1 Cor. 14 identifies as praying in tongues.

The receiving of the promise is detailed and Peter then says (under influence of the Holy Spirit) that the same promise is to all who God shall call. If the tongues was for that time only he should have clearly said to avoid confusion, but they never did.

There are plenty of accounts in the NT of conversion that do not mention tongues.

You wouldn't treat any other piece of literature or personal narrative that way!
i.e. you wouldn't require the same detail to be repeated every time something is referred to.

People that say that because certain detail isn't repeated whenever salvation is mentioned and not believing what has previously been written.
Neither are they consistent as some accounts don't mention "repentance", "preaching the gospel", "receiving the Spirit" etc, things which they do say are needed.

And we clearly know that tongues in Acts 2 was specifically Jews of the dispersion hearing the disciples in their OWN native language. Not something heard as babbling. I have never personally witnessed anyone speaking where those of different languages listening were able to understand in their own tongue. If you have I would enjoy your testimony.

Acts 2 was unusual in that respect. There is no record of Peter recognising which languages were spoken in Acts 10, or Paul in Acts 19v6, yet it is described as the same phenomena:-

"For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" (Acts 10:46-47)

God united Jew and Gentile, putting no difference between them, all were graciously filled and knew precisely when, they spoke in tongues, which is "praying in the Spirit", something ALL Christians are to do (Romans 8:26, Eph.6:18).

There are many disciplined religious people about, but without the above, they are not following the Jesus of the bible, rather, "another Jesus" (2 Cor. 11:4) of their own, or someone else's imagination.

[rodyshusband]

I don't speak in tongues.
I suppose this means I'm going to hell.

[BavarianWheels]

I don't speak in tongues.
I suppose this means I'm going to hell.

I don't want to speak in gibberish...guess I "want" to go to hell.
.
.

[jlay]

Can you give me an example where you spoke in tongues as recorded in Acts 2, or witnessed such an event? If not, there really isn't a point in discussing.

You wouldn't treat any other piece of literature or personal narrative that way!
i.e. you wouldn't require the same detail to be repeated every time something is referred to.

Are you inferring that because tongues are mentioned in these verses that we are to form a doctrine that says salvation can not be accomplised outside of tongue speaking? So, is water baptism necessary for the remission of sins?

Could it be any clearer than Paul put in in 1 Cor 12?

27Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. 29Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues[d]? Do all interpret? 31But eagerly desire[e] the greater gifts

Yet you seem to infer that I can not be a part of it, because I have not spoke in tongues.
Never, not once, though Paul goes to great lenghts to discuss the innapropriate and appropriate use of tongues does Paul ever imply that it is "the" sign of salvation.

In fact Paul states clearly that, "The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. 13For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink." 1 Cor 12:13

One body, one spirit. Some may teach, some preach, some heal, some prophecy, etc. Yet you want to divide and say that salvation is not real apart from what you consider to be "tongues."

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8297/ptg.htm

[cslewislover]

I don't speak in tongues.
I suppose this means I'm going to hell.

I guess the only people that will be in heaven are the relatively small group that did so in the first century, and the relatively small group that does now, and that Christ's church that existed for the past 2000 years wasn't really his church after all.

Besides that, there was a thread where this was already being discussed, with long posts by me and others in there, which now Tallman can seem to ignore.

For anyone who was not following that other thread, it is here: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... &start=120

[TallMan]

I guess the only people that will be in heaven are the relatively small group that did so in the first century, and the relatively small group that does now, and that Christ's church that existed for the past 2000 years wasn't really his church after all.

The true followers have always been small relative to the masses who think they are God's people.

The church I'm in numbers about 60,000 worldwide, anyone who is baptised in the Spirit is in God's church, though many are not "walking in the Spirit", i.e. living the life.

Revelation 11 prophesies times, time and half a time of "no rain". People that understand prophesy know that this refers to 1260 years of no revival during the dark ages when the papacy burned bibles and them that produced them. The folly remains today as people think that this organisation and those in fellowship with her are Christ's church.

Besides that, there was a thread where this was already being discussed, with long posts by me and others in there, which now Tallman can seem to ignore.
For anyone who was not following that other thread, it is here: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... &start=120

Have you ignored the points I made?

[Byblos]

People that understand prophesy know that this refers to 1260 years of no revival during the dark ages when the papacy burned bibles and them that produced them.

Lately it seems I have been delegated to righting wrongs and correcting misconceptions but hey, whatever. Please read the following link first, then provide your own proof of the above statement.

Note the following paragraphs:

After the 14th century when English finally became the popular language of England, vernacular Bibles were used as vehicles for heretical propaganda. John Wycliffe, a dissentient priest, translated the Bible into English. Unfortunately his secretary, John Purvey, included a heretical prologue, as noted by St. Thomas More. Later William Tyndale translated the Bible into English complete with prologue and footnotes condemning Church doctrines and teachings. [2] St. Thomas More commented that searching for errors in the Tyndale Bible was similar to searching for water in the sea. Even King Henry VIII in 1531 condemned the Tyndale Bible as a corruption of Scripture. In the words of King Henry's advisors: "the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people, and not be suffered to go abroad among his subjects." [4] As food for thought, if the Wycliffe or Tyndale Bibles were so good, why do Protestants today not use them as they do the King James Bible?

One action that Catholic Christians pursued to stop this propaganda was to burn these books. Does this action make the Church anti-Bible? No. If it did, then the Protestants of this period were also anti-Bible. John Calvin, the main Protestant Reformer, in 1522, had as many copies as could be found of the Servetus Bible burned, since Calvin did not approve of it. Later Calvin had Michael Servetus himself burned at the stake for being a Unitarian. [5] In those days it was common practice on both sides to burn unapproved books. Finally it is one matter to destroy the real thing and another to destroy a counterfeit.

[TallMan]

. . Please read the following link first, then provide your own proof of the above statement.

I have provided proof from scripture and offer opportunity for you to meet a church like the one God set up in the new Testament where all members have received his Spirit & pray in tongues and where all the gifts are used in meetings like God "commands" in 1 Corinthians. You have ignored/rejected this, so you have a misconception of what a Christian is and what the church is!

- Until you amend this you simply cannot judge because you are blind to the spiritual murder that happens when people are falsely led to believe they are Christians when in fact they are following a words-only religion that leaves them without the Life that Jesus came to give.

One action that Catholic Christians pursued . .

hang on! How do you judge them to be Christians?
This talk sheds light on the material you have previously been immersed in.

[Byblos]

. . Please read the following link first, then provide your own proof of the above statement.

I have provided proof from scripture and offer opportunity for you to meet a church like the one God set up in the new Testament where all members have received his Spirit & pray in tongues and where all the gifts are used in meetings like God "commands" in 1 Corinthians. You have ignored/rejected this, so you have a misconception of what a Christian is and what the church is!

- Until you amend this you simply cannot judge because you are blind to the spiritual murder that happens when people are falsely led to believe they are Christians when in fact they are following a words-only religion that leaves them without the Life that Jesus came to give.

Ok, look tallman, first you need to quit preaching to the choir and stop proselytizing on a Christinan website. Second, you need to answer the question I posed to you instead of going on a million red herrings. Where is your proof that the papacy burnt bibles other than in the framework I provided, which is to burn books that were total heresies? If you don't have any (proof), it would behoove you to just admit that and move on.

One action that Catholic Christians pursued . .

hang on! How do you judge them to be Christians?
This talk sheds light on the material you have previously been immersed in.

No thanks. I have no interest in wasting my time or money on something I have no clue what it's about. Again, if you have something to say please state it. And by the way, you do realize that was a quote from the article I linked, not something I wrote myself, don't you? Please be careful how you attribute quotes. As for how I would judge them to be Christians, I do no such thing. I leave the judging to the Judge but I do give a lot of weight to church history. How long is your church been around?

[jlay]

I leave the judging to the Judge but I do give a lot of weight to church history. How long is your church been around?

Byblos, What if someone asked this of Paul, or Peter? That is a ridiculous accusation. Anyone who is trully Christian is from an eternal church. Not because of some big fancy buildings in Vatican City, or any other city for that matter, or a date on a calendar. A Christian is connected directly to Christ, not through a religious hiararchy. One is not Christian because they belong to an old organization. I can see that on judgment day. "Why should you be accpeted in to heaven?" "because I'm a Roman Catholic and its old." You may say, that is not what you believe, but I would refrain from using arguments such as, "how long has your church been around?" to prove anything. That has nothing to do with the truth of scripture.

Further, based on your sources, I think you have a very obscured view of the time of the reformation. And it sounds as if your material is trying to revise a bit of history to white was over the failings and atrocities of the RCC.

Later Calvin had Michael Servetus himself burned at the stake for being a Unitarian.

This leaves a lot of info out.

if the Wycliffe or Tyndale Bibles were so good, why do Protestants today not use them as they do the King James Bible?

It would be unreadable. Particularly Wycliffe. The English language as we know it was actually shaped by these men. The English we speak was a far cry from the English of that time. Much of Tyndale's work found its way into the King James.


Tallman. What is your scriptural proof that there is a church where, "all members pray in tongues" ?

[Byblos]

I leave the judging to the Judge but I do give a lot of weight to church history. How long is your church been around?

Byblos, What if someone asked this of Paul, or Peter? That is a ridiculous accusation. Anyone who is trully Christian is from an eternal church. Not because of some big fancy buildings in Vatican City, or any other city for that matter, or a date on a calendar. A Christian is connected directly to Christ, not through a religious hiararchy. One is not Christian because they belong to an old organization. I can see that on judgment day. "Why should you be accpeted in to heaven?" "because I'm a Roman Catholic and its old." You may say, that is not what you believe, but I would refrain from using arguments such as, "how long has your church been around?" to prove anything. That has nothing to do with the truth of scripture.

I disagree with nothing you said here. I didn't mean to imply that membership in any particular 'church' guarantees anything. In fact I said the exact opposite in a different thread. The point I was trying to make in appealing to church history is an appeal to just that, history, nothing else. But point well taken and apologies if I didn't make myself clearer.

Further, based on your sources, I think you have a very obscured view of the time of the reformation. And it sounds as if your material is trying to revise a bit of history to white was over the failings and atrocities of the RCC.

Later Calvin had Michael Servetus himself burned at the stake for being a Unitarian.

This leaves a lot of info out.

if the Wycliffe or Tyndale Bibles were so good, why do Protestants today not use them as they do the King James Bible?

It would be unreadable. Particularly Wycliffe. The English language as we know it was actually shaped by these men. The English we speak was a far cry from the English of that time. Much of Tyndale's work found its way into the King James.

We all read history with a certain amount of prejudice, for or against. Perhaps you're right that a lot of information is missing but it doesn't change the fact that bible burning wasn't indigenous to the catholic church and that there were legitimate reasons for it (on both sides). As for the failings and atrocities, maybe we can discuss that in a different thread some day.

[jlay]

It would be interesting to start a thread about the failings of the church, regardless of denomination.

The most important lesson is the one we learn from Jesus. Jesus had a big problem with THE church. There was nothing more church than the Scribes and Pharisees. They had that church thing down pat.

The Pharisees made a very similar argument to the "age/ lineage" of the church. Jesus called them blind leaders of the blind. Matt 15:14
I love the dialog in John 8. "We are Abraham's decendents." (v 33)
John the Baptist even said that God could make sons of Abraham out of stones. Matt 3:9

Back to my question.
Tallman. What is your scriptural reference that THE church is where, "all members pray in tongues" ?

[TallMan]

. . .Ok, look tallman, first you need to quit preaching to the choir and stop proselytizing on a Christinan website.

To be in the choir you would first need to be a faithful member of The Church. I know many people who are and I don't explain matters of salvation to them, I don't need to, they have already accepted and received the things I wrote to you about.

So, first you need to see that you are not a faithful member of the church Jesus set up.

Second, you need to answer the question I posed to you instead of going on a million red herrings. Where is your proof that the papacy burnt bibles other than in the framework I provided, which is to burn books that were total heresies? If you don't have any (proof), it would behoove you to just admit that and move on.

This is history that even school children are taught!
"All Protestants who refused to convert to Catholicism were to be burnt. One of the first to go to the stake was John Rogers who had translated Tynedale's Bible into English. The Bishops, Nicholas Ridley, Hugh Latimer and Thomas Cranmer followed soon afterwards. In all Mary was responsible for the burnings of 227 men and 56 women, mostly in the South East of England." from here.

The link I gave you goes into more detail but you said you have "no interest" claiming "no clue" what it's about!!!!

How long is your church been around?

We got going in the late 1950s as people realised that established religion was not interested in the new life people were finding following the infilling of God's Spirit. People didn't need men to teach them, they were all taught of God and had a unity they never found before.