The verse in 1 Corinthians 13 that contains the phrase "if I speak in the tongues of men and angels" isn't saying that we can speak in a Heavenly language. What Paul is saying is if he could talk in a language that only angels spoke and understood but didn't have love for his fellow man, it would be in vain.
Where in the Bible does anyone "sing in the Spirit?" Ditto "groaning in the Spirit?"
Where in the Bible is smoke a sign of the presence of God?
Satan is the God of this world system. However, Jesus Christ bought back the world, as in the planet on the cross with His blood.
We pray for things because God wants our participation. He does things, but our duty in this matter is to ask Him first. The Bible does also say God can do nothing on His own initiative, either can't or doesn't, I forget what the verse actually says.
The Lord knows the things we need before we ask so we shouldn't pray for the necesities of life. The phrase in the Lord's prayer "give us this day our daily bread" means "give us our Spiritual bread, knowledge and wisdom and understanding from God."
Hagan twists the verse about "in the mouth of two or three witnesses let all things be established" to mean that if you can twist two or three scriptures or one scripture and a so-called word from the Lord then that proves what you're saying.
Where in the Bible does it say you'll know when your done praying when you have a "note of victory?"
Acts 2 38 means that when you repent and are baptised you'll have the Holy Spirit. It is not referring to a "baptism of the Holy Spirit" where one of the initial signs is speaking in tongues.
If these tongues that these Pentacostals speak in are "God's language", then wouldn't they have common words? Someone should study a whole bunch of these different tongues. I'd suspect they wouldn't find a common word in even two of them. If tongues in Heavenly language are talking to God, shouldn't they all have a common word meaning "the Most High God" like the tetrogrammaton?
I suspect some if not many of the stories Hagan told were apocryphal.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
INTERNET STUFF
A few cool sites to tell you about today.
First, Drummer World, a community of drummers where you can see tutorials, discuss drumming techniques and listen to drum solos.
Next, Bangla Music. At first the broken English makes it look like a spam site, but I can assure you it's legit. Listen to a huge selection of music from Bangladesh. The A category has over three gigs of stuff in it alone.
Next, Digital Podcast. Same thing with the site above as far as the broken English making it appear fishy at first, but a really good site. A directory with over 2000 pages of podcasts. That's right, not over 2000 podcasts listed, but over 2000 pages of listings.
First, Drummer World, a community of drummers where you can see tutorials, discuss drumming techniques and listen to drum solos.
Next, Bangla Music. At first the broken English makes it look like a spam site, but I can assure you it's legit. Listen to a huge selection of music from Bangladesh. The A category has over three gigs of stuff in it alone.
Next, Digital Podcast. Same thing with the site above as far as the broken English making it appear fishy at first, but a really good site. A directory with over 2000 pages of podcasts. That's right, not over 2000 podcasts listed, but over 2000 pages of listings.
Monday, October 29, 2012
LEE STROBEL CONTINUES TO BE A DISAPPOINTMENT
In a chapter in "The Case for the Real Jesus", Strobel interviews a professor about whether Christianity came from Mythrism. The issue of Mythrus and Jesus both being born on December 25 comes up. The professor says Jesus was possibly born on January 6. Of course the professor can't say Jesus was born in the fall because this might lead Christians into finding out about the pagan origins of Christmas.
In the next chapter, Strobel interviews a Jew who supposedly converted to Christianity. (Whether he actually is saved only God knows.) The Jewish scholar uses the unholy name for Jesus when that's not actually how the ancient Hebrews would have pronounced it.
In the next chapter, Strobel interviews a Jew who supposedly converted to Christianity. (Whether he actually is saved only God knows.) The Jewish scholar uses the unholy name for Jesus when that's not actually how the ancient Hebrews would have pronounced it.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
SEVEN REASONS WHY THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM IS BAD
1. It's designed to make everything boring and make children not want to learn.
2. It's one size fits all learning when, in fact, everyone learns differently. When the public school system's theory proves not to be true, the child who learns differently is labelled as stupid or disabled.
3. Your kids have to be in with the riff raff. Let's face it. It's government-run, so it's open to everyone, including the children of parents who send their kids to school half-dressed, without manners and without proper teaching on how to behave.
4. It creates the idea of the school as a hangout. All these children are sent to school and become accustomed to the school as a focal point for getting to know people. Many people go through school, get out into the real world and have no way of making friends because there isn't an environment with people there own age sharing a common experience anymore. Many of these people also have trouble making friends with people of different ages because they've been used to people in the same age group for years and years.
5. It creates an environment where children are taught by other children they always have to have the latest thing and be "cool" according to the other children's definition of cool.
6. The emphasis is on things happening at scheduled times rather than things getting done. In the real world, the focus of work most often is to get something done by a certain date. In the workplace, if you can't get something done by the end of the day, you stay and work overtime.
7. Conversely, if you do manage to get your work done within the period, you can't move onto the next thing planned for the day because you have to wait for the other students and the end of the class.
2. It's one size fits all learning when, in fact, everyone learns differently. When the public school system's theory proves not to be true, the child who learns differently is labelled as stupid or disabled.
3. Your kids have to be in with the riff raff. Let's face it. It's government-run, so it's open to everyone, including the children of parents who send their kids to school half-dressed, without manners and without proper teaching on how to behave.
4. It creates the idea of the school as a hangout. All these children are sent to school and become accustomed to the school as a focal point for getting to know people. Many people go through school, get out into the real world and have no way of making friends because there isn't an environment with people there own age sharing a common experience anymore. Many of these people also have trouble making friends with people of different ages because they've been used to people in the same age group for years and years.
5. It creates an environment where children are taught by other children they always have to have the latest thing and be "cool" according to the other children's definition of cool.
6. The emphasis is on things happening at scheduled times rather than things getting done. In the real world, the focus of work most often is to get something done by a certain date. In the workplace, if you can't get something done by the end of the day, you stay and work overtime.
7. Conversely, if you do manage to get your work done within the period, you can't move onto the next thing planned for the day because you have to wait for the other students and the end of the class.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
THE TRUTH ABOUT CHRISTMAS
Christmas is the ancient pagan winter solstice festival dressed up in Christian garb. It was instituted by Constantine in AD 336.
The symbols associated with Christmas all have their routes in paganism. A little research will confirm this.
Nowhere in the Bible are we commanded to celebrate the birth of Christ.
Now ask yourself, is it right to take something that is inherently sinful, like a pagan holiday, and celebrate it as Jesus' birthday?
Our Saviour said "a good tree bareth good fruit and a bad tree bareth bad fruit." Here is some of the bad fruit Christmas bares, notwithstanding people who have been saved by Christmas sermons who wouldn't have been reached any other way and the token charitable deeds that are done at that time of year.
1. All the stress and hassle that comes with Christmas shopping.
2. People who can barely afford food and heat will go without those things because they are obligated to buy Christmas presents.
3. All the stress that goes along with planning and preparing for the holidays in general.
4. The fact you can't escape it. You hear about it year round anymore.
5. The fact you can't get anything done. Every single thing you, your spouse or children are involved with has a Christmas party.
6. The increased rates of depression and suicide. (Mental health professionals, don't tell me the rates are the same year-round. I know I get more emotional around the holidays.)
7. All the humiliating moments, family fights and drunkenness associated with the Christmas season.
The symbols associated with Christmas all have their routes in paganism. A little research will confirm this.
Nowhere in the Bible are we commanded to celebrate the birth of Christ.
Now ask yourself, is it right to take something that is inherently sinful, like a pagan holiday, and celebrate it as Jesus' birthday?
Our Saviour said "a good tree bareth good fruit and a bad tree bareth bad fruit." Here is some of the bad fruit Christmas bares, notwithstanding people who have been saved by Christmas sermons who wouldn't have been reached any other way and the token charitable deeds that are done at that time of year.
1. All the stress and hassle that comes with Christmas shopping.
2. People who can barely afford food and heat will go without those things because they are obligated to buy Christmas presents.
3. All the stress that goes along with planning and preparing for the holidays in general.
4. The fact you can't escape it. You hear about it year round anymore.
5. The fact you can't get anything done. Every single thing you, your spouse or children are involved with has a Christmas party.
6. The increased rates of depression and suicide. (Mental health professionals, don't tell me the rates are the same year-round. I know I get more emotional around the holidays.)
7. All the humiliating moments, family fights and drunkenness associated with the Christmas season.
Friday, October 26, 2012
LEE STROBEL IS CRUISIN FOR A BRUISIN
So in "The Case For The Real Jesus" Strobel interviews a Biblical scholar with the last name of Wallace who says certain things about some Biblical passages.
The scholar says the story of the woman caught in adultery was added into John's gospel by a later writer and cannot be trusted as far as details. Well, maybe Luke wrote the passage but was not inspired to put it in his gospel. John later got ahold of it and included it in his gospel, adding the specific details. John was one of Jesus' disciples, so he either would have been there or he could have asked other witnesses.
Wallace says that the detail of the sin being adultery is not verifiable. Logically, though, the sin the woman was caught in had to be adultery because that's the only capital offense that falls outside of one's body, that is, that involves multiple persons. One thing that I think is quite inferable from the passage is that the woman's accusers were all guilty as well.
Wallace says the verses at the end of Mark 16 weren't included in the original manuscripts, but were added later based on incidents from Acts. Well, who's being like atheists and putting the cart before the horse now, Strobel and Wallace? Also, where would the writer get the sign of drinking poison if it weren't originally in Mark's gospel? There is no example of that sign taking place in Acts.
Wallace says Mark 1 41 should read Jesus was moved with anger, not compassion, but this is utterly stupid and ridiculous on it's face, contextually speaking. This leper comes to Jesus and says that if it's Jesus' will, Jesus can make him clean. Jesus heals the leper and basically says that it is His will and the leper is clean. Why would Jesus be angry in that situation?
Most difficult, and, in the end, damningly on Wallace and Strobel's part, however, is the assertion that 1 John 5 7-8 is not actually part of the Bible. Wallace says the verses were taken from a homily in the eighth century, but less than an hour's research on the internet turns up that these verses were referred to and even directly quoted in the third, fourth and fifth centuries. For example, Cyprian alludes to these verses by including the words "these three are one" in one of his writings on the trinity, and he reportedly also quotes the passage directly in another one of his writings.
Wallace angrily laments the ignorance in the church today when referring to 1 John 5 7-8, but who is being willingly or unwillingly ignorant? Are Strobel and Wallace possibly not ignorant but deliberately misleading?
The scholar says the story of the woman caught in adultery was added into John's gospel by a later writer and cannot be trusted as far as details. Well, maybe Luke wrote the passage but was not inspired to put it in his gospel. John later got ahold of it and included it in his gospel, adding the specific details. John was one of Jesus' disciples, so he either would have been there or he could have asked other witnesses.
Wallace says that the detail of the sin being adultery is not verifiable. Logically, though, the sin the woman was caught in had to be adultery because that's the only capital offense that falls outside of one's body, that is, that involves multiple persons. One thing that I think is quite inferable from the passage is that the woman's accusers were all guilty as well.
Wallace says the verses at the end of Mark 16 weren't included in the original manuscripts, but were added later based on incidents from Acts. Well, who's being like atheists and putting the cart before the horse now, Strobel and Wallace? Also, where would the writer get the sign of drinking poison if it weren't originally in Mark's gospel? There is no example of that sign taking place in Acts.
Wallace says Mark 1 41 should read Jesus was moved with anger, not compassion, but this is utterly stupid and ridiculous on it's face, contextually speaking. This leper comes to Jesus and says that if it's Jesus' will, Jesus can make him clean. Jesus heals the leper and basically says that it is His will and the leper is clean. Why would Jesus be angry in that situation?
Most difficult, and, in the end, damningly on Wallace and Strobel's part, however, is the assertion that 1 John 5 7-8 is not actually part of the Bible. Wallace says the verses were taken from a homily in the eighth century, but less than an hour's research on the internet turns up that these verses were referred to and even directly quoted in the third, fourth and fifth centuries. For example, Cyprian alludes to these verses by including the words "these three are one" in one of his writings on the trinity, and he reportedly also quotes the passage directly in another one of his writings.
Wallace angrily laments the ignorance in the church today when referring to 1 John 5 7-8, but who is being willingly or unwillingly ignorant? Are Strobel and Wallace possibly not ignorant but deliberately misleading?
Thursday, October 25, 2012
LEE STROBEL AND CATHOLICISM
In "The Case for Faith", Strobel interviews John D. Woodbridge.
Woodbridge says the Albigensians were heretics, when actually the Albegensians knew the Bible better than Catholic priests.
Woodbridge also downplays the Crusades, even though they fit with the Catholic church's usual way of rising up in the flesh and were brought about by the direct orders of the Pope.
Woodbridge also downplays the severity of the Inquisition and neglects to mention that Rome has continued to do such things up to at least the twentieth century, and the twenty-first, according to YouTuber Nicholas POGM.
Additionally, Woodbridge says "you can't be a Christian and be anti-Semetic." He says Jesus' disciples were all Jewish, even though they had no genetic relation to the people we call Jews today.
Woodbridge also attributes Luther's anti-Jewishness to leg pains or some ridiculous thing in the reformer's later years. However, Luther read the Talmud and knew what the Jews were.
In "The Case for a Creator", Strobel interviews two scholars who say Galileo was threatened with being burned at the stake for making fun of the Pope. Even if this were true, it would still be inexcusable.
Woodbridge says the Albigensians were heretics, when actually the Albegensians knew the Bible better than Catholic priests.
Woodbridge also downplays the Crusades, even though they fit with the Catholic church's usual way of rising up in the flesh and were brought about by the direct orders of the Pope.
Woodbridge also downplays the severity of the Inquisition and neglects to mention that Rome has continued to do such things up to at least the twentieth century, and the twenty-first, according to YouTuber Nicholas POGM.
Additionally, Woodbridge says "you can't be a Christian and be anti-Semetic." He says Jesus' disciples were all Jewish, even though they had no genetic relation to the people we call Jews today.
Woodbridge also attributes Luther's anti-Jewishness to leg pains or some ridiculous thing in the reformer's later years. However, Luther read the Talmud and knew what the Jews were.
In "The Case for a Creator", Strobel interviews two scholars who say Galileo was threatened with being burned at the stake for making fun of the Pope. Even if this were true, it would still be inexcusable.
Also, the two scholars say Galileo's persecution didn't really have anything to do with his teaching that the Earth revolved around the sun and that other scientists weren't killed for believing this. What, then, about the quote in "Fifty Years in the Church of Rome" where a scholar who lived around the same time as the famous scientist is quoted to the effect that he believes what Galileo teaches but can't publicly acknowledge it's truth or he'll be killed?
Of course Zondervan knows that if they appeal to the Catholics they'll sell a lot more books.
Of course Zondervan knows that if they appeal to the Catholics they'll sell a lot more books.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)