Search results

Thank you. That makes sense, and I do agree with it.

Sorry. My intention was not to cast a bad light on the AoG. I went to one here in St. Pete for a year or two.

Correction: I should have stipulated this part more clearly. The AoG moved away from Onness some time ago. From the web: However, it was not the Oneness baptismal formula which proved the divisive issue between Oneness advocates and other Pentecostals, but rather their rejection of the...

Check out the words at 1:45, or so.

This might get you a start (if it works)...

It is a strict section of the Pentecostal belief... mainly in some Assemblies of God Churches.

This is something I have been preaching since the mid-eighties...….. and still, almost no one wants to hear it. (In 24 years, only 5 people in St. Petersburg joined me in my efforts.)

Unfortunately, I think you will find that it is the imposing of Legalism and regulation in almost any fundamentalistically restrictive religion that brings out much of this deviant sexual behavior. And that truly knows no denominational bounds.

You don't really want us to go back over everyone's posts here (including yours) and see if that rings true, do you?

An absolutely correct interpretation of the passage...…. although I doubt anyone ever manages to really walk Righteously.

And all that verbosity means.... what?

I think it is only mentioned one time in the entire Bible. How many meanings could it have?

I don't think my question was very hard to understand. I asked if anyone had "ever looked up a photograph of Armageddon." Nothing more and nothing less.

Does "If you have given a cup of water to the least of these in my name...…" mean that each cup of water given would be a useless kindness in God's eyes, meaning nothing, if you did not also say that you "were doing this in Jesus' name" as you proffered the water?

And if I asked you "Are you even a Christian?" (which I am NOT asking), would that be nothing more than me merely asking a casual question?

The Legalism you want to impose upon people is what is "so offensive."

Uh.... every single one of the Apostles, and Jesus too, was a Jew.... not a Gentile. And, who are the billions of descendants Abraham was promised?

Fish, Jesus did not come to give men even more and more "Laws" that they would then have to be sure to also do "just right", or else be just as damned as they already were under the old system that His sacrifice of Himself replaced.

Thank you. He seems to be a little sensitive, and probably has an axe to grind with me because I have disagreed with some things he said in the past.

"No." My post was about us making some sort of "law" that whenever we do ANY of those things, it becomes a requirement that the action has to be accompanied with the verbal uttering of a certain name.