Search results

Read CLOSELY AND CAREFULLY the account in Acts 9 and Acts 22. Read it all. Below are extracts that pertain to this discussion. Acts 9:12 12And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight. Acts 9:17-18 17And Ananias went...

He received the Holy Ghost upon his baptism which is exactly what annanias did after his sight was restored. Acts 2:38 tells you that plainly. When you're baptized you receive the indwelling of Holy Ghost. Acts 22 once again made it clear that Paul received his sight by annanias laying on of his...

He received the Holy Ghost upon his baptism which is exactly what Annanias did after his sight was restored. Acts 2:38 tells you that plainly. When you're baptized you receive the indwelling of Holy Ghost. Acts 22 once again made it clear that Paul received his sight by Annanias laying on of his...

We've been in the end times for 2,000 years.

No. Absolutely no. Read the next verse in Acts 9 "18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized." This is where he received the gift of the Holy Ghost as we do today in accordance with Acts 2:38 And you're...

You obviously didn't read it carefully. Read what Ananias said versus what Paul said. Bottom line, Ananias put his hands on Paul so that he could receive his vision only, and not to receive a miraculous gift of the Spirit. He was then baptized at which point he did receive the gift of the Holy...

Your understanding of Ananias is a bit flawed. You must read carefully the words of the Ananias event on Acts 17, AND, Paul's recount of the event in Acts 22 There's a difference in them. See what was said in Paul's recount. I suggest you read the entirety of both scriptures...

The imparting of miraculously manifested gifts of the Spirit required the laying on of the apostle's hands. Only 2 instances in scripture that the Spirit fell on people without laying on of the apostle's hands and that was Acts 2 and Acts 10, and in both cases the church was established and the...

It's not the size that's the issue, but the type and nature of the "church". If its one of those famous ones like on TV where the preacher is a multimillionaire flying around on private jets, then there's something wrong.

You're correct, it also means to dip, plunge, etc.

You can debate if you like, but the church pattern is right before our eyes in the NT scriptures. And for the most part, the real church has been shrinkong and will continue to, as is the evidence here in the states, with the mega-churches growing in size and popularity. Why? It should be obvious.

Pro choice and Christianity are incompatible. But, you can be a Christian and be errant ir have errant views based on such things as ignorance, being ill informed, etc.

Mega, small? Wrong question and concern. Truth and true church, or false and phony church should be the question and concern.

That statement also makes zero sense. Baptism is Baptism. The bible is clear, tge Greek language is clear, and I'm simply parroting what the BIBLE says. Wrong?? How can it be?? It ain't.

For the record and to correct people that don't understand the scriptures correctly regarding the falling of the Holy Ghost in Acts 2 and 10, these are the only instances where the Spirit fell as such on anyone without the laying on of the apostle's hands, and in both cases it was for a sign...

Goodbye

This ain't worth discussing with you. Goodbye

You are delusional

Proves absolutely zero or less! Nowhere does it say there is more than one gospel. NOWHERE! You are dreaming a bunch of nonsense. Who was tge 1st to baptize a Gentile? And what message was it, and it did include baptism? Hint: It wasn't Paul.

Paul wasn't sent to the Gentiles with a different message he was simply called out for that work mission, like an ambassador. Same message different messenger.