Yep...this is the Stan I know.
StanJ said:
You should know if you actually did so all you're doing here is equivocating some more. You didn't deal with it nor are you answering the questions you're being presented with.
I actually did so. But no matter. I'm not going to argue with you about it.
John the Baptist made it very clear that he was to baptize with water and Jesus was baptized with the Holy Spirit. The baptism started in Acts 4:2. Why you choose to ignore this rather than embrace it is beyond me. It is not true that every Christian receives the Holy Spirit unless they are baptized in the Holy Spirit.
Here is what John the Baptist actually said:
Luk 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all,
I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire
He was talking about Jesus Christ, of course. In other words, when you are baptized into Christ, you are baptized with the Holy Ghost and with fire.
There sure is and it's exemplified at least 4 times in the book of Acts. When was the last time you actually read the book of Acts?
You mean we see the Holy Spirit giving his gifts as He wills?
I'm always honest with you and with everyone else so I'm not really quite sure what you're insinuating here?
I'm also not sure what you mean by we've known each other for several months? We discuss in an open forum, and that doesn't mean you know me and it sure doesn't mean I know you. I can reasonably assume based on my thoughts that have been expressed as well as others, that you have a very poor grasp an understanding scripture and that always gets you in trouble because of your desire to belittle and try to prove yourself when others prove you wrong. If you don't want to be proved wrong then don't make fallacious assertions. I'm glad that derogatory comment that you made about Pentecostals was removed, but there was no reason you should have made that at all, except that it is consistent with how you handle being proven wrong. You have several times in the past expressed open disdain for any kind of spiritual charisma shown by people even though you cannot refute it through scripture. Seems he would rather emulate the Pharisees than emulate Jesus?
That's right...you get cranky whenever anyone is friendly toward you. You do not like being called "brother", and will get openly hostile if anyone dares to call you "Hun".
Oh, and just so that you know, I picked up that term from an angry Pentecostal who was feeling rather hostile at the moment.
As far as I have seen, you have yet to "prove me wrong", although I'm quite sure you think that you have.
I have expressed open disdain for what is obviously fake, however, I have great respect for those who are truly gifted, rare though they are.
I have no idea who "he" is...nor, I suspect, do you.
Let's just stick with what the Bible says and not deflect by going to books written by men. You're down home school marm time doesn't really work here despite your repeated attempts. All that does is sound hokie, and when you say a whole lot of stuff like this and don't make a point it's just a waste of web space.
Too complicated for you? The point was, it doesn't really matter whether the Law is written on tablets of stone, or in the heart....it is the same law.
Just as surely as "Alice in Wonderland" is the same book whether it is written on paper or downloaded to your computer.
No that is not what you've been saying all along. You might have said it here but in essence what you been advocating is that we follow the old Covenant law in the New Covenant and that's why you're being refuted.
What I am saying is that God's laws did not change from one Covenant to the other.
No, we are to obey God, what don't you get about NEW Covenant?
How about you go through the Ten Commandments and explain to me exactly why we don't need to obey them. Take each one of them, one at a time, and explain why it is no longer needed.
Despite your crudeness here you're just avoiding the issue. One thing I have learned is that you are an expert at avoiding the issue.
Trying to find some way of putting it that you are not offended by is "avoiding the issue"?
Wait...considering who I'm dealing with, I suppose, in a sense, it is.
I have no idea what you're talking about now as I said nothing about 10 words. Also where exactly does the bible say that the Ten Commandments are immutable within the context of the New Covenant? The fact is without those laws and without the old Covenant there exists Christianity. From the very beginning there have always been people have tried to bring in Old Covenant laws to Christianity and they have been constantly refuted and rejected. You are no different than any of your counterparts that were converted at the time of Christ. You don't understand that new is not the same as old.
I'm not even going to bother myself trying to figure out what the devil you're talking about, let alone try to answer you here.
In fact, I think it would be best if I put you back in the ignore drawer. If I keep trying to talk to you, sooner or later you will do what you are so very good at...you will manipulate me into losing my temper and saying something that you can then report me for. Not this time Stan, dear.
Now, it's past this old lady's bed time, and it wouldn't hurt an old gentleman like yourself to close his weary eyes for an hour or so, as well.
Good night, God bless you....and I will not be talking to you tomorrow.