Jesus never said he was God Almighty

[bbyrd009]

Never said that...God REQUIRES blood as payment for sin.

so you say, but cannot Quote, wadr

 

[bbyrd009]

You may very well be with him on this, because you know what he's saying. I haven't a clue whether I agree with anything he says, yet. But you've learned his "language." It is too new to me.

It's too new too me also. In fact it generally makes no sense.

wadr if "i don't think you can Quote 'Holy Bible' except in English" makes no sense to you then it's prolly better if we don't talk anyway, might even be a sign, God warning you or something, protecting you maybe. No sin in that i guess

 

[Nancy]

so you say, but cannot Quote, wadr

Hebrews 9:22 " And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission."

 

[bbyrd009]

So one has to regard the Bible as a Holy books

this is how we get to "Easter is Holy" and "Jesus is God" i guess.
You might contemplate that you are literally telling ppl what they have to do up there?
Iow you have just made a Law, do you understand the consequences of making Laws for others?

what is the penalty for disobeying this Law? Even if it is only implied?
bc there is a penalty right; it is implicit, and we all more or less know what it is already

if i found the spot where God is specifically talking about scribes, and how they will translate to suit the buyers would that help any?

 

[bbyrd009]

Hebrews 9:22 " And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission."

we are freed from the law of sin and death, Nancy. Now someone might still want to kill you for lying, but they cannot legally do that under the law any more, like they used to be able to do. That "law" up there is not "the Decalogue," as Lex will tell you (it is "nomos")
"I desire mercy, not sacrifice"

 

[Nancy]

"...and without shedding of blood is no remission." After Jesus, there is no more need for a blood sacrifice..."once for all..."

 

[bbyrd009]

"...and without shedding of blood is no remission." After Jesus, there is no more need for a blood sacrifice..."once for all..."

oh daughter of Jerusalem, do not find love until you are ready

 

[Nancy]

"...and without shedding of blood is no remission." After Jesus, there is no more need for a blood sacrifice..."once for all..."

MATT. 26:58 "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

oh daughter of Jerusalem, do not find love until you are ready

 

[Nancy]

oh daughter of Jerusalem, do not find love until you are ready

And...when I am ready, I will Tell him I am faint with love. swoons

 

[bbyrd009]

MATT. 26:58 "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

what "blood" was He referring to there, Nancy, that was "My" blood? Bc no one was drinking Jesus' blood right then, and that is not what Jesus was even offering them, was it. See, you are being fed lines that you may interpret more than one way bc Christ is speaking dialectically there. Wine--the blood of the grape--has a symbolic meaning, which i'm sure you are even aware of right.

but nevermind that for now, let's take Jesus literally there; "this (the "blood of the grape") is the blood of my new testament." Now you can certainly Transubstantiate if you like, but imo Christ chose grapes over oranges--the "blood" of the orange, see that works too--for a reason, and also did not cut Himself and offer any real blood for a reason; and i guess being Christ He could have just sweated some or whatever, wouldn't have been a problem right.

All kinds of logical ways Jesus could have proceeded there, but He chose none of them, imo for the same reason that we cannot Quote "God requires blood for sin." Bc neither one is true

 

[bbyrd009]

i guess i didn't mean that the way you took it, my apologies

And...when I am ready, I will Tell him I am faint with love. swoons

ya, no, def not what i meant. Imo pls take the other one personally, the Ordained Ppl telling you that Jesus said to drink His Blood, get offended at that lie if you want, the other i did not mean for you personally

 

[Nancy]

what "blood" was He referring to there, Nancy, that was "My" blood? Bc no one was drinking Jesus' blood right then, and that is not what Jesus was even offering them, was it. See, you are being fed lines that you may interpret more than one way bc Christ is speaking dialectically there. Wine--the blood of the grape--has a symbolic meaning, which i'm sure you are even aware of right.

but nevermind that for now, let's take Jesus literally there; "this (the "blood of the grape") is the blood of my new testament." Now you can certainly Transubstantiate if you like, but imo Christ chose grapes over oranges--the "blood" of the orange, see that works too--for a reason, and also did not cut Himself and offer any real blood for a reason; and i guess being Christ He could have just sweated some or whatever, wouldn't have been a problem right.

All kinds of logical ways Jesus could have proceeded there, but He chose none of them, imo for the same reason that we cannot Quote "God requires blood for sin." Bc neither one is true

Well, He was referring to His own blood about to be shed for the remission of sins...the wine of course, is symbolic of His own perfect blood sacrifice. Yes, he could have just cut his arm and "bled" but, He needed to die. I don't claim to know allot, and I do read and consider others posts. Maybe I should have simply said the price of sin is death? Dunno...you make good points @bbyrd009.

 

[Taken]

Did Jesus speak and claim he was divine, let alone God Almighty? A clear resounding No! This something to ponder over.

Jesus said in plain view he was the son of man and never a divine being.

Can we believe scripture or not, or shall we believe in several noted early writers that provided their own opinions and concluded for Jesus Christ, that he was not only divine, but also God himself? Is there a dilemma here?

These early writers evidently had a real impact into the 4th century when Constantine and the bishops voted that Jesus was indeed God and divine?

Image you are a visitor from Mars with much more intellect and led by the spirit of God. You lay all this data out in front of you to search for the truth of Jesus the Lord and Savior from Earth. Would you conclude and side with these mentioned early writers or the God-breathed words of God?

Is it that most people, including these early writers wanted to believe that for Jesus to succeed n his mission on earth and never sin he MUST HAVE BEEN GOD and then is GOD TODAY, even though it does not make any sense at all. Is Jesus in heaven today God Almighty or not? We cannot change our minds if we said he was GOD on earth and then say he is not now. He is at the right side of God Almighty is he not? So how do we reconcile this apparent dilemma?

Is this logical scriptural thinking?

Once a lie or err is introduced even well-intentioned, it grows with more forced errors to support the base lie.

My thinking and logic is, it went down as at least a six-layered structure of errors with a lot of frosting built on sand:

1. The early writers were in error about Jesus and gave their personal opinions about what they thought Jesus was, his nature. Once this error gained momentum it eventually gained official approval as fact, especially by the 4th century.

Since then, it (Jesus = God) had to be defended with a vengeance for the credibility of the entire fledgling religious movement.

2. So, the supporters of this err had to invent the concept of incarnation to say God birthed himself into a human being. A wild concept. Sounds pagan.

3. Then the concept of hypostasis was invented to now say Jesus was both divine and human, the fusing of two natures as one spirit.

Now they had to glue it somehow to scripture to give it the appearance as truth.

4. They had to find some part of scripture as its touchstone of their newly acquired lie. They forced a new meaning into John 1:1-2 and the FIRST part of John 1:14 to add a new secondary meaning for the Greek word ‘logos.’ In all scripture ‘logos’ has one consistent meaning: it has always meant a kind of plan, logic, or purpose and never a person, let alone Jesus. Check it out for yourself. Yes, Jesus is called the ‘word of God’ in a couple of places in scripture, although this simply means he was the instrument to execute and complete the ‘plan’ logos of salvation originated by God.

5. Then, because of this third tiered lie, they had to now say Jesus preexisted at the beginning of time, I guess.

6. Then because of the first 5 structured lies, more lies in the form of many, many writings and sermons are still finishing this structure today. They are just window dressings composed of many cherry-picked scriptures and blind interpretations to clue the entire structure together and make it look more credible, enticing and pleasing to the hears and eyes.

The structure of the lie that Jesus = God will all coming crashing down all in good time. It will not stand because it does not hold up as truth. It is a profound and brazen lie.

Jesus was the only born believer in God because God Almighty really conceived him, with Mary. God was surely with him and thus us! That is what Emmanuel means by the way. It does not naively mean Jesus = God, as most probably the early writer thought.

Jesu was the last Adam and the first of the new creation of believers of God. Why do you think the spirit of Christ and truth was given to us? Do you think the spirit of Christ would be given to us if Jesus = God? Not! We are conforming to the image of Christ not God Almighty. It is impossible to confirm to the exact image of God! Jesus was the closest in his power and life. Jesus is the closest to God’s power in heaven. God Almighty had to bring the spirit of Christ to us. Christ could not do it alone. He ‘rode down’/used the spirit of God to get to our human hearts.

We as believers partake of the divine nature OF GOD ONLY, during our lives, THROUGH the spirit of Christ that already has divinity OF GOD in him. Jesus partakes of the spirit of DIVINITY today, so that we can partake of the same spirit of DIVINITY THROUGH him only. There is no other way. The source of divinity is and has always been from God Almighty, not Jesus. Jesus is the 1st layer user of the spiritual power of God. We as believers are the 2nd layer users, drawing off this same spiritual power through Christ.

A decent analogy is like the main grid and source of power is God Almighty. Jesus is the 1st layer of power manipulation as the step-down transformer system on the poles or on the ground to our homes. We are the home users, the users of the 2nd layer of power manipulation, drawing power off these transformers.

Jesus partook of the divinity and nature of the spirit of God since he was conceived, and then as the Christ, he possessed the ‘full’ suit of power of God after his baptism.

This is how Jesus, the Christ never sinned and completed his mission, with the power of God Almighty. He could not have succeeded without his Father, God Almighty.

People of little faith is apparently not a dated phenomenon.

What say you?


Peace and love out!

(Deu 6:4) “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.
(Deu 6:5) You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.
(Deu 6:6) And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. (ALL ESV)


Bless you,

APAK

TO the point:

1) God IS; thee Lord God Almighty.
2) Via Speech and Writing (logos) men Learn ABOUT Him.
3) Mankind electes To Believe what they hear and read ABOUT Him .... or not.
4) Early man was TOLD Whose, Via the Speaker Himself (God), "works" that men Saw and Experienced, were effected, BY the Speaker. 'THEY' could believe...or not.
5) Early men were TOLD, What to CALL "this" Speaker and Worker and Why.

6) Mankind WHO, Believed, Trusted, Experienced the effects of their Belief and Trust BECAME thee Lord God Almighty's Servants,; Via THEM taking on the Role of His Mouth-piece, Advocates, Writers, Speakers, Testifiers, Praisers, Exalters, Teachers, Distributors.....which "other" men could SEE, HEAR, COMPREHEND......and that has not changed.

God Does not Change.
Men Do Change.

God PLEASED "Himself", ie His OWN Pleasure, via His Own Choice, Decides What He desires to BE "CALLED", and "WHEN", and "BY WHOM".

The Scripture is LOADED with Names and Titles God has determined IS Acceptable To Him To be called.

One "single" MAN is called BY several or numerous "names" and "titles".

It does not make the "MAN", multiple men, any more than it makes "GOD", multiple gods.

Any MAN Who, elects to Believe, the Lord blesses the man, with Blessings, NOT given to men, WHO elect to NOT Believe.

Any MAN Who, elects to Believe, THAT MAN, is being "prepared" "by Gods Blessings", TO BE a "a God created Vessel", that IS ABLE to SERVE God....according TO Gods Pleasure.

The more the man (vessel) Continues investing "his own time" (earthly life) IN Discoveries OF thee "Lord God Almighty";
the more the Lord Continues to Bless the man with "His" "POWER"; "KNOWLEDGE"; UNDERSTANDING of "His" KNOWLEDGE;

And "His" Promises to KEEP such MAN forever in and with Him.

We have "written" accounts of Men Who, desired to trust to Believe AND trust to Continue learning AND trust to fully put God in control of their Spiritual Life, TO effect Gods Promise of Eternal Life With and In Him to Become Effected.

God Did NOT BECOME a "human".
Humans Do NOT BECOME "God".

God Created "humans"....IN His Likeness.
Mankind FELL from BEING in His Likeness.

Only God can CONVERT a man INTO His Likeness. And Only man Can elect to Choose to Accept Gods Offer.

Samuel, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Mary, Peter, John, Matthew, Saul/Paul, and others (ie created Vessels) are Testimonies of Converted men INTO Gods "likeness" and we have written accounts, that we have a choice TO BELIEVE or not.

God does NOT "reproduce" little baby anything, and certainly not little baby gods.

God Creates and Makes VIA the WHOLE of Himself.

His Ideas, His Plans, His Power, His Communication, His Works, His Authority, His Light, His Truth, His Understanding, His mystery, His Revealing, His Everlasting without beginning, without ending.

What He elects To CALL Himself AT Any given Time, IS at His Pleasure.

God a created Human? No.
God Needs His Creation for Anything? No.
Gods Acceptance must meet mankinds Acceptance? No.
Gods Understanding must parallel the Worlds Understanding? No.

Faith ONLY comes to a man via God gifting the man with Faith? Yes.

Faith from God IS NOT FORCED from God. True.

Faith from God Comes in "measures" unto the man. True.

As Mans "effort" increases....Faith from God increases. True.

Should Mans "effort" decrease...Faith from God shall decrease. True.

Every mans "effort" is exactly the same. False.

God Bless,
Taken

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

I'm kinda thinking there were no cloven flames of fire alighting on their heads as was in Acts? I do believe in tongues as a human language used to spread the gospel to all Nations. I know many who practice this. It is not for me to say who God blesses with the Holy Spirit. The 1st Protestant Church I attended was a tongue speaking, Spirit slaying name it claim it crowd. I most definitely thought that I wasn't saved after all so, I faked it and just blubbered right along with the rest of them (was strange) Then, going up to the Alter call, one of the Assoc. Pastors kept pushing my forehead...hard. I would not let him push me down!! I actually stayed there for a little over a year before I studied up on tongues. Not to my surprise, I was reading the bible and realized there was not one interpreter in the whole place...though I do not know how anybody could hear a thing with all that noise as everyone did it at the same time and for the life of me, I could not see how it edified anybody! I do not put ANYBODY down for practicing tongues...just sharing my 1st Prot. Church experience. Soon after I attended an Assemblies of God for about 4 years...moved further away from the city and now go to a Baptist Church and love the teaching and praise and worship there.
-nancy

It is not about putting the person down for practicing tongues; it is about prompting them to discern with the Lord's help and with the whole of scripture on that topic for why His gift of tongues cannot change for what it was prophesied for because that would be confusion and going back on His word.

1 Timothy 4:1-2 prophesied how many will depart from faith and give heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils.

Paul touched on that iniquity on how it was at work even in his day in the churches in 2 Thessalonians 2nd chapter when he explained how the Lord will deal with that iniquity by judging the House of God first before the event when He deals with that son of perdition at the end of the great tribulation at His coming. That son of perdition reveals himself in that third Temple mid way through the great tribulation, but He will deal with him at the end.

In dealing with the saints that has fallen away, if they do not repent, they will be damned in becoming castaways and thus vessels unto dishonor in His House for believing the lie that they can receive the promise of the Holy Spirit again or apart from salvation after a sign.

Paul is addressing what tongue speakers are exhorting by how they got that tongue, by rebuking them in reminding them the tradition taught of us for when we had received the sanctification of the Spirit and the belief of the truth at the calling of the gospel; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-15

That was Paul saying there is no receiving the Holy Spirit apart from salvation which was at the calling of the gospel when we had first believed.

Only the Lord can wake them up and peradventure deliver them from this snare of the devil that have been taken captive by his will, but like it or not, tongue speakers are promoting another calling for believers to seek after and thus another gospel when desiring to receive the Holy Spirit apart from salvation by a sign of tongues. 2 Corinthians 11:1-4 & 1 Corinthians 14:20-22 both reproves that second calling and for using tongues as a sign towards saved believers for that second calling. That, you are allowed to put down; that is not the same as putting them down.

By putting that lie down and that tongue that comes with no interpretation, we do so by keeping the faith in Jesus Christ in how and when we were saved in the hope that it keeps other unwary believers from moving away from that rest in Jesus Christ in chasing after seducing spirits for a sign.

 

[bbyrd009]

Well, He was referring to His own blood about to be shed for the remission of sins...the wine of course, is symbolic of His own perfect blood sacrifice. Yes, he could have just cut his arm and "bled" but, He needed to die.

pretty much the whole world believes that, yes.
But why then would Christ not have just said "this is symbolic of the sacrifice I am about to make?"

 

[Taken]

APAK....OP

The Lord doesn't have to claim He is God.

He acknowledges attributes of God.

He reveals information about Himself, that others can hear and see.

His works reveal He is doing what He acknowledges IS attributed To God.

Men who trust to believe and Experience Him, Testify of Him.
Mark 8:27

And His Response to their Testimony?
1) their knowledge and understanding comes from God. Matt 16:17

2) they testify, he agrees with them, and verifies he is pleased with their testimony.
John 13:13

God Bless,
Taken

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

Hi Jiffy, if I was in your presence, knowing what you believe, I wouldn't. That is not love. Because tongues is a sign to the unbeliever. You.

I believe everyone knows that unbelievers used in 1 Corinthians 14:22 is referring to those who do not believe in Jesus Christ yet for why tongues as a sign is a witness towards in hearing the gospel in their native tongue as prophesied in 1 Corinthians 14:21. Your misapplication of unbelievers just to rebuke me for not catering to that other calling you bear witness to by that tongue which never comes with interpretation will not work in His eyes.

I'm not saying you are unsaved. You may be. But there is a second class that tongues is a sign to - the unbeliever in the gifts, called the uninformed in verse 23. That class I know you are in, by every word and uncharitable blasphemy that comes out of your mouth relating God's gift to the devil.

Speaking in tongues is a peculiar gift, and God made it that way. It brings a spotlight onto those Christians hiding in their pews, and confirms them in their unbelief. You see, you are wrong in thinking that a "sign" to the unbeliever must be a positive sign, like preaching in the foreign languages of those Paul was an apostle to. That is a very reasonable assumption that the human mind would make. But tongues is never shown in scripture to be preaching long dissertations. So, it isn't. It is a negative sign of judgment.

Tongues was never taught by any one in the N.T. for private use, let alone how to discern what mode it is in when you have 3 kinds of modes for it; one for self edification; one for worship, and one for the Holy Spirit making intercessions to God, and yet Paul says he knows not what the tongue is until someone else interprets that tongue for him so that the tongue manifested in him would be fruitful to himself, thus tongues was never meant to be a stand alone gift.

For God to give tongues and no interpretation for it to that tongue speaker for private use is not an act of God's love at all, and so it cannot be of Him.

When the world has that same kind of tongue gained by spirits coming over them.... then in no way would God make that extra phenomenon a part of the life of a believer because that would be giving another calling and moving them away from their rest in Jesus Christ as if they are not complete in Him when they had received the holy Spirit of promise by faith in Jesus Christ when they had been saved.

You may think I'm pulling this out of my mind, like you are, and have no scriptural example as you don't. Oh, but I do. This same type of negative sign that confirms an unbeliever in their unbelief is spoken about in another place. And you'll never guess in a million years. It is in the gospels. And the sign is Jesus.

Luke 2:34 Then Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary His mother, “Behold, this Child is destined for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign which will be spoken against.

For further proof, it is for the same purpose. See verses hidden in plain sight for the discerning to understand.

Luke 2:35 "that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.”
1 Corinthians 14:25 "And thus the secrets of his heart are revealed"

Both have aspects of a dual purpose.

"fall and rise" In the case of Jesus, it is obvious. The Pharisees whose hearts were hard and jealous, fell, even in the presence of One doing great miracles in the Supernatural, with a capital "S". The humble disciples, rose.

To equate tongues to the fall and rise as the sign of Jesus is not wise when His words would reprove using that as an allegory for that purpose.

Proverbs 25:26 A righteous man falling down before the wicked is as a troubled fountain, and a corrupt spring. 27 It is not good to eat much honey: so for men to search their own glory is not glory. 28 He that hath no rule over his own spirit is like a city that is broken down, and without walls.

Temperance is a fruit of the Spirit and so a house divided cannot stand. When a house falls, it is because it has been divided by suffering a thief to break through to cause one to fall as Jesus has warned.

Matthew 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. 26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. In the case of tongues, it also has a dual aspect. For splitting asunder the devout and the mocker, as was also shown on the Day of Pentecost, when the devout Jews got saved, and the mockers left blaspheming in their carnal ignorance.

For all the miracles that these movements of the "spirit" are claiming as in Matthew 7:21-23, they broaden the way in coming to God the Father around the Son by going to what they believe was the Holy Spirit in those visitations of signs where believers fall down in ( Matthew 7:13-20 ).

Look at Isaiah 53 about our beloved Jesus. Notice any similarities between how mockers perceive tongues?

Isaiah 53:

1 Who has believed our report?
And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
2 For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant,
And as a root out of dry ground.
He has no form or comeliness;
And when we see Him,
There is no beauty that we should desire Him.
3 He is despised and rejected by men,
A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.
And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him;
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.

If His disciples were falling down, every one would believe the mockers that they were drunk. The mockers were mocking them because they were speaking in another language; nothing else. The reason why many did not believe the mockers because they were hearing His disciples speak in their native tongue. Peter making himself known to the crowd explained to the crowd to dispel the rumors started by the mockers that may not have understood what some of the disciples were saying because it was not in their native tongue. Just to be clear, there was no falling down on the day of Pentecost, and certainly, the unbelievers were not the ones falling down then when tongues were manifested.

So Jesus is the sign for the rise and fall of many in Israel. Tongues is not the sign of Jesus mentioned.

 

[Nancy]

pretty much the whole world believes that, yes.
But why then would Christ not have just said "this is symbolic of the sacrifice I am about to make?"

The Last supper was instituted BEFORE the crucifixion of Jesus. Remember that when the bread was broken, Jesus had not yet been crucified. It would make no sense if the bread became His sacrificial body. Common sense I would think.

• "It is not a sacrifice for sins. Jesus did not intend the Lord's supper by any means to be a sacrifice for sins but rather a REMINDER of the sacrifice of sins when He said, "Do this in REMEMBRANCE of Me." meaning it's symbolic. Funny how those words are said during a mass yet they believe it to be an ongoing sacrifice. The real sacrifice for sins happened
• It belittles Jesus to a piece of unleavened bread. Notice that during a mass that the priest holds the host and says, "Behold this is the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world, happy are we who are called to his supper." and the people respond, "Lord I am not worthy to receive you but only say the word and I shall be healed." Some instances even had it that some nuns who were trying to escape a burning building, one said, "Where is Jesus?" and they tried to rescue a piece of bread that was just... bread believing it to be holy. Anybody can eat a LOT of these and still go to Hell without Jesus. Also, if it's just meant to be digested and excreted, then that person goes hungry again but Jesus says they'll never go hungry." https://fundamentalbaptistchristian.blogspot.com/2011/05/transubstantiation-debunked.html

 

[Enoch111]

But why then would Christ not have just said "this is symbolic of the sacrifice I am about to make?"

Why would Christ say something which was so obvious that there would be no need to say it? There is the Lord -- in person -- sitting with His apostles at the Last Supper and calling bread His body and the fruit of the vine His blood. So it was purely symbolic and everyone understood that.

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

I don't..
I see no connection here.

Preaching to receive the Holy Spirit apart from salvation is what Paul is warning about here in 2 Corinthians 11:1-4, but only the Lord can help you see that.

Do try to explain what Paul was talking about then in 2 Corinthians 11:1-4 other than to prevent believers from heeding another calling and thus moving away from their rest in Jesus Christ that they are complete in Him when they were saved at the calling of the gospel.

You seem a little caught up with some.
Some non-tongue speaking Christian are fleshly and carnal too. Yet I doubt you lump yourself in with them?
So why lump the rest of us in with the fleshly "holy-rollers" ?... as they used to be called years ago.

Same spiritual rudiment Paul warned about. They too sought to receive the Holy Spirit apart from salvation for other signs in the flesh like falling down which is an act of confusion clearly to any one as well as to the participants in losing self control.

No good tree will produce an evil fruit and no evil tree will produce a good fruit. By their fruits you will know those false prophets/ false spirits.

If you believe those "holy rollers" are not abiding in Him and are engaged in receiving spirits that is not the Holy Spirit, then how can you reprove them when they are doing it by the same means for which tongue speakers had sought to receive the Holy Spirit apart from salvation but by a sign of tongues? They address the Holy Spirit in worship. They call on the Holy Spirit to come and fall on them, and it happens. So how can you reprove?

You give an inch and they will take a mile. No one will be able to discern apostasy until you recognize that the Holy Spirit will not be given at any other time than at our salvation at the calling of the gospel so that we wind up NOT preaching another calling or another gospel for the sake of tongues.

That is sad. Wow...gibberish nonsence. So you think some man has more insight that God Himself eh. Wow, That you dare say that about what God does. Risky business.
I've seen others try to explain this to you in other threads.....obviously you just don't want to hear ...your mind is made up.
In the Church meeting it is a gift of tongues. Not everyone has that gift.
At home when in worship and prayer..it is a prayer language.
The Interpreter is only needed in the Church meeting.

The prayer language may sound like gibberish to you...

Matthew 6:7-8 proves you do not need tongues as a prayer language when God already knows before you ask Him.

The Holy Spirit does not need to utter His intercessions when Jesus Christ knows the mind of the Spirit to give His intercessions for Him to God the Father.

How limited is God in that He can know before we ask Him but He does not know the Spirit for why the Spirit is turning God's gift of tongues around to ask Him?

What's the other excuse for that prayer language? So that the devil does not know what was prayed for to interfere with that prayer request? If the Book of Job taught us anything, it shows that the devil cannot do anything without God's permission. So that excuse floating around out there in the world of tongues for private use, should be dropped.

Who made Joyce Meyers God's spokesman?!!

< snip >

That was an example for how people can claim they have God's gift of tongues but they really don't. There is no point for tongues to manifest when every one in that assembly speaks the same language when tongues with interpretation is manifested for the purpose of edification of the church.

And then we get the some again...who cares what some do or say, I don't.

" Some" non-tongue" speakers believe and do one thing, and "some" do another. All of us are not 'lumps' or all the same in what our experiences are.

Whenever I ask God ..." What about him , or her Lord?"

God says the same as He said to John, when he asked about Peter,
" What is that to you, you follow thou Me. "

Bless you...H

The problem here is that while I address what some do or say, it all boils down to one thing; identifying with that call towards apostasy whereby the reason it is not coming with interpretation is because it is not God's gift of tongues when that other calling that other phenomenon is not of Him at all.