The Original Pentecostal Movement
- Thread starter zone
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
These threads are like watching re-runs of Gilligan's Island..........Fake investigation, quoting untrustworthy sites, false doctrine, false accusations, condemnation & judgements....... just a lot of arguing & poison. Is this all you guys can do, going in circles over & over again? You could at least rewrite the script every once in a while. I give you 11 out of 10 for the most unauthoritative
performance.
performance.
wait.....so you're saying Parham's notion that tongues were known languages was wrong?
in reality, tongues was always unknown sounds?
it was never real languages?
and what do you mean he "was wrong about the meaning of the revival"?
revival of what? you said the gifts never ceased - so revival of what?
so you mean Parham was wrong about the real gift - which was always the unknown noises tongues (ecstatic utterings) that nobody understands thing?
where did he get the idea tongues in The Acts of The Apostles was actual languages (in the nations in which we were born)?
did anyone else hold that erroneous idea through church history (tongues in The Acts of The Apostles was actual languages)?
so why was the early movement confused at all, about any of it...if....uh.....um.....
in reality, tongues was always unknown sounds?
it was never real languages?
and what do you mean he "was wrong about the meaning of the revival"?
revival of what? you said the gifts never ceased - so revival of what?
so you mean Parham was wrong about the real gift - which was always the unknown noises tongues (ecstatic utterings) that nobody understands thing?
where did he get the idea tongues in The Acts of The Apostles was actual languages (in the nations in which we were born)?
did anyone else hold that erroneous idea through church history (tongues in The Acts of The Apostles was actual languages)?
so why was the early movement confused at all, about any of it...if....uh.....um.....
okay...focused.
Parham was wrong - about what the revival was for?
if the revival wasn't about, or any revival, isn't about "Spreading the gospel [through tongues]" (languages people can understand)...then what is revival for?
exactly what is being revived? the gifts? or the Gospel?
what are tongues for TODAY?
Parham was wrong - about what the revival was for?
if the revival wasn't about, or any revival, isn't about "Spreading the gospel [through tongues]" (languages people can understand)...then what is revival for?
exactly what is being revived? the gifts? or the Gospel?
what are tongues for TODAY?
Honestly Zone, do you want to go through it point by point?
Well then O.K. - I'm Red.
It wasn't.
Well then O.K. - I'm Red.
wait.....so you're saying Parham's notion that tongues were known languages was wrong?(Not at all, he thought they were unknown languages of peoples, ethnicities and nations)
in reality, tongues was always unknown sounds? (How can languages be unknown sounds?)
it was never real languages?(How did you arrive at that? Have you ever heard languages that seemed foreign but yet were coherent?)
and what do you mean he "was wrong about the meaning of the revival"?(He thought it was for reaching the nations for the gospel by speaking the gospel in their native language)
revival of what? you said the gifts never ceased - so revival of what? (Are you dead yet Zone? So you don't ever need a revival, be honest.)
so you mean Parham was wrong about the real gift - which was always the unknown noises tongues (ecstatic utterings) that nobody understands thing?( Not at all, you add to the report as a vulture swoops down onto roadkill)
(Nice additions to the train of thought B.T.W. - a true birdlike quality)
where did he get the idea tongues in The Acts of The Apostles was actual languages in the nations where we were born? (In the nations where we were born? Who said 'WE'? Have you read Acts chapters 2&3?)
did anyone else hold that erroneous idea through church history (tongues in The Acts of The Apostles was actual languages)? (Well, the mixed multitude that had came for the feast wondered why some crazy people prophesied in their own language)
so why was the early movement confused at all, about any of it...if....uh.....um.....
in reality, tongues was always unknown sounds? (How can languages be unknown sounds?)
it was never real languages?(How did you arrive at that? Have you ever heard languages that seemed foreign but yet were coherent?)
and what do you mean he "was wrong about the meaning of the revival"?(He thought it was for reaching the nations for the gospel by speaking the gospel in their native language)
revival of what? you said the gifts never ceased - so revival of what? (Are you dead yet Zone? So you don't ever need a revival, be honest.)
so you mean Parham was wrong about the real gift - which was always the unknown noises tongues (ecstatic utterings) that nobody understands thing?( Not at all, you add to the report as a vulture swoops down onto roadkill)
(Nice additions to the train of thought B.T.W. - a true birdlike quality)
where did he get the idea tongues in The Acts of The Apostles was actual languages in the nations where we were born? (In the nations where we were born? Who said 'WE'? Have you read Acts chapters 2&3?)
did anyone else hold that erroneous idea through church history (tongues in The Acts of The Apostles was actual languages)? (Well, the mixed multitude that had came for the feast wondered why some crazy people prophesied in their own language)
so why was the early movement confused at all, about any of it...if....uh.....um.....
Last edited:
um...i never claimed the reformation was spelled out in scripture.
but you said:
"these are the last 2 true movements before the judgment"
sorry - is this just your opinion?
i thought you were making an authoritative scripturally backed statement.
before the judgment was part of what threw me i guess....plus the word true.
okay...just your opinion then. t.y.
but you said:
"these are the last 2 true movements before the judgment"
sorry - is this just your opinion?
i thought you were making an authoritative scripturally backed statement.
before the judgment was part of what threw me i guess....plus the word true.
okay...just your opinion then. t.y.
use the quote feature - otherwise i won't be bothered.
see what i have to work with when i hit quote? nothing.
please don't just type your stuff into mine - this is problematic enough.
...
wait.....so you're saying Parham's notion that tongues were known languages was wrong?
(Not at all, he thought they were unknown languages of peoples, ethnicities and nations)
OH MY.....
ME: so you're saying Parham's notion that tongues were known languages was wrong
YOU: Not at all, he thought they were unknown languages of peoples, ethnicities and nations
restated:
PARHAM WAS WRONG BECAUSE: he thought tongues were the as yet (to the westerners) unknown languages of peoples, ethnicities and nations whom they had not reached....right
OR WAS HE RIGHT ABOUT THAT.
he was just WRONG about what the TONGUES were for....
again - if tongues are not for spreading the gospel - what are they FOR.
see what i have to work with when i hit quote? nothing.
please don't just type your stuff into mine - this is problematic enough.
...
wait.....so you're saying Parham's notion that tongues were known languages was wrong?
(Not at all, he thought they were unknown languages of peoples, ethnicities and nations)
OH MY.....
ME: so you're saying Parham's notion that tongues were known languages was wrong
YOU: Not at all, he thought they were unknown languages of peoples, ethnicities and nations
restated:
PARHAM WAS WRONG BECAUSE: he thought tongues were the as yet (to the westerners) unknown languages of peoples, ethnicities and nations whom they had not reached....right
OR WAS HE RIGHT ABOUT THAT.
he was just WRONG about what the TONGUES were for....
again - if tongues are not for spreading the gospel - what are they FOR.
ME:
wait.....so you're saying Parham's notion that tongues were known languages was wrong?
YOU:
(Not at all, he thought they were unknown languages of peoples, ethnicities and nations)
ME:
in reality, tongues was always unknown sounds?
YOU:
(How can languages be unknown sounds?)
ME:
it was never real languages?
YOU:
(How did you arrive at that? Have you ever heard languages that seemed foreign but yet were coherent?)
...
NEW QUESTION:
when you speak in tongues, Rick - are you speaking an actual language of real peoples, ethnicities and nations
wait.....so you're saying Parham's notion that tongues were known languages was wrong?
YOU:
(Not at all, he thought they were unknown languages of peoples, ethnicities and nations)
ME:
in reality, tongues was always unknown sounds?
YOU:
(How can languages be unknown sounds?)
ME:
it was never real languages?
YOU:
(How did you arrive at that? Have you ever heard languages that seemed foreign but yet were coherent?)
...
NEW QUESTION:
when you speak in tongues, Rick - are you speaking an actual language of real peoples, ethnicities and nations
T
This thread has gone exactly where I stated it was going to go and the thread starter is still not convinced, gee go figure.
Zone,
I am sure you have all you need to go back to the next potluck at the Synod and get appropriately canonized for deftly defeating all those continuance heathens, your motive was clear through out the thread and it only seeks to pet your personal pride, ego and beliefs all at the expense of making others with a differing viewpoint look glib and foolish.
One thing that has not ceased and continues to this day and you deftly proved it all along and that is the Spirit of Pharisee is alive and well.
Zone,
I am sure you have all you need to go back to the next potluck at the Synod and get appropriately canonized for deftly defeating all those continuance heathens, your motive was clear through out the thread and it only seeks to pet your personal pride, ego and beliefs all at the expense of making others with a differing viewpoint look glib and foolish.
One thing that has not ceased and continues to this day and you deftly proved it all along and that is the Spirit of Pharisee is alive and well.
use the quote feature - otherwise i won't be bothered.
see what i have to work with when i hit quote? nothing.
please don't just type your stuff into mine - this is problematic enough.
...
wait.....so you're saying Parham's notion that tongues were known languages was wrong?
(Not at all, he thought they were unknown languages of peoples, ethnicities and nations)
OH MY.....
ME: so you're saying Parham's notion that tongues were known languages was wrong
YOU: Not at all, he thought they were unknown languages of peoples, ethnicities and nations
restated:
PARHAM WAS WRONG BECAUSE: he thought tongues were the as yet (to the westerners) unknown languages of peoples, ethnicities and nations whom they had not reached....right
OR WAS HE RIGHT ABOUT THAT.
he was just WRONG about what the TONGUES were for....
again - if tongues are not for spreading the gospel - what are they FOR.
see what i have to work with when i hit quote? nothing.
please don't just type your stuff into mine - this is problematic enough.
...
wait.....so you're saying Parham's notion that tongues were known languages was wrong?
(Not at all, he thought they were unknown languages of peoples, ethnicities and nations)
OH MY.....
ME: so you're saying Parham's notion that tongues were known languages was wrong
YOU: Not at all, he thought they were unknown languages of peoples, ethnicities and nations
restated:
PARHAM WAS WRONG BECAUSE: he thought tongues were the as yet (to the westerners) unknown languages of peoples, ethnicities and nations whom they had not reached....right
OR WAS HE RIGHT ABOUT THAT.
he was just WRONG about what the TONGUES were for....
again - if tongues are not for spreading the gospel - what are they FOR.
Especially between red and black,-so hard.
I'm not going to re-answer your objections.