Here's what I got outta this thread from the naysayers of tongues:
1. Twist 1Cor 13 to say something it doesn't, & never touch the context knowing it would sink every effort to convince the hearers.
2. Use historical documents to prove tongues have ceased. Really? Using catholic documents to prove a point? How laughable is that? But you gotta use something, since ya can't use the Bible to do it..... It's not there.
3. When the scripture can't be twisted cuz it's too literal, you attack it instead to prove it unreliable..... And again, using catholic writings.
Any other time these guys would fight against catholic writings tooth & nail..... but not when they need it. There's a word in the Bible for those who are first for something , then against it when it suits them.
Any other time they would put on their armor to fight for the "complete, unadulterated word of God" Today they are disputing its validity.
So, should we believe them? Should we take their word for it? Does their fruit testify to their credibility?
IF the argument were true about Mark (and it isn't), I still wouldn't use it because it's too slippery a slope, & not worth tarnishing a good reputation by fighting against the very sword that I use to fight WITH every day. It makes it look too much like hypocrisy. And it probably is.
FYI..... having a great knowledge of scripture & abusing it for personal gain has its consequences..... "To whom much is given, much is required"
1. Twist 1Cor 13 to say something it doesn't, & never touch the context knowing it would sink every effort to convince the hearers.
2. Use historical documents to prove tongues have ceased. Really? Using catholic documents to prove a point? How laughable is that? But you gotta use something, since ya can't use the Bible to do it..... It's not there.
3. When the scripture can't be twisted cuz it's too literal, you attack it instead to prove it unreliable..... And again, using catholic writings.
Any other time these guys would fight against catholic writings tooth & nail..... but not when they need it. There's a word in the Bible for those who are first for something , then against it when it suits them.
Any other time they would put on their armor to fight for the "complete, unadulterated word of God" Today they are disputing its validity.
So, should we believe them? Should we take their word for it? Does their fruit testify to their credibility?
IF the argument were true about Mark (and it isn't), I still wouldn't use it because it's too slippery a slope, & not worth tarnishing a good reputation by fighting against the very sword that I use to fight WITH every day. It makes it look too much like hypocrisy. And it probably is.
FYI..... having a great knowledge of scripture & abusing it for personal gain has its consequences..... "To whom much is given, much is required"