GOD'S WORD vs. man's opinion like GWHs.

  • 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.
The problem you have here is that Jesus was only sent to the Jews.

Lot's of folk have an issue with this and especially traditional church folk.

Matthew 15:24
But He answered and said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

This means that the law is embedded within the words that Jesus speaks.

The law does not generate righteousness so the law is a poor master to have.

The Spirit leads ands teaches us all things in the New Testament and not the law.

The law was temporary and useless and and only delivers a knowledge of sin.

Galatians 5:16-18
But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the flesh
sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition
to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. But if you are led by the Spirit,
you are not under the Law
.

Jesus was sent to fulfill the Jewish OT law for the potential salvation of both Jews and Gentiles.
The HS leads and teaches (enables and motivates) J&G Christians/believers to cooperate with God's moral will.
Knowledge of sin is not useless but rather leads sinners to repent, accept Jesus as Messiah and walk in the HS.

TOP #18: Those who ignore God’s urging of repentance will reap divine wrath on the day of judgment. [Rom. 2:3-5] God’s kindness or patience with sinners is meant to lead them toward repentance, which implies that sinners are able to repent because of God’s leading, and those who do not repent but instead stubbornly resist God’s leading are storing up wrath against themselves.

TOP #25: All have sinned by breaking moral law but may be justified by God’s grace through faith in Christ’s redemption or atonement. [Rom. 3:9-26] Verse 21 states that “the Law and Prophets testify” or prepare the way for the new revelation of righteousness from God apart from the Law, which takes up where Romans 1:17 left off. Verse 22a says that “righteousness from God” or s/e comes through faith “in Jesus Christ” (cf. Eph. 2:8), a phrase Paul used eleven times in Ephesians 1:3-14 to indicate s/e. Verse 22b says that God’s righteousness is given “to all who believe—there is no difference”” signifying that all sinners may believe or be s/e (cf. 1Tim. 2:3-4, John 3:16, Tit. 2:11), because there is no favoritism (#22).

TOP #37: The law served to convict souls of sin, but the Spirit frees them from condemnation. [Rom. 7:7-8:8] Paul describes s/e in terms of struggle between what a person’s conscience wants to do and what his sinful nature causes him to do until he is rescued by Christ. Such release was made possible by the sin offering of Jesus (8:3).

TOP #131: Do not pervert the Gospel of Christ by reverting to belief that salvation is earned via observing the law. [Gal. 1:6-9, 5:1-12] Such doctrine is anathema or condemned (1Cor. 16:22). The purpose of the law of Moses was to lead people to faith in Christ (Gal. 3:22-24). This truth is akin to TOP #37.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sipsey
His replies make me think of scrambled eggs. Sometimes with the shell thrown in. :cautious:
Sad he can't see, yep thinking of John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

It's like talking with lanuage barriers, takes so long to come to any reasoning but in his case it never happens maybe if we could do sign lanuage?

Like Paul in Acts 19, He asked a question, they replied, which lead to a another question and a nother reply. With the informataion Paul got he knew the problem and resolved it.

With gwh which means (god word is history) it's IMPOSSIBLE due to he is on his own plantet and there is no way to follow him.

Which leads down SO MANY different roads and since he makes statement and NEVER ansersw any questions is imposible to have any intelegent conversation.

Then he blames others for his actions and calls it ping pong.

He has been exposed as making statements which are very clear LIES and looks like hes ok with it.

Satan twist things, he does also.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2ndTimeIsTheCharm
Our difference is that I admit my fallibility while you have delusions of grandeur/being a Pope!

LOL, can you help yourself with your lies????

In order to fix a problem you need to know what the problem is first.
 
This is not your thread, so practice what you request and earn some respect!
It's not your either, talk about calling the kettle black.

How do you expect anyone to respect you when you lie so much?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eli1
Yes, and you should note that pagan-like babbling is the only type of tongues I "reference" as problematic,
because Satan can imitate it (as well as "light").
Paul said nothing about pagan-like babbling. Your comment below regarding tongues is pure speculation. Again, Paul encouraged speaking in tongues and provided insight relative to the practice.

"...but by the time of its occurrence in the church at Corinth it had morphed into a faux gift of mere babbling, which Paul tried to quash tactfully (1Cor. 14:19, possibly because pagan religions practiced it), writing that the gift would cease (1Cor. 13:8-13), so one should not be myopic and focus only on a problematic proof-text (1Cor. 14:18), ignoring the absence of affirming tongues in other Pauline epistles."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eli1 and Ouch
Paul said nothing about pagan-like babbling. Your comment below regarding tongues is pure speculation. Again, Paul encouraged speaking in tongues and provided insight relative to the practice.

"...but by the time of its occurrence in the church at Corinth it had morphed into a faux gift of mere babbling, which Paul tried to quash tactfully (1Cor. 14:19, possibly because pagan religions practiced it), writing that the gift would cease (1Cor. 13:8-13), so one should not be myopic and focus only on a problematic proof-text (1Cor. 14:18), ignoring the absence of affirming tongues in other Pauline epistles."

Getting anywhere? Or like the rest of us?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eli1
Yes, and you should note that pagan-like babbling is the only type of tongues I "reference" as problematic,
because Satan can imitate it (as well as "light").
Your comment from an earlier post would seem to debuke the idea that "babbliing" is the only thing you find problematic about speaking in tongues. Would you like to explain your comments below?

"one should not be myopic and focus only on a problematic proof-text (Paul stating, I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.) (1Cor. 14:18), ignoring the absence of affirming tongues in other Pauline epistles."
 
This verse from Matthew 15:24 is part of a conversation between Jesus and a Canaanite woman who asked him to heal her daughter. It’s one of several passages that has generated significant theological discussion about the scope of Jesus’s mission.

Many argue that Jesus’s response here was part of testing the woman’s faith or teaching his disciples about faith and persistence. Notably, Jesus does heal the woman’s daughter after she demonstrates remarkable faith, suggesting his mission wasn’t actually limited to Israel alone.

Nice try Sipsey but the context indicates something different.

Matthew 15:21-24
Jesus went away from there, and withdrew into the district of Tyre and Sidon. And a Canaanite woman
from that region came out and began to cry out, saying, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter
is cruelly demon-possessed.” But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and implored Him,
saying, “Send her away, because she keeps shouting at us.” But He answered and said, “I was sent only to
the lost sheep of the house of Israel
.”

Are these surrounding verses telling you anything?

Jesus was the promised messiah ONLY sent to covenant Israel.

If you say otherwise then your directly contradicting Jesus.
 
Jesus was sent to fulfill the Jewish OT law for the potential salvation of both Jews and Gentiles.
The HS leads and teaches (enables and motivates) J&G Christians/believers to cooperate with God's moral will.
Knowledge of sin is not useless but rather leads sinners to repent, accept Jesus as Messiah and walk in the HS.

TOP #18: Those who ignore God’s urging of repentance will reap divine wrath on the day of judgment. [Rom. 2:3-5] God’s kindness or patience with sinners is meant to lead them toward repentance, which implies that sinners are able to repent because of God’s leading, and those who do not repent but instead stubbornly resist God’s leading are storing up wrath against themselves.

TOP #25: All have sinned by breaking moral law but may be justified by God’s grace through faith in Christ’s redemption or atonement. [Rom. 3:9-26] Verse 21 states that “the Law and Prophets testify” or prepare the way for the new revelation of righteousness from God apart from the Law, which takes up where Romans 1:17 left off. Verse 22a says that “righteousness from God” or s/e comes through faith “in Jesus Christ” (cf. Eph. 2:8), a phrase Paul used eleven times in Ephesians 1:3-14 to indicate s/e. Verse 22b says that God’s righteousness is given “to all who believe—there is no difference”” signifying that all sinners may believe or be s/e (cf. 1Tim. 2:3-4, John 3:16, Tit. 2:11), because there is no favoritism (#22).

TOP #37: The law served to convict souls of sin, but the Spirit frees them from condemnation. [Rom. 7:7-8:8] Paul describes s/e in terms of struggle between what a person’s conscience wants to do and what his sinful nature causes him to do until he is rescued by Christ. Such release was made possible by the sin offering of Jesus (8:3).

TOP #131: Do not pervert the Gospel of Christ by reverting to belief that salvation is earned via observing the law. [Gal. 1:6-9, 5:1-12] Such doctrine is anathema or condemned (1Cor. 16:22). The purpose of the law of Moses was to lead people to faith in Christ (Gal. 3:22-24). This truth is akin to TOP #37.

Here GWH, have a look yourself at the text.

Matthew 15:21-24
Jesus went away from there, and withdrew into the district of Tyre and Sidon. And a Canaanite woman
from that region came out and began to cry out, saying, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter
is cruelly demon-possessed.” But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and implored Him,
saying, “Send her away, because she keeps shouting at us.” But He answered and said, “I was sent only to
the lost sheep of the house of Israel
.”

Are these surrounding verses telling you anything?

Jesus was the promised messiah ONLY sent to covenant Israel.

If you say otherwise then your directly contradicting Jesus.

Stop bending what Jesus stated.
 
It's not your either, talk about calling the kettle black.

How do you expect anyone to respect you when you lie so much?

"gwh which means (god word is history)": Amen! HIS story of salvation.
How do you expect respect when you deny my name is on this thread?!
 
Your comment from an earlier post would seem to debuke the idea that "babbliing" is the only thing you find problematic about speaking in tongues. Would you like to explain your comments below?

"one should not be myopic and focus only on a problematic proof-text (Paul stating, I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.) (1Cor. 14:18), ignoring the absence of affirming tongues in other Pauline epistles."

Too easy. The absence of Paul encouraging SIT in his writings except for 1Cor. 14:18 may be due to his realization that it was also practiced by pagans, and it had not become a problem in the other churches.
 
Here GWH, have a look yourself at the text.

Matthew 15:21-24
Jesus went away from there, and withdrew into the district of Tyre and Sidon. And a Canaanite woman
from that region came out and began to cry out, saying, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter
is cruelly demon-possessed.” But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and implored Him,
saying, “Send her away, because she keeps shouting at us.” But He answered and said, “I was sent only to
the lost sheep of the house of Israel
.”

Are these surrounding verses telling you anything?

Jesus was the promised messiah ONLY sent to covenant Israel.

If you say otherwise then your directly contradicting Jesus.

Stop bending what Jesus stated.

Apparently I needed to highlight a couple of words, so here it is again:
Jesus was sent to fulfill the Jewish OT law for the potential salvation of both Jews and Gentiles.

Gen. 12:3b. All people on earth will be blessed through Abraham. About 2,000 B.C., Abraham became a monotheist and moved from Ur to Canaan, where he became the patriarch of the Hebrews, who became the Israelites after the Exodus and eventually the Jews by the time of Jesus, who fulfilled God’s promise made to Abraham by completing His mission as Messiah or the Savior of all humanity who accept Him as Lord. This covenant is restated in Gen. 17:1-14, 18:18-19 & 22:15-18. Abraham is also claimed as the patriarch of the Arabs through Ishmael (Gen. 16:12, 17:19-21 & 21:9-21), who are part of the people who would be blessed by accepting God’s Messiah.

Gen. 15:6. Abraham’s faith in the Lord was credited to him as righteousness. This was a major theme of the teaching of the apostle Paul in his epistle to the Romans (Rom. 4:3,9-12&16-17). This is why Paul teaches that a true Jew is one whose “circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code” (Rom. 2:29). Thus, all who become one with Jesus are spiritual Jews and God’s chosen people (Eph. 2:13-3:6), although it is possible that the political nation of Israel may play a further role in history before the eschaton.

Gen. 22:8. These words of Abraham to Isaac may be viewed as the first prophetic reference to Jesus (John 1:29), although they had an immediate fulfillment (in v.13). Many years later, Moses instituted the sacrificial system that also portrayed the future messianic atonement. Jesus instituted the observance of the Lord’s Supper as a remembrance of the fact that His death fulfilled this system, so that Believers no longer need to practice it.

Isa. 9:2&7. These verses are cited in the NT as prophecies about Messiah (servant/chosen one), as is Isa. 42:1-9, in which Messiah will be “a light for the Gentiles” as well as for the Jews. This teaching is expressed also in Isa. 45:22-23, “Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth… Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear.” A third statement is found in Isa. 49:6, “…I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth.” And again in Isa. 60:3, “Nations will come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your dawn.” Finally, in Isa. 66:23, “All mankind will come and bow down before me, says the Lord.” Paul wrote about this “new thing” in Eph. 2:11-3:13.

Jer. 4:4.Circumcise your hearts”. This emphasis on the inner spiritual faith rather than on the outward physical circumstances is found in the writings of Paul, who even went so far as to say that spiritual faith is the essence of what it means to be Jewish or chosen by God. Rom. 2:28-29 says that “A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit…” Again in Rom. 3:29, Paul asks, “Is God the God of Jews only: Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised by that same faith.” And finally in Rom. 4:11-16 we find, “So then, [Abraham] is the father of all who believe… who also walk in the footsteps of the faith… He is the father of us all.” This teaching in JR & RM is foundational for the mystery of the Gospel of salvation for all humanity, both Jews and Gentiles, that Paul revealed in Eph. 2:11-3:13.

Jer. 31:31. Here we find mention of the coming new covenant (NT).
 
"gwh which means (god word is history)": Amen! HIS story of salvation.
How do you expect respect when you deny my name is on this thread?!

I asked you before by what authority do you have to alter HIS WORD?

You don't share HIS word but your own!!!!!!

WHO ARE YOU to get my respect? I will respect you if you REPENT until then get thy behind me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eli1
I asked you before by what authority do you have to alter HIS WORD?

You don't share HIS word but your own!!!!!!

WHO ARE YOU to get my respect? I will respect you if you REPENT until then get thy behind me.

Ditto.
(1Cor. 4:2-5)
 
In the meantime I might as well attempt to redeem this thread for learners by sharing from the lesson on controversial issues, in which I offer my thoughts regarding a few random questions concerning controversial moral and doctrinal issues (in alphabetical order), hopefully alleviating rather than exacerbating confusion about where to draw the line in gray areas, which requires balancing and harmonizing various scriptural principles or teachings, since the Bible does not clearly address the issue.

Most preachers either avoid these issues or else mention only their viewpoint, as though that settles the issue. However, I will try to share both sides of the issue, trying to resolve conflict in accordance with what Paul wrote in PHP 3:15b-16, “…If on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you. Only let us live up to what we have already attained.” What have we attained? Jesus is Lord, and he commands us to love one another.

Frequently, the Bible does not address a modern moral issue specifically, so we fallible mortals must use our God-given common sense informed by divinely revealed moral principles to find the best tentative opinion, remaining open to improvement. I attempt to be succinct and to offer an original synthesis or partial solution. The strategy I think works best (is most logical) is to begin by establishing the facts or what is least debatable and then try to clarify the not so obvious or gray area in between. As I noted at the end of Lesson 1, several biblical passages, such as 1 Peter 3:15b (“Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.”), indicate that we should at least think and attempt to learn the best opinions or solutions regarding issues, even if we have little power to enact them.

Abortion

On one side of the debate are those who believe that pregnant women have the right to kill their fetuses until birth (“birthists”). On the opposite side of the issue are those who believe that fetuses have the right to live from conception (“conceptionists”). The Bible does not specifically address this question, although two passages (EX 21:22-25 & LK 1:41-44) seem to suggest that an unborn baby should be considered a person at least by the time of quickening. However, if a person studies fetal development, at some point he/she will probably contemplate two pictures: one of a seven-month-old fetus in the womb, and one of a seven-month-old premature but viable baby outside the womb.

This should lead one to understand that geographical location is not a valid basis for defining personhood. There is no qualitative change that occurs at birth, merely a difference in the mode of breathing and feeding. And so a person will be led to consider the crucial question: when does a developing fetus become a human person with the God-given right to civil life so that to kill it is murder and warrants punishment? People on both sides of the debate usually overlook this question when they discuss this issue, but considerations other than the advent of personhood are irrelevant, unless someone would use the same rationale to justify the killing of children and adults.

Those who adopt the conceptionist viewpoint are certainly right that a qualitative change occurs when the chromosomes in the egg and sperm are united, so that physical development of a new human being begins. and they should mourn the death of a miscarried fetus at any stage of development in the same manner they would memorialize the death of a post-birth baby, in order to practice what they preach or believe. Those who adopt the birthist opinion apparently assume that birth is the qualitative change that marks the beginning of personhood. However, learning about fetal development should enable birthists to realize that the advent of personhood definitely does not extend beyond the seventh month or viability, when a premature baby is frequently able to survive.

Thus, birthists should at least become “viabilitists”. Are there any changes between conception and viability that might more reasonably/logically be viewed as indicative of the beginning of personality? There is one possibility: the counterpart of the basis doctors use for determining when an adult person no longer is alive. This basis is brain death or the absence of certain brain wave activity detected by an electroencephalo-gram (EEG). We might call this stage “sentience”, referring to the level of brain activity which indicates the fetus has brain life and is therefore a person, who should be granted the civil right to life. If our best definition of sentient death is the cessation of these brain waves, then it is logical and consistent to view sentient life as beginning at least when these brain waves are detectable. Thus, I think every open-minded and truth-seeking person on both sides of the abortion debate should agree that the fetus becomes sentient and a legal person at least by that stage of development. Birthists or viabilists and conceptionists should become “sentientists.

This is only a partial solution, but it is better than the current consensus that allows abortion throughout pregnancy. It is a big step in the right direction toward no abortion except in order to save the life of the mother. It recognizes that a gray area still exists from conception until sentience, so people may still reasonably disagree about the status of the fetus during this period, which may change as science improves. This view permits most forms of birth control. Implementing this solution requires educating every post-pubescent person about fetal development until society develops a new consensus that when a fetus becomes sentient, abortion is a type of murder and should be punished appropriately. Two wrongs do not make a right.

“Thou shalt…Love thy baby…”

“You created my inmost being,
You knit me together in my mother’s womb.
I praise you because I am wonderfully made…

My frame was not hidden from you
When I was made in the secret place…
Your eyes saw my unformed body.”

(Psalms 139:13-16, cf. Exodus 20:13)
 
In the meantime I might as well attempt to redeem this thread for learners by sharing from the lesson on controversial issues, in which I offer my thoughts regarding a few random questions concerning controversial moral and doctrinal issues (in alphabetical order), hopefully alleviating rather than exacerbating confusion about where to draw the line in gray areas, which requires balancing and harmonizing various scriptural principles or teachings, since the Bible does not clearly address the issue.

Most preachers either avoid these issues or else mention only their viewpoint, as though that settles the issue. However, I will try to share both sides of the issue, trying to resolve conflict in accordance with what Paul wrote in PHP 3:15b-16, “…If on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you. Only let us live up to what we have already attained.” What have we attained? Jesus is Lord, and he commands us to love one another.

Frequently, the Bible does not address a modern moral issue specifically, so we fallible mortals must use our God-given common sense informed by divinely revealed moral principles to find the best tentative opinion, remaining open to improvement. I attempt to be succinct and to offer an original synthesis or partial solution. The strategy I think works best (is most logical) is to begin by establishing the facts or what is least debatable and then try to clarify the not so obvious or gray area in between. As I noted at the end of Lesson 1, several biblical passages, such as 1 Peter 3:15b (“Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.”), indicate that we should at least think and attempt to learn the best opinions or solutions regarding issues, even if we have little power to enact them.

Abortion

On one side of the debate are those who believe that pregnant women have the right to kill their fetuses until birth (“birthists”). On the opposite side of the issue are those who believe that fetuses have the right to live from conception (“conceptionists”). The Bible does not specifically address this question, although two passages (EX 21:22-25 & LK 1:41-44) seem to suggest that an unborn baby should be considered a person at least by the time of quickening. However, if a person studies fetal development, at some point he/she will probably contemplate two pictures: one of a seven-month-old fetus in the womb, and one of a seven-month-old premature but viable baby outside the womb.

This should lead one to understand that geographical location is not a valid basis for defining personhood. There is no qualitative change that occurs at birth, merely a difference in the mode of breathing and feeding. And so a person will be led to consider the crucial question: when does a developing fetus become a human person with the God-given right to civil life so that to kill it is murder and warrants punishment? People on both sides of the debate usually overlook this question when they discuss this issue, but considerations other than the advent of personhood are irrelevant, unless someone would use the same rationale to justify the killing of children and adults.

Those who adopt the conceptionist viewpoint are certainly right that a qualitative change occurs when the chromosomes in the egg and sperm are united, so that physical development of a new human being begins. and they should mourn the death of a miscarried fetus at any stage of development in the same manner they would memorialize the death of a post-birth baby, in order to practice what they preach or believe. Those who adopt the birthist opinion apparently assume that birth is the qualitative change that marks the beginning of personhood. However, learning about fetal development should enable birthists to realize that the advent of personhood definitely does not extend beyond the seventh month or viability, when a premature baby is frequently able to survive.

Thus, birthists should at least become “viabilitists”. Are there any changes between conception and viability that might more reasonably/logically be viewed as indicative of the beginning of personality? There is one possibility: the counterpart of the basis doctors use for determining when an adult person no longer is alive. This basis is brain death or the absence of certain brain wave activity detected by an electroencephalo-gram (EEG). We might call this stage “sentience”, referring to the level of brain activity which indicates the fetus has brain life and is therefore a person, who should be granted the civil right to life. If our best definition of sentient death is the cessation of these brain waves, then it is logical and consistent to view sentient life as beginning at least when these brain waves are detectable. Thus, I think every open-minded and truth-seeking person on both sides of the abortion debate should agree that the fetus becomes sentient and a legal person at least by that stage of development. Birthists or viabilists and conceptionists should become “sentientists.

This is only a partial solution, but it is better than the current consensus that allows abortion throughout pregnancy. It is a big step in the right direction toward no abortion except in order to save the life of the mother. It recognizes that a gray area still exists from conception until sentience, so people may still reasonably disagree about the status of the fetus during this period, which may change as science improves. This view permits most forms of birth control. Implementing this solution requires educating every post-pubescent person about fetal development until society develops a new consensus that when a fetus becomes sentient, abortion is a type of murder and should be punished appropriately. Two wrongs do not make a right.

“Thou shalt…Love thy baby…”

“You created my inmost being,
You knit me together in my mother’s womb.
I praise you because I am wonderfully made…

My frame was not hidden from you
When I was made in the secret place…
Your eyes saw my unformed body.”

(Psalms 139:13-16, cf. Exodus 20:13)

If you want to redeem this thread, tell the truth and answer the questions it will redeem you and prove YOUR NOT A LIAR.

If you want to talk about yourself, why do it on the thread which you was espoused as a liar why not start your own thread.

The title ITS' ALL ABOUT ME.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eli1
Too easy. The absence of Paul encouraging SIT in his writings except for 1Cor. 14:18 may be due to his realization that it was also practiced by pagans, and it had not become a problem in the other churches.
My question was specific to your contradiction regarding tongues. You said "babbliing" is the only thing you find problematic about speaking in tongues. Yet, your comment from a previous post indicates otherwise:

"one should not be myopic and focus only on a problematic proof-text (Paul stating, I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.) (1Cor. 14:18), ignoring the absence of affirming tongues in other Pauline epistles."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2ndTimeIsTheCharm
Too easy. The absence of Paul encouraging SIT in his writings except for 1Cor. 14:18 may be due to his realization that it was also practiced by pagans, and it had not become a problem in the other churches.

MAY BE DUE TO HIS REALIZATION????

HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT HE MAY HAVE OR MAY NOT HAVE THOUGHT???

DUDE, we have NO IDEA what Paul was thinking you can't ASSUME what he was thinking all we have to go with it's WHAT'S IN GOD'S WORD.

KEEP YOU OUT OF IT and explain your comments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eli1