So you must have run out of material if you have taken to describing what you do instead of doing it.
Is cessation an observation or theology?
- Thread starter Lamar
- 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.
You posted the link. I read over it again. Do YOU think Chrysostom was accurately interpreting the text?
Despite posting this, you later deny calling anyone "stupid" Can you be any more disengenuous?
Yet, he simply repeated that tongues ceased.
For at that time in history it was well established that they had ceased.
It all began in the 1800's when what appears to be tongues appeared.
The Word is to protect us.
I pointed out that God called him stupid.
Proverbs 12:1
Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge,
but whoever hates correction is stupid.
I was simply in agreement with God.
God calls him stupid.
keep trying.
There are web pages you can go to with historical quotes that list various references to spiritual gifts throughout history, including speaking in tongues. If you are really interested, you could read a book like 'The Spirit and the Church. Volume I: Antiquity' by Burgess, or the two volumes covering later time periods. Even 'Evangelism in the Early Church' by Michael Greene has some useful information.
You could also read specific authors like the writings of Irenaeus, who lived around 200 AD and referred to speaking in tongues and prophecy, a man who wrote well after the first century.
I am sure you know them by heart.
What I need is......
1 Corinthians 14:7-9
Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the pipe or harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the notes?
Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle?
So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone
know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air.
.
For those interested in commentary on 'whose God is their belly', I'll add another commentary (in English) from Greek writers and several Latin ones.
Origen — Commentary on Matthew, Book 11
“For just as the belly, though it is not the god of those who prize pleasure too highly, being lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, is said by Paul to be their god…”
Latin
Augustine: Sermon 1 on the New Testament
“For whereas men really eat to live, they think that they live to eat. These will every wise man condemn, and holy Scripture especially, all gluttons, drunkards, gormandizers, ‘whose god is their belly.’”
Jerome: Letter 22, to Eustochium
“By them you will understand why the first man, obeying his belly and not God, was cast down from paradise… and why he speaks of the self-indulgent as men ‘whose God is their belly.’ For men invariably worship what they like best.”
Meaning: Jerome reads “belly” spiritually/morally: whatever a person loves most becomes functionally worshiped.
Same passage in Latin, Wikisource
“Et de luxuriosis, ‘quorum Deus venter est’ (Philipp. 3). Id enim colit unusquisque, quod diligit.”
Translation: “And concerning the self-indulgent: ‘whose God is their belly.’ For each person worships what he loves.”
Ambrosiaster: commentary on Philippians 3:18–19
Source: Commentaria in Epistolam ad Philippenses, on Phil. 3:17–19. Wikisource notes this is Ambrosiaster, 4th century, based on Migne PL 17 and Corpus Corporum.
Latin quote:
“Hi quos significat, e numero eorum sunt, qui Galatas everterant… de cibis edendis, et non edendis quaestiones moventes, quasi salus in esca sit, aut venter Deus… Ad locum autem hunc non pertinet, ut quaestus causa aut gulae dixerit: Quorum Deus venter est.”
Translation:
“Those whom he is indicating are from the number of those who had upset the Galatians… raising questions about foods to be eaten and not eaten, as though salvation were in food, or as though the belly were God… This passage does not mean that he said, ‘whose god is their belly,’ because of financial gain or gluttony.”
Ambrosiaster takes this to refer to the Judaizers Paul dealt with earlier in the chapter, who were concerned about food laws.
Origen — Commentary on Matthew, Book 11
“For just as the belly, though it is not the god of those who prize pleasure too highly, being lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, is said by Paul to be their god…”
Latin
Augustine: Sermon 1 on the New Testament
“For whereas men really eat to live, they think that they live to eat. These will every wise man condemn, and holy Scripture especially, all gluttons, drunkards, gormandizers, ‘whose god is their belly.’”
Jerome: Letter 22, to Eustochium
“By them you will understand why the first man, obeying his belly and not God, was cast down from paradise… and why he speaks of the self-indulgent as men ‘whose God is their belly.’ For men invariably worship what they like best.”
Meaning: Jerome reads “belly” spiritually/morally: whatever a person loves most becomes functionally worshiped.
Same passage in Latin, Wikisource
“Et de luxuriosis, ‘quorum Deus venter est’ (Philipp. 3). Id enim colit unusquisque, quod diligit.”
Translation: “And concerning the self-indulgent: ‘whose God is their belly.’ For each person worships what he loves.”
Ambrosiaster: commentary on Philippians 3:18–19
Source: Commentaria in Epistolam ad Philippenses, on Phil. 3:17–19. Wikisource notes this is Ambrosiaster, 4th century, based on Migne PL 17 and Corpus Corporum.
Latin quote:
“Hi quos significat, e numero eorum sunt, qui Galatas everterant… de cibis edendis, et non edendis quaestiones moventes, quasi salus in esca sit, aut venter Deus… Ad locum autem hunc non pertinet, ut quaestus causa aut gulae dixerit: Quorum Deus venter est.”
Translation:
“Those whom he is indicating are from the number of those who had upset the Galatians… raising questions about foods to be eaten and not eaten, as though salvation were in food, or as though the belly were God… This passage does not mean that he said, ‘whose god is their belly,’ because of financial gain or gluttony.”
Ambrosiaster takes this to refer to the Judaizers Paul dealt with earlier in the chapter, who were concerned about food laws.
For a cessationist, you are rather bold with statements that are akin to false prophecy. Don't pretend to speak for God out of carnality and your own mind.
The irony is how badly you are reacting to correction. You sure seem to hate it. You have to be correct to correct someone and you clearly are not.
God told the Israelites to stone false prophets, so you should treat lightly when treating your own thoughts and interpretations as if they were the words of the Almighty. At the end of the book of Job, Job made an offering for his friends for speaking what is not true of the Almighty.
Again, I rebuke you for your lack of fear of the Lord.
Neither middle or passive voice in I Corinthians 13 mean that. The verbs in the passage in question do not mean that. I corrected your error. Other posters may have.
You interpreted 'whose god is their belly' to be about emotion. Biblical commentators, including a native speaker of Greek from closer in time, took that to refer to lusts, appetites, passions, etc. I found one who took to to refer to Judaizers, who were concerned with dietary issues. Never 'ruled by emotion.' I don't know that a speaker of Greek's mind would go in that direction. I don't believe the theory that only genez has the Holy Spirit leading him to correct interpretation, while he calls someone who disagrees 'stupid', claiming to speak for God.
I also corrected you for saying Pentecostal's belly was their god, pointing out that there were millions of them, and asking how you could say that about so many people. Then you falsely asserted that I was arguing that a lot of people believing something made it true. I corrected you for your false statements.
You gave no exegetical or logical basis for your accusation that those ruled by emotions have their belly, or even their emotions, as their god, or that Pentecostals have their bellies (or their emotions) as their god.
You do seem to hate the correction. I urge you to repent.
Body parts to the ancients were often times used to describe what today we will call "emotions."
If not?
Whoever wrote this Scripture should be in trouble.
Philippians 1:8
For God is my record, how greatly I long after you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ."
Genesis 43:30And Joseph made haste; for his bowels did yearn upon his brother: and he sought where
to weep; and he entered into his chamber, and wept there.
.
Belly used Figuratively for the Seat of the Affections.
Topical Encyclopedia.
In biblical literature, the term "belly" is often employed figuratively to denote the seat of human affections, desires, and emotions. This metaphorical usage reflects the ancient understanding of the human body, where the belly or stomach was considered the center of one's innermost feelings and appetites.
Look at the link!
Body parts again!
Reins (kidneys) in the Bible meant also emotions!
Yes, in the Bible—particularly in the King James Version (KJV)—the word "reins" is an archaic term for kidneys, which were used metaphorically to represent a person's innermost emotions, affections, desires, and deepest motivations.
........
Reins (kidneys) in the Bible meant also emotions!
Yes, in the Bible—particularly in the King James Version (KJV)—the word "reins" is an archaic term for kidneys, which were used metaphorically to represent a person's innermost emotions, affections, desires, and deepest motivations.
........
The association between the belly and emotions is not just a primitive concept but a deeply rooted biological and historical reality. Ancient, particularly Mesopotamian, texts suggest that for thousands of years, humans have understood their "insides"—specifically the liver and stomach—as the primary seat of emotions and the soul, rather than the brain. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Here is a breakdown of the connection between the belly and emotions in human history:
1. Ancient Perspectives (Mesopotamia)
Here is a breakdown of the connection between the belly and emotions in human history:
1. Ancient Perspectives (Mesopotamia)
- The Seat of Emotion: In ancient Akkadian texts (c. 934–612 BC), terms like libbu (belly, inside, heart) and kabattu (liver, innards) were frequently used to describe emotional states.
- Happiness in the Liver: Happiness was often described through phrases related to being "full" or having a "shining" liver.
- Sadness in the Stomach: Similar to modern phrases like "gut-wrenching," ancient Mesopotamians associated the stomach with feelings of fear, grief, and emotional distress.
Longing and yearning in the bowels, not a reference to bowels without some context to indicate emotion here.
Again, bowels, not koilia, or belly, and there is context here to show this is referring to emotions. he longed... in the bowels. Josephs bowels yearned. 'Not Judas bowels gushed out... he must have really been expressing his feelings!' There was context that shows us it is referring to emotions, not literal.
You wrote,
You have a commentary vaguely along the lines of what you are argument. It says the belly is the seat of emotions, not that koilia _means_ emotions, and your arguing for it devoid of context clues that back up the assertion.
In Proverbs 20:27 and 18:8 the commentary associates the belly with the 'inmost being', not emotions, nothing to do with being ruled by emotions.
And the commentary on Philippians 3:19 aligns with what I've been trying to tell you and with many of the commentaries from the early centuries of Christianity said, that I've been posting on the forum.
"In this passage, the apostle Paul uses "belly" to describe those whose lives are governed by their base desires and appetites. The belly, as a metaphor, highlights the dominance of carnal and earthly affections over spiritual pursuits."
I see you are just going to keep deflecting.
I can not stop you if you wish to keep denying the real issue we are dealing with.
When the time comes, the Lord will show you what you denied and defied when you were offered for correction.
And, also show you, the real source for the tongues you have become overtaken by.
Have a nice Day!!!
(you are on Ignore)
Very strange since you are citing a source stating what I have been trying to tell you, yet sticking to your guns...
Claiming to speak for God while arguing for cessationism...
Accusing millions of Christians of worshipping another God based on eisegesis and fuzzy reasoning.
Not accepting correction for it.
A. Here you claim that the group Paul was referring to in Philippians 3 were not condemned eternally but that the Apostle was only referring to those whose WORKS would be burned up.
18 For as I have often told you before, and now say again even with tears: Many live as ENEMIES of the CROSS of Christ
Paul does not refer to them as errant children who need correction Rather, he calls them ENEMIES of the CROSS OF CHRIST. This means they are in active opposition not only to what Christ DID on the cross but to Christ's role as sacrifice and savior. Paul said that the cross is foolishness to UNBELIEVERS.
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."
The gospel message seems illogical to unbelievers but is recognized by believers as God's saving power.
(1 Corinthians 1:18)
B. He then speaks about what their END will be. Does this not tell us about how they will end up after the FINAL judgement? He does not say their dross will be purified by the refiner's fire. At that point, there is no "gold" left in them to refine, only dross. Thus He says their END will be DESTRUCTION not of their "works" but of their THEM. Confusing the fire of purification with the fire of judgment is a serious interpretationsal error as much as confusing how God graciously deals with sons as opposed to His judicial punishment of enemies
Romans 9:22: What if God, intending to show His wrath and make His power known, bore with great patience the vessels of His wrath, prepared for DESTRUCTION?
This is not just talking about just about WORKS. It is talking about the person or, rather, what they have allowed themselves to become by not cooperating with the Holy Spirit.
C. Though you try to re-frame this, saying that the sort of person being described here will face destruction but not perdition but you fail to base your ideas on the meaning of the Greek text. For instance, the word DESTRUCTION comes from from APOLLEIA (ἀπώλεια) which is a derivative of apollumi; to bring to ruin or loss whether PHYSICAL, SPIRITUAL or ETERNAL. In contrast, to what you have said,
Vine's Expository Dictionary (page 165) says that apṓleia DOES INDEED indicate "perdition," just not annihilation
[https://biblehub.com/greek/684.htm]
D. This passage is relevant to our discussion because contains the key phrase - their god is their belly which you have attempted to foist on all whom you deem to be too emotional. Though this particular idea is not found in the writings of those with extensive knowledge of Koine Greek such as A. T. Robertson and John Chrysostom.
E. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance defines destruction (aἀπώλεια) as: damnation, destruction, perish, waste. inasmuch as it is a likely derivative of apollumi; ruin or loss (physical, spiritual or eternal)
Thayer's Lexicon adds: in particular, the destruction which consists in the loss of eternal life, eternal misery, perdition, the lot of those excluded from the kingdom of God
Do you not understand that defining the phrase making ones belly their God is not just about FOOD but placing our priority on serving our physical/sensual appetites over the spiritual desires implanted in us by the Holy Spirit
Do you not understand that the phrase making ones belly their God is not ONLY about the consumption of food but allowing the desires of the flesh - our physical appetites - to rule OVER the spiritual desires implanted in us by the Holy Spirit? People do this when they commit gluttony, drink alcohol excessively and indiscriminately obey their in sexual fantasies. Do you need to see scriptures before you will accept that engaging in these practices is sin or, perhaps you are an Antinomian who believes that from the first moment a person is saved all their sins - PAST, PRESENT and FUTURE are forgiven.
In Philippians 3:18–19, Paul describes as “enemies of the cross of Christ” those “whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame—who set their mind on earthly things” Such people whose god is their belly seek to fill their own appetites with earthly things contrary to the will of God. They refuse to do what is necessary to overcome temptation as Paul said:
12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its desires.
13 Do not present the parts of your body to sin as instruments of wickedness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and present the parts of your body to Him as instruments of righteousness.
14 For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.…
(Romans 6:12-14)