Is cessation an observation or theology?

[OMC]

NO I'm not. Listen you can you AI to formulate your argument. But you used AI and post your postion earlier

amen

You said, “You used AI earlier,” as if the medium of delivery somehow invalidates the content — but that’s not how reasoning works. The point I made was simple: my argument rests on Scripture, language, and textual history, and then I showed that your own preferred scholars openly acknowledge their interpretation of the gifts is modern, not apostolic. That’s not “using AI to formulate an argument”; that’s pointing out an internal inconsistency in the position you’re defending. You haven’t refuted the textual case, the preservation case, the Greek/Hebrew case, or the historical case — you’ve only tried to discredit the messenger. The content stands regardless of the medium. If Fee says his interpretation is modern, it doesn’t matter whether I typed it, dictated it, or wrote it with a quill; the claim is Fee’s, and the evidence is textual.

No I'm not. If you use AI it only provides the response to your in put. Then you use it to correct what you input earlier to formulate the argument. You still said this:

"These authors openly state that their interpretation is modern, not ancient." in context to the gift of the Holy Spirit manifestation. Now you say :

"The scholars you listed are not the foundation of my argument, nor do they “validate my perspective.”

Also this is not your original idea or response :

"That’s illustrative: it exposes an internal inconsistency in the position you’re defending. But the foundation of my argument is not, “Fee says so, therefore it’s true”; it’s Scripture’s own doctrine of preservation, the Greek and Hebrew text, the NT’s use of the Septuagint, and the historical transmission of the canon."

WE are not fooled guy.

Your objection still doesn’t touch the substance of what I said. You keep insisting that “using AI” somehow makes the argument not mine, but that’s just a way of avoiding the actual point: the content I presented is still my argument, and the medium that delivered the words doesn’t change the logic, the citations, or the textual claims. When I said those scholars openly acknowledge their interpretation is modern, that was a fact about their own published statements — not an appeal to their authority. When I said they are not the foundation of my argument, that was also true — because the foundation is Scripture’s preservation, the Greek and Hebrew text, the NT’s use of the LXX, and the historical transmission of the canon. You’re trying to make “you used AI” into a trump card, but it’s not a rebuttal; it’s a distraction. The argument stands or falls on whether the text supports it, not on whether I typed it by hand. You haven’t refuted the textual claims, the linguistic claims, or the historical claims — you’ve only tried to discredit the messenger.

 

[Lamar]

I have, in my youth, 20-24, lived in a community of the Latter Day Saints. I became fully aware of their their theology and what I consider their unsupported history. I have deep admiration for their "community." I support their insistence of the sanctity of marriage. Their evangelistic - everyone starts as a missionary - perspective. Historically and scripturally (NT) they are nowhere to be found in the institutionalized Christian Church. Some of their scholars are pretty good, but must skirt the chasm that is central to their identity.

On the other hand, non-LDS Christians will have to compete with a massively wealthy institution. The The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) owns at least 2.4 million acres of land across the United States, placing it among the top private landowners in the country. Data assessments suggest the LDS Church's real estate and land portfolio exceeds $20 billion, making it one of the most financially valuable private land portfolios in the United States. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints acquired its massive portfolio of over 2.4 million acres by investing surplus tithing funds and member donations into real estate through specialized corporate and nonprofit subsidiaries. The organization collects an estimated $7 billion annually in member contributions. There membership is about 7 million in the USA and 18 million worldwide.

I appreciate your comments but this does not address the issue of the validity of their claims. Regardless of their community norms or numbers, should we accept their claims as being from God or reject their claims as unproven or false?

This is not just about history but the reality of their ongoing claims. This is true also of the Pentecostal churches.

Their claims are either true or false. If the claim that the age of physical supernatural manifestations is ongoing as it was during the New Testament (such as what CS1 claims) where is the evidence or at least the prima facie?

 

[OMC]

I appreciate your comments but this does not address the issue of the validity of their claims. Regardless of their community norms or numbers, should we accept their claims as being from God or reject their claims as unproven or false?

This is not just about history but the reality of their ongoing claims. This is true also of the Pentecostal churches.

Their claims are either true or false. If the claim that the age of physical supernatural manifestations is ongoing as it was during the New Testament (such as what CS1 claims) where is the evidence or at least the prima facie?

Your question is the right one: the issue is not whether a group claims supernatural manifestations — the issue is whether those claims bear the marks Scripture itself requires.
Numbers, enthusiasm, community norms, or denominational identity don’t settle anything.
The New Testament never tells me to accept a claim because it is widespread, nor to reject it because it is unfamiliar.
It tells me to test it.

Here is the core truth I operate from: a claim of ongoing physical supernatural manifestations is either true or false, and Scripture gives me the criteria to discern the difference.
Not sociological criteria. Not denominational criteria. Biblical criteria.

 

[Lamar]

Your question is the right one: the issue is not whether a group claims supernatural manifestations — the issue is whether those claims bear the marks Scripture itself requires.
Numbers, enthusiasm, community norms, or denominational identity don’t settle anything.
The New Testament never tells me to accept a claim because it is widespread, nor to reject it because it is unfamiliar.
It tells me to test it.

Here is the core truth I operate from: a claim of ongoing physical supernatural manifestations is either true or false, and Scripture gives me the criteria to discern the difference.
Not sociological criteria. Not denominational criteria. Biblical criteria.

Thank you for your reply but I must make clear my point about the validity of these claims of physical supernatural manifestations.

For such a claim to be true and worthy of scriptural testing (such as in Berea) the claim must meet the three aspects of a physical supernatural manifestation.

1. Is it physical? Is it tangiable?
2. Is it supernatural? Does it go against natural laws?
3. Is it a manifestation? Something that can be witnessed with human senses?

Only then should we entertain the notion of "testing the spirits".

It is important to remember that the Pentecostal movement is not just claiming past events as miraculous but that the New Testament age of miracles is still ongoing and alive in their midst.

This is the obvious lie that is so damaging to the church.

IOW, there is nothing to test.

 

[OMC]

Thank you for your reply but I must make clear my point about the validity of these claims of physical supernatural manifestations.

For such a claim to be true and worthy of scriptural testing (such as in Berea) the claim must meet the three aspects of a physical supernatural manifestation.

1. Is it physical? Is it tangiable?
2. Is it supernatural? Does it go against natural laws?
3. Is it a manifestation? Something that can be witnessed with human senses?

Only then should we entertain the notion of "testing the spirits".

It is important to remember that the Pentecostal movement is not just claiming past events as miraculous but that the New Testament age of miracles is still ongoing and alive in their midst.

This is the obvious lie that is so damaging to the church.

IOW, there is nothing to test.

I was agreeing with you.

 

[Inquisitor]

Is it supernatural? Does it go against natural laws?

How can anyone test whether something is supernatural or fits natural law?

 

[Inquisitor]

a claim of ongoing physical supernatural manifestations is either true or false, and Scripture gives me the criteria to discern the difference.

That test is performed according to the criteria that the apostles defined.

The apostles at all times were operating under the power of the Holy Spirit.

So if a church does not have the manifestation of the Holy Spirit then something is wrong.

That is the criteria and is the polar opposite of what you folk claim.

 

[OMC]

That test is performed according to the criteria that the apostles defined.

The apostles at all times were operating under the power of the Holy Spirit.

So if a church does not have the manifestation of the Holy Spirit then something is wrong.

That is the criteria and is the polar opposite of what you folk claim.

When I say that a claim of ongoing physical supernatural manifestations must be tested, I am not inventing criteria—I am submitting to the criteria the apostles themselves gave. And here is the truth you are missing: the apostles never taught that the presence of the Spirit is proven by ongoing physical supernatural manifestations. They taught that the Spirit is known by truth, holiness, sobriety, love, sound doctrine, and obedience. They taught that the Spirit produces fruit, not spectacle. They taught that the Spirit empowers boldness, not theatrics. They taught that the Spirit reveals Christ, not the gifted individual. So when you say, “If a church does not have manifestations, something is wrong,” I must answer: that is the polar opposite of what the apostles actually said. Paul rebuked the Corinthians precisely because they equated manifestations with spirituality. He told them that tongues without understanding were childish. He told them that prophecy without order was confusion. He told them that love—not signs—is the greatest evidence of the Spirit. And he told them that the Spirit’s true work is discerned by whether Christ is exalted and the church is edified. So I cannot accept your criterion, because it is not the apostles’ criterion. The apostles operated under the Spirit’s power, yes—but they never made ongoing physical manifestations the test of a church’s legitimacy. They made truth, holiness, and sound doctrine the test. And by that test, many modern claims collapse before they ever reach the threshold of biblical examination.

 

[biblestudent78]

I appreciate your comments but this does not address the issue of the validity of their claims. Regardless of their community norms or numbers, should we accept their claims as being from God or reject their claims as unproven or false?

This is not just about history but the reality of their ongoing claims. This is true also of the Pentecostal churches.

Their claims are either true or false. If the claim that the age of physical supernatural manifestations is ongoing as it was during the New Testament (such as what CS1 claims) where is the evidence or at least the prima facie?

I is not my job to "validate their claims." Obviously, they conflict with my Christian experience and massively struggle to find purchase in the New Testament.
More importantly, there have been 7 major attempts to "restore New Testament Christianity." Or at least find some validity for the dogmas, creeds, catechisms and Statements of Faith that have come down to us over the ages but seem to be failing us now. All major Protestant and Catholic church are seeing dramatic declines in attendance and perhaps more importantly, $ giving.

When the Roman Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity in 313 AD, something fundamental shifted. The faith of underground gatherings and martyrs became the faith of emperors, state buildings, and political power. And almost immediately, some Christians began to wonder when exactly did we lose our way. That question has haunted the church for nearly 17 centuries, sparking
movements of reform, resistance, and radical reimagining. Some were declared heretical. Some shaped the course of Western civilization. All of them believed they had discovered something the rest of Christianity had forgotten.

1 Gnostics:
For centuries, mainstream Christianity taught that Gnostics were heretics who invented false gospels and corrupted pure doctrine. But here's what's crucial to understand. The Gnostics didn't see themselves as that. They believed they were the preservationists.In the 2n century AD, Gnostic teachers like Valentinus in Alexandria and Basilites in Rome taught that there existed a hidden knowledge, a nosis, passed directly from Jesus to his closest disciples, kept secret from the world. They pointed to mysterious passages in the gospels where Jesus tells his followers, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdoms and they asked, "What secrets?
The Gnostic cosmology was radical. They taught that the God described in the Old Testament, the creator God who made the world with matter and flesh, was actually a flawed being, an imperfect demiurge, and that the true God was a transcendent being of pure spirit far beyond creation. Jesus in this view came not to redeem creation, but to liberate the divine sparks of consciousness trapped within sphysical bodies. The material world wasn't good. It was a prison. This flew in the face of Orthodox Christianity.

2. Monasticism:
Around 270 AD, a man named Anthony of Egypt did something shocking. He walked into the desert and didn't come back for 20 years. When he finally emerged, he was thin, weathered, and according to contemporary accounts, illuminated by an otherworldly spiritual presence. Anthony wasn't fleeing the world half-hazardly. He was deliberately retreating from what he saw as a corrupted church. By the 4th century, after Constantine's legalization, the church had become worldly. Bishops were now wealthy and politically connected.
The line between Christian and pagan had blurred. Power, influence, and earthly success seemed to matter more than spiritual transformation. Anony's insight was radical. The purest form of Christianity wasn't found in elaborate theology or institutional
structures, but in radical renunciation, in prayer, fasting, and communion with God in the wilderness. He didn't claim to be inventing something new. He pointed to the desert fathers mentioned in scripture to figures like John the Baptist and Elijah and asked, "Weren't these the true spiritual heroes? Shouldn't the deepest spiritual life exist in radical separation from the world?" Within decades, thousands followed Anony's model. By the fifth became the spiritual elite of Christianity, the gold standard of holiness. What's fascinating is that monasticism did attempt to restore something genuine from the early church.

 

[biblestudent78]

3. The Waldensians.
Now, let's encounter a movement that actually got burned for heresy. The Waldensians. In 1173, a wealthy merchant from Lion named Peter Waldo experienced a spiritual crisis. According to the chronicle, he witnessed someone dying suddenly at a feast and was seized with the thought, "I could be next." He spent the next months reading the Gospels obsessively, and he became convinced that Jesus's teachings were fundamentally about radical poverty and renunciation. So, he did what seemed logical. He gave away his fortune. He founded a movement called the Poor Men of Lion. And they stook evangelical poverty seriously. They dressed in simple garments. They walked barefoot. They preached on street corners and in villages, spreading the gospel message directly to common people in their own languages, not in Latin, not through priests, but through ordinary folk like themselves. Here's where it gets contentious. The Waldensians began to ask why they needed priests at all. If poverty and preaching were the heart of the faith, why couldn't lay people preach? Why was the sacramental authority of the clergy necessary? They weren't trying to be rebellious. They were trying to restore what they saw as the apostolic model. Ordinary people proclaiming the gospel, living simply, depending on God. But the church couldn't tolerate this. In 1184, Pope Lucius III condemned the Waldensians as heretics. By the 13th century, the Waldensians were being hunted. Thousands were burned at the stake. Their crime, taking the gospel literally while rejecting priestly mediation. The brutal irony is that much of what the Waldenses taught about lay Bible reading, about common people hearing scripture in their own language, about evangelical poverty would later be championed by Martin Luther and become central to Protestantism. But in 1300, it meant death. Remarkably, the Waldensian church survived.

4. Wyclif
By the 14th and 15th centuries, another reformer emerged with similar impulses. John Wickliffe in England. Wickliffe was different from the Waldensians. He was an Oxford scholar, a trained theologian protected by English nobility. But his core conviction was
the same. He believed the church had become corrupt, that it had strayed from scripture, and that ordinary Christians should have direct access to God's word. In the 1370s and 1380s, Wickliffe led a movement to translate the Bible from Latin into English.
9:189 minutes, 18 seconds;. This might not sound revolutionary to us, but imagine for over a thousand years in Western Europe, the Bible existed only in Latin and priests interpreted it for you. It was a tool of priestly power.Wikliff's claim was simple. People should read scripture themselves. They should judge doctrine by scripture. The church should be answerable to scripture, not scripture to the church. Wycliffe went further, too. He argued that the papal church had no biblical basis, that popes had no special authority, that clergy should be subject to secular rulers, that the church shouldn't own property. He was basically describing Protestantism 200 years early. And yes, he was condemned. After his death, his remains were exhumed and his bones burned by church authorities. Such was the intensity of opposition. But Wikliff's translation work inspired a movement among his followers, the Lawards, who copied and distributed English Bibles in secret.

5: Martin Luter (family name he changed to Luther)
Initially, Martin was not rebelling against the Catholic Church and was appalled by "indulgences." He saw himself as a reformer of Catholic practices that had arisen focused on indulgences that leveraged the Catholic concept of purgatory. For enough $$ you could buy your way out and/or forgive sins you were committing now. For $$$$ you could buy your relatives out of purgatory. The Pope was building St Peter's Cathedral in Rome and needed to pay back those who had lent him the money....thus the sale of indulgences was a big money maker. Luther planted a theological seed that has spawned 450,000 kinds of Christian Churches via his insistence that the average person could read the bible and a come up with a coherent and consistent theology. Sola Scriptura became the seed that planted a vast garden of competing Christian sects, denominations, non-denominations and like a shattered glass, lots of competing splinters.

6. In the 19th and 20th Century the Church of the Latter Day saints, 7th Day adventists, Pentecostalists, 4 Square Gospel and other attempts to "restore" Christianity have evolved. In this period you have the Restoration Movement that deems to speak where the Bible Speaks and be Silent where it is silent. With, perhaps 500,000 members of the various groups. Then there are the rapidly growing 7th Day Adventists.

I provide this recount of Christian History to recognize one key aspect. There has been for a very long time the belief that Christianity is all about WHAT you believe instead of HOW you live. IMHO, until Christians are able to understand that Christianity is both vertical - Man- God relationship and horizontal mamn-man relationship we will continue to splinter along fault lines of scriptural interpretation that matter nothing to the unsaved world. Nobody cares about what you know until they know how much you care is IMHO central to Christianity.

 

[CS1]

You said, “You used AI earlier,” as if the medium of delivery somehow invalidates the content — but that’s not how reasoning works. The point I made was simple: my argument rests on Scripture, language, and textual history, and then I showed that your own preferred scholars openly acknowledge their interpretation of the gifts is modern, not apostolic. That’s not “using AI to formulate an argument”; that’s pointing out an internal inconsistency in the position you’re defending. You haven’t refuted the textual case, the preservation case, the Greek/Hebrew case, or the historical case — you’ve only tried to discredit the messenger. The content stands regardless of the medium. If Fee says his interpretation is modern, it doesn’t matter whether I typed it, dictated it, or wrote it with a quill; the claim is Fee’s, and the evidence is textual.

Your objection still doesn’t touch the substance of what I said. You keep insisting that “using AI” somehow makes the argument not mine, but that’s just a way of avoiding the actual point: the content I presented is still my argument, and the medium that delivered the words doesn’t change the logic, the citations, or the textual claims. When I said those scholars openly acknowledge their interpretation is modern, that was a fact about their own published statements — not an appeal to their authority. When I said they are not the foundation of my argument, that was also true — because the foundation is Scripture’s preservation, the Greek and Hebrew text, the NT’s use of the LXX, and the historical transmission of the canon. You’re trying to make “you used AI” into a trump card, but it’s not a rebuttal; it’s a distraction. The argument stands or falls on whether the text supports it, not on whether I typed it by hand. You haven’t refuted the textual claims, the linguistic claims, or the historical claims — you’ve only tried to discredit the messenger.

listen weather you use AI or not, you're still bloviating . You use Greek Hebrew that you did not get or even read. That what I see in your response. I could take what you just said put into AI and post a rebuttal to everything you just said. It's a revolving door with no end. its fake guy. I will do what you and all will se what I mean.

 

[OMC]

listen weather you use AI or not, you're still bloviating . You use Greek Hebrew that you did not get or even read. That what I see in your response. I could take what you just said put into AI and post a rebuttal to everything you just said. It's a revolving door with no end. its fake guy. I will do what you and all will se what I mean.

Brother, whether you type your rebuttal by hand or run it through a machine, the issue isn’t the medium—it’s whether the argument is text‑true, context‑true, and Scripture‑true; Greek and Hebrew aren’t decorations, they’re the languages God chose to record His Word, and any serious student—disabled or not—has every right to consult them, quote them, and use them, because accuracy is not “bloviating,” it’s obedience to the command to “rightly divide the word of truth.” If you think my argument is wrong, then show where the text breaks; but saying “I could feed your words into AI and generate a rebuttal” doesn’t prove anything except that you’re tired of the debate. The revolving door stops the moment someone demonstrates from Scripture—not emotion, not suspicion, not accusation—that a claim is false. If you produce a rebuttal, I’ll examine it the same way I examine everything: by the text, by the context, and by the Word itself

 

[CS1]

I agree with one part of what you’re saying: whether AI was involved in writing the argument does not, by itself, determine whether the argument is true or false. Arguments should ultimately be evaluated on their evidence and reasoning. But that cuts both ways.

The fact that you cited scholars, textual history, Greek/Hebrew, or Scripture does not automatically establish your conclusion either. Those claims still have to be examined in context. Saying that a scholar considers an interpretation “modern” does not, by itself, prove that the opposing interpretation is apostolic, nor does it establish that the linguistic or historical evidence necessarily leads to your conclusion.

And that is the issue I’m actually raising. You’re presenting several large conclusions—about preservation, the Greek and Hebrew texts, the LXX, the canon, and the history of interpretation—as though mentioning those categories settles the argument. It doesn’t. Each one requires its own evidence and careful argumentation.

So I’m not claiming, “You used AI, therefore you’re wrong.” That would be a weak argument.
My point is that if AI helped formulate the response, I want to know whether you actually understand and can defend the claims being made, rather than simply presenting a polished argument containing citations and scholarly language.

If the textual case is as strong as you say, then let’s leave the AI question completely aside and deal with the actual claims one at a time. Show specifically how the relevant Greek/Hebrew texts establish your position, how the historical evidence supports it, and how the quotations from Fee and the other scholars function in their actual context. If those arguments hold up, then they hold up regardless of who helped put the words together.


There you go Enjoy Cs1's response to you with AI. Took me 30 seconds .

 

[CS1]

Brother, whether you type your rebuttal by hand or run it through a machine, the issue isn’t the medium—it’s whether the argument is text‑true, context‑true, and Scripture‑true; Greek and Hebrew aren’t decorations, they’re the languages God chose to record His Word, and any serious student—disabled or not—has every right to consult them, quote them, and use them, because accuracy is not “bloviating,” it’s obedience to the command to “rightly divide the word of truth.” If you think my argument is wrong, then show where the text breaks; but saying “I could feed your words into AI and generate a rebuttal” doesn’t prove anything except that you’re tired of the debate. The revolving door stops the moment someone demonstrates from Scripture—not emotion, not suspicion, not accusation—that a claim is false. If you produce a rebuttal, I’ll examine it the same way I examine everything: by the text, by the context, and by the Word itself

Brother, I agree with your basic principle: an argument should ultimately be judged by the truth of Scripture, sound context, and accurate handling of the text. But that principle also means neither of us gets to assume that our interpretation is “text-true” simply because we appeal to Greek, Hebrew, or quote Scripture.

Greek and Hebrew can clarify meaning, but knowing the original languages does not automatically settle an exegetical dispute. Two people can examine the same Greek word, grammatical construction, or historical context and still disagree because the real question is how the passage functions in its immediate context and within the broader canon.

That’s also why I’m not going to accept the premise that unless I answer every claim you’ve made individually, you’ve somehow established your position. You’ve raised questions about preservation, textual transmission, the LXX, the canon, spiritual gifts, and historical interpretation. Those are substantial subjects, and they cannot responsibly be reduced to “show me where the text breaks.”

And regarding the scholars you cited: demonstrating that a scholar regards a particular interpretation as modern does not automatically demonstrate that the interpretation is unbiblical. “Modern” and “false” are not synonymous, just as “ancient” and “apostolic” are not synonymous. The historical age of an interpretation is evidence worth considering, but it is not itself the deciding argument.

So yes—let’s judge the claims by Scripture. But let’s do that consistently. Not by who can produce the most Greek or Hebrew, not by who has the longest list of quotations, and not by who can frame the disagreement as though the other side is refusing to engage.

If you want to take this passage by passage, claim by claim, I’m willing to do that. But then we need to establish the actual text, its immediate context, the relevant linguistic options, and the historical evidence before declaring that Scripture has already settled the question in one particular direction. That standard should apply equally to both of us.

 

[OMC]

Brother, I agree with your basic principle: an argument should ultimately be judged by the truth of Scripture, sound context, and accurate handling of the text. But that principle also means neither of us gets to assume that our interpretation is “text-true” simply because we appeal to Greek, Hebrew, or quote Scripture.

Greek and Hebrew can clarify meaning, but knowing the original languages does not automatically settle an exegetical dispute. Two people can examine the same Greek word, grammatical construction, or historical context and still disagree because the real question is how the passage functions in its immediate context and within the broader canon.

That’s also why I’m not going to accept the premise that unless I answer every claim you’ve made individually, you’ve somehow established your position. You’ve raised questions about preservation, textual transmission, the LXX, the canon, spiritual gifts, and historical interpretation. Those are substantial subjects, and they cannot responsibly be reduced to “show me where the text breaks.”

And regarding the scholars you cited: demonstrating that a scholar regards a particular interpretation as modern does not automatically demonstrate that the interpretation is unbiblical. “Modern” and “false” are not synonymous, just as “ancient” and “apostolic” are not synonymous. The historical age of an interpretation is evidence worth considering, but it is not itself the deciding argument.

So yes—let’s judge the claims by Scripture. But let’s do that consistently. Not by who can produce the most Greek or Hebrew, not by who has the longest list of quotations, and not by who can frame the disagreement as though the other side is refusing to engage.

If you want to take this passage by passage, claim by claim, I’m willing to do that. But then we need to establish the actual text, its immediate context, the relevant linguistic options, and the historical evidence before declaring that Scripture has already settled the question in one particular direction. That standard should apply equally to both of us.

You’re right that neither Greek nor Hebrew, nor the mere quotation of Scripture, automatically settles an exegetical dispute—but the moment we say, “we must establish the actual text, its immediate context, the relevant linguistic options, and the historical evidence,” we have already agreed to a standard that exposes most casual objections as rhetoric rather than exegesis. I don’t claim my position is “text‑true” because I use original languages; I claim it only when the passage, in its own flow, grammar, and canonical connections, refuses to bear the meaning being imposed on it. Age of an interpretation is not decisive, but it is not irrelevant either, because if a view appears only after certain systems arise, that at least warns us to check whether the system is driving the exegesis. I’m willing to go passage by passage, claim by claim—but then we both have to submit to the same discipline: no special pleading, no selective context, no hiding behind “options” when the text itself closes those options off. If we do that honestly, some positions will survive and some will not, and it won’t be because of Greek, Hebrew, or AI—it will be because the Word itself has spoken.

 

[CS1]

You’re right that neither Greek nor Hebrew, nor the mere quotation of Scripture, automatically settles an exegetical dispute—but the moment we say, “we must establish the actual text, its immediate context, the relevant linguistic options, and the historical evidence,” we have already agreed to a standard that exposes most casual objections as rhetoric rather than exegesis. I don’t claim my position is “text‑true” because I use original languages; I claim it only when the passage, in its own flow, grammar, and canonical connections, refuses to bear the meaning being imposed on it. Age of an interpretation is not decisive, but it is not irrelevant either, because if a view appears only after certain systems arise, that at least warns us to check whether the system is driving the exegesis. I’m willing to go passage by passage, claim by claim—but then we both have to submit to the same discipline: no special pleading, no selective context, no hiding behind “options” when the text itself closes those options off. If we do that honestly, some positions will survive and some will not, and it won’t be because of Greek, Hebrew, or AI—it will be because the Word itself has spoken.

then you can't say the gifts are not for today then can you? You can't say they have stopped either. You try to limited God based on what yo did not see over what the Text communicates on the working of the Holy Spirit.

 

[OMC]

then you can't say the gifts are not for today then can you? You can't say they have stopped either. You try to limited God based on what yo did not see over what the Text communicates on the working of the Holy Spirit.

You’re assuming I’m limiting God, but I’m actually limiting myself to what the text reveals, and that same text distinguishes between foundational apostolic signs and ongoing works of the Spirit, so the question isn’t what God can do today but what He said those gifts were for and when they operated.

 

[CS1]

You’re assuming I’m limiting God, but I’m actually limiting myself to what the text reveals, and that same text distinguishes between foundational apostolic signs and ongoing works of the Spirit, so the question isn’t what God can do today but what He said those gifts were for and when they operated.

the Church duh.

 

[OMC]

the Church duh.

The problem, other than your demon attitude, with your “the Church duh” response is that it ignores the fact that
Scripture itself distinguishes apostolic signs from ongoing works of the Spirit,
so appealing to “the Church” doesn’t erase the categories God revealed regarding what those gifts were for and when they operated.

 

[Inquisitor]

And here is the truth you are missing: the apostles never taught that the presence of the Spirit is proven by ongoing physical supernatural manifestations.

Oh yes they did OMC.

1 Corinthians 12:4:10
Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. There are
varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. But to each one is given the manifestation
of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word
of knowledge according to the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the
one Spirit, and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits,
to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues.

You have understood the N.T from a purely intellectual and reason based perspective.

Unfortunately, you have declared the letter to the Corinthians as obsolete in holding that perspective.

You cannot hold to the canon of scripture without accepting 1 Corinthians as the Lord's instruction for the church.

It's one or the other OMC.

You are forced to accept the fruit, gifts, and ministries of the Holy Spirit, if you regard the N.T letters as canon.

Do you accept 1 Corinthians or not?