Where does it say it was impossible for Philip to lay his hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit? You accuse me of adding my interpretation, but yet you do that same thing.
I never said "it says it's impossible", I read and draw the logical conclusion, plus it explicitly states, "when Simon saw through the laying on of the APOSTLES HANDS THE HOLY GHOST was given".
I mean how much more clear do you need it to be in order to conclude Philip could not do so?
Far from adding anything, you know that. You added "when perfection returns", that is an addition to the words. Mine is a logical conclusion based on the events and statement in the text.
Have you attempted to read Acts 8? I am baffled you are trying to make the argument Philip could lay his hands on them.
My explaination does have support to it. Look at Acts 8:16, they were only baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, but Jesus told us to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Philip did not do that. Why didn't he do that? I cannot know for sure, whether it was a lack of knowledge on Philip's part, or just a mistake which he ommitted, or something else.
Wow man, baptizing them in the name of Jesus is exactly what Christ said to do, "go ye and baptize in the name of the Father, SON, and holy Spirit"
Baptism in the name of means by the authority of. Philip did exactly what Christ commanded him to do. Are you seriously saying Philip did not understand what he was supposed to do, yet he was filled with the HS?
HOw is that possible? Instead of admitting your mistake here, you trying to put the blame on Philip?
If you cant admit this, you wont admit anything.
How can one be filled with the Holy Spirit, able to perform miracles, have the gift of knowledge in order to properly teach the gospel, and not understand what he was supposed to do?
I have heard some crazy things in my life, this takes the cake.
You have a perfect example that is a deathblow to you belief, and you are willing to say the inspired writer is recording one who did not know what to do, rather than looking to see if your wrong.
So what you're telling me is that no one has the Holy Spirit living in them anymore?
I never said anything like that. You seem to think if miracles are not present, neither can the Holy Spirit be.
You thinking is flawed to assume in order to have the Spirit, we must be able to perform miracles. This is a common misunderstanding due to false teachings of men.
When we are baptized into Christ upon believing the gospel, repenting of our sins, we receive the gift of the HS. This does not mean we can now go about like the Apostles raising the dead.
You claim your own interpretation for 1 Corinthians 13:10 is correct about it relating to ceasationism, but you have not proven your interpretation to be correct. You insert your own double standard saying I have to prove my view while you assume your view is the default and "correct" view.
I have given MUCH evidence to support my claim, just because your ignoring it does not make it go away.
I showed grammar: - "that" instead of "he" - you have ignored
I showed definition: "perfect" complete" always applied to man through scripture, and gave passages - You ignored.
I showed context: broke down the entire chapter - you have ignored.
So I have given sufficient arguments with supporting scripture and definitions, and rules of
grammar, you have ignored them all, and continue saying I have not proven...what else should I do? Deal with the arguments and make some of your own.
Look at how your handling Acts 8 - Philip had lack of knowledge. No Bible support, no scriptures, nothing, just an absurd opinion.
I get it, you've made up your mind, and you choose to be set in your ways. I do not wish to join you in that line of thinking, and I'm not going to start plugging my ears and eyes to reality.
You mean continue plugging your ears? Because that has been what your doing this entire time.
Seriously though, what you present is giving me the message, "the Bible is just an ancient book. Just believe that stuff happened in the past, and that's it. It's largely not relevant today. Just believe, no action." Again, this may not be your message, but that's the way you're coming off with this ceasationism.
Well, your jumping to conclusions that I have not stated, dealing with things I have not said, and avoiding all the arguments and support I have given.
The Bible is relevant, the sad thing is you cant have faith without miracles, of at least you seem to come off that way with this entire conversation.
ok, it's "when the perfect comes" not "returns." I admit I made a slight error by not looking up the passage before posting about it.
It is not "slight" it changed the meaning of the passage. It also shows what you think the passage says, which could be a problem when defending what your defending.
That phrase doesn't mean it has not come once before. Do you deny that Jesus came to earth in the flesh?
Exactly my point, thank you. It does not say return, but "when comes" implying it has not come yet. We know Jesus has come already. So then the perfect (complete) is not referring to Him, but a thing, hence the word "that" to describe it.
The language is plain
Who said it's not "brought out publicly" or that it "only happens at church." Maybe it just get's bogged down and ignored becasue too many people, both non-Christians and professing Christians plug their ears and eyes to such things and deny them. But once again, you seem to be set in your ways, and you're just going to block out anything contrary.
You mean because I dont want to hear you stories about people who know someone who did this and that? If that is why then sure, set in my ways. My ways being support from the Bible. BCV(book chapter verse), you have not shown anything from this, but keep repeating stories I cannot confirm.
Again I Cor 13:10 - deal with the arguments of grammar, definition, and context.
Acts 8 - deal with Simon's statement he saw that through the Apostles hands the HS was given, hence why Philip did not do so.
Just saying Philip did not know, and Simon was wrong to, is not a valid
argument. It is foolish assumption (plugging your ears and eyes) to even say such a thing.
And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief.
Matthew 13:58
Nothing about "would not," that's just something you added.
"DID NOT DO" does not say "HE COULD NOT" as you said ONCE AGAIN changing the meaning.
DID NOT implies he did not, same as would not. IF your going to focus on exact wording, then please proof read.
Who did he heal in that passage, one with faith, or was he healing the ones accusing him of being from Satan?
Does not matter who was healed, who seen it? So go to a hospital full of sick kids that will believe anything you say, even if the doctors and nurses do not believe and heal them. If you can, or know someone who can, then why are you not doing it? What is the problem? Surely you would not keep such a gift to yourself, when you could do good to a child, and lead many to the faith, because your words would be confirmed by others seeing.
If you're going to strawman me with this Santa nonsense, then this conversation isn't going to go on much longer.
Do you knwo what a straw man is? The Santa was not an
argument, it was giving an example of how easy a child will
believe something, like if you went in and said, "do you believe I have the power to heal your cancer?" And then gave them that wonderful gift.
In fact dont even need to go to a hospital, start going town to town as Jesus and the Apostles and start healing in the streets and preach the word of God.
There is the example, why are not those who can do this, following that example?
That's not what the gifts of healing are about. Your ignorance is astounding, and your mindset seems to be willfully stuck in that mode.
Oh..please tell me then what they are about.
1. Are they to confirm the word?
2. Are they to show the power of God?
3. Are they to make others believe?
If yes to all three, then what is stopping you or those you know from going out into this sinful world, and glorifying God? Healing all manner of disease, raising the dead and all those signs that follow?
If we did have this power, would it not be a sin to keep it to ourselves, and among only those at our little churches, instead of going out and showing God's work?
Again, it is because they were not permanent, that is why if your sick you go the hospital, not a "pastor", when poisoned a hospital.
Paul was bit by a snake, he did not go to a hospital.
And what about the several cases of people that did not give their kid medical treatment, and the kid died because they thought God was going to heal them?
isn't that enough faith? Or maybe, because they were fooled by such false doctrines as you believe, they did not see the blessing of living in a country where they could have sought medical attention, because they were focused on the the temporary.
Had they believed the Bible, they would have thanked God for the medicine, the doctors, etc,
and seen the providence of God at work, and their kids would probably be here.
That is the danger of false doctrine.
