[Invocation]

(Original post by NJA)
Moses took people and their livestock accross a dry sea-bed, he didn't use a boat.

Animals distribute themselves, they wander in search of food, migrate etc.

What did he use then ?

Do you get the phrase "All loving God" from the bible ? If so, where please?

The Israelites were enslaved by a cruel Pharoah, what should God have done?

Ask nicely? - he did that
Warn? - he did that
Threaten with evidence? - he did that

If you don't like the way Pharoah & co were treated I guess you would have just raised the white flag to the Nazis?

Maybe you are pro-slavery?

I'm not talking about the Pharoah. I'm talking about killing of the first born Egyptian children. And don't accuse me of being pro-slavery, especially when the religion you are trying to defend says it's OK to have slaves as long as they are not Israelites (Leviticus 25:39-43); racist slavery at that.

Apparently . .many things !
Apparently you can't be bothered to do research so do you really want o know the truth of this?

Yet you have failed to prove anything. And being in Ask a Christian thread would count as research

What evidence would you expect after thousands of years ?

Since they were "wandering" what evidence would you expect after 1 year ?! Any footprints and animal droppings would have been buried.

OK, you may expect to see Mt Sinai with a blackened top, a rock with a dried up stream bed, an altar from when they camped at Sinai.
Please get video 4 from here.. Or, PM me and I'll arrange to show you mine.

I didn't ask for an advert. Provide some evidence.

Ex12: Honour thy father and thy mother:

When it says "thou shalt not kill" it means murder.
There was provision for the state to execute judgement against those who would disrupt society so that all would have respect.
The mere threat of this would act as deterrance, like our current nuclear policy.

Failure to purge evil would result in anarchy and much much worse for all.

The intentional stoning of children to death is murder.

? ?
Ex2: Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.

My mistake it's Exodus 21:7-11:

"And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her. And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money."

Daughters were treated as the property of their fathers until they were married, at which the ownership would transfer to the husband. Unmarried daughters were permitted to be sold into slavery.

Which one(s) are you having trouble deciding about ?

Would you really stone to death your children if they were out of line ?

[NJA]

(Original post by Invocation)
What did he use then ?

As I explained, he didn't use anything to distribute animals across the globe after they got off the boat, they did it themselves, animals do that sort of thing !!

(Original post by Invocation)
I'm not talking about the Pharoah. I'm talking about killing of the first born Egyptian children. And don't accuse me of being pro-slavery, especially when the religion you are trying to defend says it's OK to have slaves as long as they are not Israelites (Leviticus 25:39-43); racist slavery at that.

The Egyptians generally were enslaving the Israelites, millions of slaves require millions of slave owners ! - think about it !

What would your solution be ?
Leave them rotting in Egyptian slavery ?

Slaves could be taken of enemies that rejectedthe fame and warnings given by God.
Originally God designed the earth to be inhabite in peace,
Deut 32 When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people . ..

but people (like you? ) reject God's ways and end up fighting instead.

(Original post by Invocation)
Yet you have failed to prove anything. And being in Ask a Christian thread would count as research

I have succeeded in pointing you to loads of evidence, you have proved yourself to be willingly ignorant.

(Original post by Invocation)
I didn't ask for an advert. Provide some evidence.

. . .and lazy too

(Original post by Invocation)
The intentional stoning of children to death is murder.

Killing of societies enemies by the state according to the warnings given in it's law is not murder.

(Original post by Invocation)
Daughters were treated as the property of their fathers until they were married, at which the ownership would transfer to the husband. Unmarried daughters were permitted to be sold into slavery.

Read again and see that daughters were always provided for, within the society, so what's your problem ? :-
Ex7: And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.
If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

(Original post by Invocation)
Would you really stone to death your children if they were out of line ?

We are talking about provision before Christ, I am a Christian, Christ's punishment and resurrection and the giving of His Spirit makes a difference, now it's a better covenant, the one you are looking at was a foreshadow, a physical representation of spiritual truths.

Better because the evils that plague societies can now be overcome by the love, joy and peace that comes from a New Life.

[GrantMac]

How old is the earth?

[NJA]

(Original post by GrantMac)
How old is the earth?

c.6000 yrs.

Before you say "what about radiometric dating?" please understand that these methods don't prove anything because of the assumptions that have to be made.

Also, the earth's age doesn't affect your soul's needs one iota!

Why not ask - what do I need for fulfilment?
What's your answer to that ?

[Agent Smith]

There's no need to get so defensive. This is "Ask a Christian", not "be asked by a Christian"!

[NathanL]

Invocation as I said to you in the previous page, a lot of the stuff you've asked were covered in the debate between GregoryJL and myself. I've forgotten where it is now, it'll be a few pages back on the forum. I'm sure Greg has a better memory than me!

[NJA]

(Original post by Agent Smith)
There's no need to get so defensive. This is "Ask a Christian", not "be asked by a Christian"!

Jesus sometimes answered a question by a question:-
M't23: And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?
24: And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things.

Christians aren't to find people that want to know, not entertain people that don't.

[NathanL]

yeah but technically speaking, last time i checked, we're not within the discursive tradition of rabbinic second temple judaism lol

it just sounds weird now

"so, how do christians believe Jesus died for them?"

"I also will ask you one thing - how do you believe Jesus died for you?"

*turns to his right*

"... can we switch seats?."

[*Stargirl*]

What do you mean by that? Is it how we know He was alive and therefore was able to die for us, or how we know that he died TO save us?

[NJA]

(Original post by *Stargirl*)
What do you mean by that? Is it how we know He was alive and therefore was able to die for us, or how we know that he died TO save us?

His death was to enable us to receive the Spirit (Life) of God !!

Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. (Galatians 3v13-14)

You know precisely when you receive this, you speak in tongues (Acts 2v4, 33, 39), then the rest follows if you let it.

Is there anything you want more right now *Stargirl*?

[*Stargirl*]

? I wasn't asking a question..I was trying to answer Nathans.

But are you saying that you haven't recieved the holy spirit if you can't speak tongues? Because I'm sure that's wrong. Tongues is a spiritual gift and as many parts make up a body, there are also many different spiritual gifts, each one as important as the next.
In a gospel it says that it would be good if all christians could speak in tongues, but it would be better if we could all prophesize(sp?)
I don't think tongues has anything to do with knowing if you recieve the holy spirit.

[*Stargirl*]

in the reference in Acts you referr to they are not speaking in "tongues" the spiritual gift, but in all the different languages so people who spoke different languages could understand

"then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language?"

"they were amazed because each one heard them speaking in his own language"

[NJA]

(Original post by *Stargirl*)
But are you saying that you haven't recieved the holy spirit if you can't speak tongues? Because I'm sure that's wrong. Tongues is a spiritual gift and as many parts make up a body, there are also many different spiritual gifts, each one as important as the next.
In a gospel it says that it would be good if all christians could speak in tongues, but it would be better if we could all prophesize(sp?)
I don't think tongues has anything to do with knowing if you recieve the holy spirit.

"Spiritual gifts" refer to the meetings-use (*giving* to the church) of what all christians have for private use.

1 Cor. 12v8 onwards says:-
"to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To another faith . . .tongues . .interpretation . ."

Now, you don't believe that only some christians have faith, only some have knowledge do you ?

The letter begins by affirming that ALL true christians have ALL these attributes - you CANNOT have Jesus Christ inside without his mind, power etc ! (see 1v4-7)

- that's why there needs to be limitation and order when all christians meet - only "one" speaking at a time, the Corinthians were getting this wrong.

ALL Jesus disciples (Jew and Gentile) spoke in tongues when they received the (invisible) Holy Spirit - that's precisely how they knew !
(Acts 2v4, 33, 39; 10v44-46, 19v5-6, John 3v8, Galatians 4v6).

[NJA]

(Original post by *Stargirl*)
in the reference in Acts you referr to they are not speaking in "tongues" the spiritual gift, but in all the different languages so people who spoke different languages could understand

"then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language?"

"they were amazed because each one heard them speaking in his own language"

That's because the hearers were all bi-lingual and tongues is real language - the SAME is true today.

But just cos they recognised the words does not mean tongues is for speaking to men. If you read on you will see they were all left in doubt, so Peter stood up, they all stopped speaking in tongues and Peter began to speak in the common learned language - then they understood how to be saved.

Acts 2 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?
Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.
But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:

It's like if I'm in Paris I may overhear 2 people speaking English, I will recognise the words, but that does NOT mean they are talking to me does it ?

Ac33: Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

*Stargirl*, I & all my friends have received the same, you are called to receive the same !

[yawn]

(Original post by *Stargirl*)
? I wasn't asking a question..I was trying to answer Nathans.

But are you saying that you haven't recieved the holy spirit if you can't speak tongues? Because I'm sure that's wrong. Tongues is a spiritual gift and as many parts make up a body, there are also many different spiritual gifts, each one as important as the next.
In a gospel it says that it would be good if all christians could speak in tongues, but it would be better if we could all prophesize(sp?)
I don't think tongues has anything to do with knowing if you recieve the holy spirit.

This is just one of the few threads where we've debated whether 'tongues' is essential to receiving the Holy Spirit.

Have a look through - you'll see that NJA does have a particular affinity with 'tongues' since that is what his church practices - most Christian groups do not see it as essential because of Scriptural texts and interpretation by learned theologians...but each to their own, I guess.

http://thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=261052

[NathanL]

Stargirl - my question was rhetorical.

--- Oh and about the speaking in tongues thing, NJA cannot say that ALL converts spoke in tongues. At the very best he can say ALL examples given that focused on the immediate events after conversion record tongues*. His fallacy comes when he goes from that very specific observation, to establishing a command or divine principle that simply does not exist in scripture - that is, 'all conversions must be associated with speaking in tongues'. That is a big leap. It may be a correct leap, but it is not a leap found in scripture, and it is a leap not supported by the vast majority of Christian theologians, denominations and churches, and most tellingly, by most scholars who have studied this very issue (cf. James Dunn, "Jesus and the Spirit").

I did an essay on this very issue recently, well, with particular reference to the spiritual gifts within pentecostalism. Take a wild guess at what my conclusions were. lol

Nathan

* - notably, even here, all we have is the Book of Acts. Which overall only covers a handful of conversion stories [and in here, some stories are a tad ambiguous]. Nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus talk about speaking in tongues - He talks about the Holy Spirit, sure, but it is yet another leap to say that receiving the Holy Spirit is equivalent to 'speaking in tongues'. That is eisegesis. I think, at best, the issue of speaking in tongues at conversion for all is undecided. I am yet to be convinced otherwise, as are the vast majority of commentators.

[NJA]

(Original post by NathanL)
NJA cannot say that ALL converts spoke in tongues. At the very best he can say ALL examples given that focused on the immediate events after conversion record tongues*.

"God is not the author of confusion" (1 Cor. 14v33)

"though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." (Gal.1v8)

There is only one way of salvation, so it MUST be the same as the one given .. .you must be born of the Spirit / receive the Holy Spirit
John 3 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

What is heard of the Spirit when people received Him ?
- they "spoke in tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance".
The apostles took this as the receiving of salvation.

How many examples does God have to give ?
ONE is enough !

But according to his own dictum that "in the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses shall every word be established" (Matt.18v16, 2 Cor. 13v1), God has given 3 examples, all of which show this point.

Anyone who says you can receiove salvation and NOT speak in tongues has 0 examples and is ignoring what the given examples show.

(Original post by NathanL)
His fallacy comes when he goes from that very specific observation, to establishing a command or divine principle that simply does not exist in scripture - that is, 'all conversions must be associated with speaking in tongues'. That is a big leap. It may be a correct leap, but it is not a leap found in scripture, and it is a leap not supported by the vast majority of Christian theologians, denominations and churches, and most tellingly, by most scholars who have studied this very issue (cf. James Dunn, "Jesus and the Spirit").

The fact that religious teachers say different is hardly any comfort, none of them accepted Jesus in his day - same today!

(Original post by NathanL)
I did an essay on this very issue recently, well, with particular reference to the spiritual gifts within pentecostalism. Take a wild guess at what my conclusions were. lol

I guess you got it all wrong and so wasted your time.

(Original post by NathanL)
Nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus talk about speaking in tongues . . .

John 3v8 is a clear reference, and again in John 14v20 Jesus says they will know the day they receive (unlike many today who just hope / assume they have become christians over a period of time or because they or someone else judged them to be "Christian".

Then Jesus last words on earth are:-
Mark 16 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues

Some suggest that Mark's gospel ends in fear and confusion (v8).
This is nonsense, Mark knew better than that, the argument is based on the fact that 2 related Manuscripts leave vv9-20 out, one leaves a gap exactly big enough for it.
No doubt they didn't like the passage because exposed them as nominal believers only.

Evidence here.

[*Stargirl*]

So you are saying that the Pope can speak in tongues? All religious people speak tongues? All christians speak tongues? Mother Teresa spoke tongues? I doubt it...I have a few strong christian friends and only one has the gift of tongues. and she tells me that it is a spiritual gift and not everyone can be given it. I have thought this was true in the past but I don't anymore.
Are you talking about the spiritual gift on tongues where you can pray and satan cannot interfere with your thoughts, and no-one is unable to understand this language? or are you talking about speaking different languages that people can understand?
(NJA I admire your knowledge on this, I'd just like to say and maybe you are right? It must be pretty frustrating for you if you are and we aren't believing you so just wanna let you know that im totally open to accepting this...just need to ask around. thx)

[*Stargirl*]

about spiritual gifts
"all these are work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines"

also there are many spiritual gifts, why should it be so important to recieve tongues? It is never mentioned to be different from the others Cor 12

one body, many parts
"now the body is not made up of one part,but many"

gifts of prophecy and tongues
"for anyone who speaks with tongues does not speak to men but to God. Indeed no-one understand him, he utters mysteries with his spirit"
"I would like every one of you speaking in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy"
"tongues then are a sign,not for believers, but for unbelievers"

Tongues isn't portrayed as anything more important than a spiritual gift

[NathanL]

Hello again NJA!

"God is not the author of confusion" (1 Cor. 14v33)

"though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." (Gal.1v8)

There is only one way of salvation, so it MUST be the same as the one given .. .you must be born of the Spirit / receive the Holy Spirit

Amen! Several pushbacks, however - [A] the 'way' of salvation is through the atoning sacrifice of Christ, which is credited to us through the grace of God - as such, 1 Cor 14 and Gal 1:8 are absolutely irrelevant to speaking in tongues; the experience of salvation is not covered in those verses, which is a problem, for you are trying to make the one way 'atonement' into the one experience of salvation, which does not exist in scripture and [B] I would not deny that one requires the Holy Spirit to be saved. The ambiguity comes when discussing how one experiences, receives it etc - most of the time, the Holy Spirit does not manifest in salvation. Within reformed tradition, He is the active participant leading us to a repentant heart. After salvation, He is the sanctifying participant, giving us gifts and healing through which we become like Christ. Nowhere in that theology, however, is there a command that at salvation, we must speak in tongues.

What is heard of the Spirit when people received Him ?
- they "spoke in tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance".
The apostles took this as the receiving of salvation.

The emboldened bit I'd like explicit scriptural attestation for, please. As for the example of people receiving tongues, I do not deny it! But again, that does not constitute the aforementioned command. You are reading that into it.

How many examples does God have to give ?
ONE is enough !

Your principle, not Scripture's. One way to salvation, sure, one body, sure, but many members. Accept the difference NJA - it's called the Church

But according to his own dictum that "in the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses shall every word be established" (Matt.18v16, 2 Cor. 13v1), God has given 3 examples, all of which show this point.

Both verses irrelevant to salvation. Check context please. It's about disputes within the church, not salvation.

Anyone who says you can receiove salvation and NOT speak in tongues has 0 examples and is ignoring what the given examples show.

Correction, [A] the given examples constitute a pattern not the norm and [B] read Acts 8:35. Someone being baptised, someone being saved, and oh look - no tongues!

The fact that religious teachers say different is hardly any comfort, none of them accepted Jesus in his day - same today!

That's a fallacious example - the difference is, all of these scholars have dedidcated their lives to study, and very often, the love of God and the example of Christ within academia. It is stupidty of the highest order to dismiss them on the crude parallel between them 'teaching' and the pharisees 'teaching'. It just doesn't work like that, I'm afraid.

I guess you got it all wrong and so wasted your time.

lol I'll let my tutor's mark do the talking, thanks very much

John 3v8 is a clear reference, and again in John 14v20 Jesus says they will know the day they receive (unlike many today who just hope / assume they have become christians over a period of time or because they or someone else judged them to be "Christian".

1) John 3:8 is a reference to being 'born of the Spirit' - it is not, explicitly, talking about tongues. You have to read that into the text to make it say that. That is, I'm afraid, bad exegesis. It is instead 'eisegesis'. Naughty boy!

2) John 14:20 is better talking about [a] Resurrection and [b] the parousia. Even if it were talking about the Spirit (which is an equally valid argument, I'll grant you), it still doesn't even mention tongues!

3) If your issue is with epistemology, you're no better off than me. [A] the tongues could have been faked, [b] your senses could have been faked, [c] the tongues could be demonic, and [d] the tongues don't 'prove' anything, if they did, then faith wouldn't be faith and you'd be claiming to be empirically sure of something that inherently is not empirical. Doesn't make sense.

Some suggest that Mark's gospel ends in fear and confusion (v8).

1) So... your only gospel refuge is in a text that is almost universally rejected? Sure, you can provide a reference, but then so can I - look at Bruce Metzger's "The Text of the New Testament", most literal bible footnotes (NASB, NIV, NRSV etc), here and here. I could also cite a textual critical consensus supporting Mark 16:9-20 as dodgy.

2) Even if your church's minority opinion is correct, then the verse still doesn't support your contention - verse 17 is talking about signs accompanying [associated with] those [plural - e.g. this is not an individual command verse, this is a broad generalisation statement of a group's behaviour] who believe [note - it doesn't talk about salvation, but rather the state of believing]. There is still no command about the moment of conversion.

3) I was wondering, as a good evangelical classical protestant, how do you feel about Mark 16:16? Baptised to be saved? I'd love to see you wrangle the atonement into this one if you class this verse as genuine. More traditional Christians won't necessarily have a problem, but I'm guessing (maybe wrongly) that as a good evangelical with probably a decent bit of reformed tradition behind you that you would not be so eager to purport a view of salvation as requiring baptism, a work if you will?

--------------

All in all, there still exists no command that NJA can produce that says that all believers must speak in tongues, or else they're not saved. It just does not exist. All he's got is a pattern of events (which isn't even unanimous) in Acts, and a dubious reference in Mark which even then, does not support this conclusion.

Still not convinced, in other words.

Nathan