The disciples of Jesus also did healings and casted out demons.Since when is speaking in foreign language a miracle? If that’s a miracle, then I’m performing that miracle right here, right now.
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
Strengthening families through biblical principles.
Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.
Read daily articles from Focus on the Family in the Marriage and Parenting Resources forum.
The disciples of Jesus also did healings and casted out demons.Since when is speaking in foreign language a miracle? If that’s a miracle, then I’m performing that miracle right here, right now.
You know how that worked? Because even demons acknowledge Jesus's authority, they admit he's God, while you don't. Also, the disciples performed those miracles on behalf of Jesus, not by their own authority and their own power.The disciples of Jesus also did healings and casted out demons.
The Word is with God and was God, not a characteristic of God. You write your own scripture, and cannot see the actual text veiled by it.The word is with God because it refers to something that is without God, a characteristic of God, but not God Himself. The biggest clue that would help you here is that God isn't simply a word, speech, or a divine utterance, but that is something God has, i.e., the word is with God. The best translation for John 1:1 is that the word is godly, not that the word is actually literally God. Therefore it's personification.
If what you were saying is true, we should expect to find scripture stating what you're saying, but there isn't. The word (logos) is an it in 1 John 1:1,2. I hope that helps.
There is nothing to suggest that it is a mere personification. The Word is God in nature, as John 1:1 states and 1:2-18 support, in addition to other passages:The word is with God because it refers to something that is without God, a characteristic of God, but not God Himself. The biggest clue that would help you here is that God isn't simply a word, speech, or a divine utterance, but that is something God has, i.e., the word is with God. The best translation for John 1:1 is that the word is godly, not that the word is actually literally God. Therefore it's personification.
There is much support for the Son being the eternally pre-existent Word and God in nature. There is not one verse to suggest the Word is personification.If what you were saying is true, we should expect to find scripture stating what you're saying, but there isn't. The word (logos) is an it in 1 John 1:1,2. I hope that helps.
It was a miracle in Acts 2.Since when is speaking in foreign language a miracle? If that’s a miracle, then I’m performing that miracle right here, right now.
The way I see it, what's really a miracle is that they were spontaneously praising God and testifying the mighty works of God altogether. It's the content of their speech, not the form.It was a miracle in Acts 2.
They were speaking in languages that they didn’t know, only being able to do so by the Holy Spirit:The way I see it, what's really a miracle is that they were spontaneously praising God and testifying the mighty works of God altogether. It's the content of their speech, not the form.
No, you're just playing word game. "Son of God" is the same as "God the Son". But to be honest, I don't like the rhetoric of "God the Son" as much as you do, it sounds awkward.It seems you don't know who Jesus is. I say Jesus is the Son of God and Messiah and enjoy quoting those scriptures. You don't have any "God the Son" scriptures. Looks like I am in the right.
Then why does Paul say an interpreter is expected?The way I see it, what's really a miracle is that they were spontaneously praising God and testifying the mighty works of God altogether. It's the content of their speech, not the form.
Then we better agree to disagree. Perhaps, a more accurate description of that miracle on the day of Pentecost is that everybody was HEARING in their native tongue, not speaking in foreign language. Those people were pilgrims and also very likely all Jewish proselytes, everybody at the time could speak some simple Aramaic or Greek for communication purpose, Paul spoke in Greek throughout his whole missionary journey except when he testified at Jerusalem, that's hardly qualified as a miracle.They were speaking in languages that they didn’t know, only being able to do so by the Holy Spirit:
Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. (ESV)
Because we're called to preach the gospel and discern the signs of time to the whole world. An interpreter is expected and required when your audience don't understand much English.Then why does Paul say an interpreter is expected?
There is only one way to understand verse 4: “…began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.”Then we better agree to disagree. Perhaps, a more accurate description of that miracle on the day of Pentecost is that everybody was HEARING in their native tongue, not speaking in foreign language. Those people were pilgrims and also very likely all Jewish proselytes, everybody at the time could speak some simple Aramaic or Greek for communication purpose, Paul spoke in Greek throughout his whole missionary journey except when he testified at Jerusalem, that's hardly qualified as a miracle.
... we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God. (Acts 2:11)
None of them believed Jesus is God. What you have is called a bias. You make an exception for one person that you don't make for the others who did the exact same things.You know how that worked? Because even demons acknowledge Jesus's authority, they admit he's God, while you don't. Also, the disciples performed those miracles on behalf of Jesus, not by their own authority and their own power.
The disciples were the ones speaking in other languages, as enabled by the Holy Spirit. It really can’t be more clear than that.Meaning the spirit uttered or the apostles? which thing?
You have head knowledge of what the plain text of most Bible say, but you didn't actually look into it beyond the surface level.The Word is with God and was God, not a characteristic of God. You write your own scripture, and cannot see the actual text veiled by it.
I'm done.
Let's ask a question of self-reflection.No, you're just playing word game. "Son of God" is the same as "God the Son". But to be honest, I don't like the rhetoric of "God the Son" as much as you do, it sounds awkward.
You’re fallaciously begging the question. This is made all the more apparent since Thomas clearly thought Jesus was God:None of them believed Jesus is God. What you have is called a bias.