Well, your absence in dealing with the many verses I posted shows who is ignoring scripture.Oh my oh my. There are none who must ignore so much scripture as those who refuse to accept the association of water baptism and God's gift of salvation.
Well, your absence in dealing with the many verses I posted shows who is ignoring scripture.Oh my oh my. There are none who must ignore so much scripture as those who refuse to accept the association of water baptism and God's gift of salvation.
I don't ignore any of the scripture that you posted. I do ignore your faulty interpretation of so much scripture. You engage in a tactic of so many. You quote a scripture, give an interpretation and then ascribe your interpretation as the only true one. You must understand that once you provide more that the precise quote of a scripture, whatever more you provide is no longer scripture. My disagreeing with your interpretation is not ignoring scripture.Well, your absence in dealing with the many verses I posted shows who is ignoring scripture.
Evidence please. All you are doing is making claims ignoring the phrasing used and the fact the passage was of a salvatory nature and that there is a particular application of the Spirit in a salvatory happenstance.There is the gift of the Holy Spirit wherein the gift is from the Holy Spirit, rather than the Holy Spirit, Himself. That is observable and is given largely to indicate a happening that is authentically God attested and certified.
There is the gift of the Holy Spirit wherein the gift is the Holy Spirit. That is not observable. It does indeed indicate the indwelling Holy Spirit.
These two gifts of the Holy Spirit are independent. They are unrelated. Neither implies the other.
Since the gift of the Holy Spirit in Acts 10:45 is observed to have occurred, I think there can be no doubt that is not the gift, the indwelling, of the Holy Spirit and is rather the spiritual gift of the Holy Spirit of speaking in tongues.
The facts remain trueI don't ignore any of the scripture that you posted. I do ignore your faulty interpretation of so much scripture. You engage in a tactic of so many. You quote a scripture, give an interpretation and then ascribe your interpretation as the only true one. You must understand that once you provide more that the precise quote of a scripture, whatever more you provide is no longer scripture. My disagreeing with your interpretation is not ignoring scripture.
Good point.I believe she disobeyed God. It doesn't really matter what it was. However, I do not have a problem with the literal interpretation of eating the forbidden fruit.
The more interesting part is the explanation of why she disobeyed. It says "that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate". That describes the reason for so much of the sin that we all commit. It all seems to us as quite reasonable and rational to do it at the time.
Of course I can. I can rebut your interpretation of it just as well as you can affirm it.You cannot rebut the fact the Gentiles were baptized en the Spirit according to Paul
The fact is you have not and simply made statements for which you provided no scriptural supportOf course I can. I can rebut your interpretation just as well as you can affirm it.
And I have never said the Gentiles were not being baptized in the Spirit. I have only disagreed with your interpretation of what that is and when it happens.
I tend to agree that we should take literally what the bible says unless we decide it is metaphoric. But that is nearly always the real debate in such instances. It is never what the bible says, it is always what we, personally, think it means.Good point.
But I look at it as when she heard another voice she was over the moon that there was something other to talk to other then Adam because nowhere have we ready God made daily appearances.
SWo if she heard a near daily warning from Adam that she would die if she ate that fruit then she heard that serpent say she would not surly die, and possibly even take a bite himself to prove it... Well... curiosity took over and then
But that is just me. I tend to take things literal in the bible unless we know it is a parable. It just, to me, all fits together like a
puzzle.
Baptism in the Holy Spirt IS the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.PS the baptism en the Spirit involves the Spirit's indwelling
Are you now affirming that?Baptism in the Holy Spirt IS the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
But that is an interpretation not a biblical statement or quotation.
Yes, that is an interpretation. Am I now affirming that? I haven't denied that in the last 65+ years.Are you now affirming that?
So then when Paul responded to the Gentiles experience with the Holy Spirit and statedYes, that is an interpretation. Am I now affirming that? I haven't denied that in the last 65+ years.
So we have the first disciples promised the baptism en the SpiritYes, that is an interpretation. Am I now affirming that? I haven't denied that in the last 65+ years.
No you cannot asOf course I can. I can rebut your interpretation of it just as well as you can affirm it.
And I have never said the Gentiles were not being baptized in the Spirit. I have only disagreed with your interpretation of what that is and when it happens.