PDA

View Full Version : Holy Spirit: This guy doesn't know what he's talking about


Wade Smith
3rd October 2008, 11:27 AM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5-slkSIUo4c&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5-slkSIUo4c&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I watched about half of this video before I got sick of listening to him blaspheme the Holy Spirit.

I would reply to OP of that video directly, except he seems to have disabled text responses.

He doesn't know anything about Pentecost or the Azusa* revival or tongues.

*see below.

In the Bible, Jesus said, "No man can perform a miracle in my name and lightly speak evil of me."

"Pentecost" is not confusion, at least not when done properly. Of course they always have extreme examples on these videos to try to make people look bad.

Perhaps the reason people get "confused" is because they aren't born again in the first place, and don't understand the things of God.

They are "confused" because they expect God to follow "man's order", but that was never the case. Jesus never followed "man's order" either.


Second, he takes Pauls writing "Let the women keep silent...." he takes that out of context, because Paul was refering to women asking disruptive questions, not women teaching or prophesying.

Clearly, anyone who has ever read Joel 2 or Acts 2 would know this.

Proof that "David Cloud" has no idea what he's talking about.

Joel 2:28
And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:

When Peter explains "Tongues" on the day of pentecost, he quotes Joel.

Acts 2:17
And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:


So when "David Cloud" stands up there and claims that women are in rebellion and sin if they speak in tongues, preach, or prophesy, he is a LIAR and does not know what he is talking about.

Romans 16:1
I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:

Here, if you do a word study on the word "servant" you will find that it is the exact same word translated "Deacon" elswhere in scripture, written by Paul, except here it is the feminine conjugation. The masculine conjugation appears 4 times in the scriptures, and the feminine appears 2 times. But it is the exact same word and bears the exact same meaning.

Example of women teaching a man.

Acts 18:26
And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

Example of women prophets in OT and NT:

Deborah was both prophetess and "judge"
Judges 4:4
And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.

2 Kings 22:14
So Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam, and Achbor, and Shaphan, and Asahiah, went unto Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe; (now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the college;) and they communed with her.

Luke 2:36
And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity;

Notice something. "Prophetess" does not merely denote "the wife of a prophet" as this text bears out. "Prophetess" is the feminine of "prophet", contrary to "David Cloud" and his tirade against female church leaders.


*third, Azusa revival.

He mentions the police and firemen coming to the Azusa revival. What he did not mention is this.

If you read "Azusa Street" which is the biography of Frank Bartleman, one of the preachers involved in that revival, you will find out the truth about the police and firemen going to the revival.
http://www.amazon.com/Azusa-Street-Frank-Bartleman/dp/0883686384


The reason is this:

At times, it was reported that Cloven tongues of fire (like at the original day of pentecost) sat on top of the building and were visible at night, and the police and fire companies were called by people outside of the revival, who saw the building and thought it was on fire. Many of these people ended up giving their hearts to Jesus and being born again after they saw the miracle healings and this wonder on top of the building.


fourth, "Gifts" of tongues and interpretation:

In the book, "Before we Kill and Eat You", H.B. Garlock describes an event that happened in Africa in which he was attempting to negotiate a kidnapping with a cannibalistic tribe. His translator was afraid to talk, and he says that God told him, "Open your mouth and I'll fill it."

So he obeyed and began to speak in tongues and the people released the hostage. When he asked the translator "what's going on?"

He says, "I don't know, but you're speaking their language..."

I've also heard of a few other occassions in which a third party person who knew the "language" of the "unknown tongue" was able to verify that a tongue and interpretation were true and accurate.



=======

All these people who preach against the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and against "Gifts of the Spirit" are going to stand before God one day and answer why they blasphemed God and mocked his holy commandment to "Recieve the Holy Spirit".

Wade Smith
3rd October 2008, 12:00 PM
These hypocrites never cease to amaze me.


They aren't ashamed to jump up and down and hoot and holler at a football game, but they won't jump up and down and shout for Jesus.

Almost everyone Jesus touched couldn't contain themselves, and started jumping for joy and running through the neighborhood preaching afterwards.

But you anti-Holy Spirit bunch, you get offended if a Christian is excited about Jesus.


Just remember this next time you jump out of that armchair or the seat in a stadium somewhere and high-five your buddy when the home team scores a touchdown.

If you were half as excited about Jesus, somebody might get saved (probably you).

BlackSabb
3rd October 2008, 12:25 PM
Second, he takes Pauls writing "Let the women keep silent...." he takes that out of context, because Paul was refering to women asking disruptive questions, not women teaching or prophesying.

Clearly, anyone who has ever read Joel 2 or Acts 2 would know this.

Proof that "David Cloud" has no idea what he's talking about.

Joel 2:28
And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:



Let me just say this. I take real issue with this. I have been going to church for more than 2 decades. And every Christian man and his dog "interprets" Paul's verse about women being silent in the church to mean "disruptive women in the church being silenced". I am sick of hearing this glib interpretation as I have heard it over and over again.

This is not what Paul says. You take one verse out of context (Joel) all the way back in the OT and then reapply that to a NT verse. That is hardly good interpretation. The simple fact is that Paul is not talking about "disruptive women" speaking, he is clearly talking about women not speaking in church at all-period!!! You conveniently forget the rest of Paul's words where he makes no bones about what he means-and it does not mean "disruptive women".

Paul says that a woman should not speak in church and if she has a question, she should ask her husband at home. Paul goes so far as to say it's a disgrace for a woman to speak in church. He does not say "disruptive women", he says all women speaking in church.

I think it's very unfair of Christians to claim to be fundamentalists that obey the Bible "literally", then "interpret" all manner of verses to suit their personal beliefs. Jesus says it's not okay to get a divorce (except for adultery). But so many Christians divorce and "interpret" the Bible some way out of it. Paul clearly says that women are not to have authority over men and speak in church, yet "fundamentalists" who claim to interpret the Bible literally, then "interpret" that literal verse in a non literal manner. So we have women speaking in churches, praying with heads uncovered, and being pastors and leaders having authority over men.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't claim to be a "fundamentalist" and then "interpret" clear cut passages of scripture, claiming cultural context and other such things, such as "disruptive women" instead of all women as Paul clearly says.

Paul clearly says too that it's a disgrace for a man to have long hair. Nobody is against that either, but of course you'll "interpret" that to mean in the cultural context of Paul's day.

You cite one vague unrelated verse in Joel to support an "interpretation" of a verse in the NT, and yet if I quote to you what the book of Proverbs says how children should be disciplined (with many beatings), you'll again "interpret" that as a cultural verse not related to today. You might even have the audacity to say that it's against the law, but the same book of Acts that you refer to says Christians are subject to the law of God, not the law of man.

I really don't understand at all Biblical interpretation, especially the claim of so called "fundamentalist" Christians. They claim to believe the Bible literally, but in reality, interpret clear cut passages of scriptures not in keeping with the obvious literal meaning.

Getting back to my original point, please show me scripturally where Paul says that "disruptive women" only are to be silenced in church. If you have to go all the way back to one vague unrelated verse in Joel, I don't think you have a good case for your "interpretation".

Wade Smith
3rd October 2008, 02:31 PM
Let me just say this. I take real issue with this. I have been going to church for more than 2 decades. And every Christian man and his dog "interprets" Paul's verse about women being silent in the church to mean "disruptive women in the church being silenced". I am sick of hearing this glib interpretation as I have heard it over and over again.

This is not what Paul says. You take one verse out of context (Joel) all the way back in the OT and then reapply that to a NT verse.

Hey, wait a minute. PETER applied that verse to "tongues". If I am guilty of "taking it out of context" then so is Peter. But of course Peter wasn't wrong, YOU are.

Acts 2:17
And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:


That is hardly good interpretation. The simple fact is that Paul is not talking about "disruptive women" speaking, he is clearly talking about women not speaking in church at all-period!!! You conveniently forget the rest of Paul's words where he makes no bones about what he means-and it does not mean "disruptive women".

Paul says that a woman should not speak in church and if she has a question, she should ask her husband at home. Paul goes so far as to say it's a disgrace for a woman to speak in church. He does not say "disruptive women", he says all women speaking in church.

The problem is, you contradict yourself and the scriptures. If your reading of those passages were correct, then Paul himself would have been in Error for sending the letter we call "Romans" by a woman, Phebe, and also calling her a "Deacon". Additionally, explain how your reading of that passage could possibly be reconciled with the other female examples I gave. In case you didn't know this, Acts 2 appears in the New Testament.

I think it's very unfair of Christians to claim to be fundamentalists that obey the Bible "literally", then "interpret" all manner of verses to suit their personal beliefs. Jesus says it's not okay to get a divorce (except for adultery). But so many Christians divorce and "interpret" the Bible some way out of it.

Actually, Jesus said for "Fornication", which includes adultery, but is not limited to it. Paul also mentions what we call "Abandonment", that is, if a spouse decides to just pack up and leave, then "a brother or sister is not bound..."



Paul clearly says that women are not to have authority over men and speak in church, yet "fundamentalists" who claim to interpret the Bible literally, then "interpret" that literal verse in a non literal manner. So we have women speaking in churches, praying with heads uncovered, and being pastors and leaders having authority over men.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't claim to be a "fundamentalist" and then "interpret" clear cut passages of scripture, claiming cultural context and other such things, such as "disruptive women" instead of all women as Paul clearly says.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either Deborah was a prophetess and your interpretation of Paul is wrong, or else your interpretation of Paul's writtings are right,a nd the Book of Judges should be discarded...but wait...Paul quotes from the book of Judges as an inspired source in some of his writings.

See the problem? If you were right, then Paul couldn't possibly be saying, "Women can't teach men or prophesy".

It is ridiculous to claim that a woman can't teach or prophesy, given the fact that SEVERAL women prophesied or taught at least one time in both Old and New Testaments.

Proverbs 31 is originally spoken by a woman, for example.


Acts 21:8And the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him.
9And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.

Again, women who are "prophesying", totally debunking your theory that women can't preach or teach in church.



Paul clearly says too that it's a disgrace for a man to have long hair. Nobody is against that either, but of course you'll "interpret" that to mean in the cultural context of Paul's day.

Putting words in my mouth. I don't have long hair, and actually, I don't think a man should have long hair.



You cite one vague unrelated verse in Joel to support an "interpretation" of a verse in the NT,

No, PETER originally cited that verse in relation to tongues,prophecy, and dreams and visions. I was simply showing the FACT that Peter said, "Your daughters shall prophesy", refuting your garbage claim that women can't preach.

and yet if I quote to you what the book of Proverbs says how children should be disciplined (with many beatings), you'll again "interpret" that as a cultural verse not related to today. You might even have the audacity to say that it's against the law, but the same book of Acts that you refer to says Christians are subject to the law of God, not the law of man.

Now you are just putting words in my mouth. You don't know anyhting about me. I believe in corporal punishment. Was spanked many times as a child,a nd wish I had gotten caught and spanked some more on things parents didn't get me on. Wish they'd bring back corporal punishment in schools too.


I really don't understand at all Biblical interpretation,


At least you're honest about being ignorant.


especially the claim of so called "fundamentalist" Christians. They claim to believe the Bible literally, but in reality, interpret clear cut passages of scriptures not in keeping with the obvious literal meaning.

Precept upon precept line upon line here a little there a little.

and

"In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall a thing be established."

There are many, many things in the Bible that if you only look at one passage at a time, you are going to get really screwed up on friend. Just like an atheist trying to read the Bible, they go, "Aha, this is a contradiction". No, you just don't understand it.


Getting back to my original point, please show me scripturally where Paul says that "disruptive women" only are to be silenced in church. If you have to go all the way back to one vague unrelated verse in Joel, I don't think you have a good case for your "interpretation".


I have already shown you by extrapolaton from ACTS 2, that Paul CANNOT be saying, "Women can't preach or teach in church."

Peter had already said, "Your daughters SHALL PROPHESY."


When you look at that verse, and then look at the example of Phebe, Priscilla, and Philip's daughters, you cannot in any honesty try to draw the conclusion "women can't preach or prophesy," To do so is simply ridiculous, since we have multiple examples in scripture of women doing just that. (see also Elisabeth and Mary as well as the "woman at the well", who went and preached immediately).