Log in

Thu, Nov. 15th, 2012, 12:46 am
aleahkate_4ever: Have You Received the Holy Ghost Since You Accepted Jesus Christ?

There are many people that believe all you have to do is say a sinner's prayer and you're in. However the Bible teaches differently. Repentance is a beautiful gift. We would not be able to stand before God washed without that ability. However, true salvation is truly turning away from your sin. If you are living a sinful lifestyle and using grace as excuse then it's wrong because the Bible says to be washed by the renewing and regeneration of the Holy Ghost. I have heard some say you can have sin in your life and still go to Heaven but this is not Biblical. I am sure most who believe this are sincere but the Word says no sin shall enter in. I am not saying that the Cross hasn't removed both our past and future sins. Surely He has! However the Word says to pick up your cross and follow Him. Paul said "I die daily." Repentance is to be taken advantage of daily! The Bible has always required a change in a believer's life.

After repentance, we should be willing to be baptized in Jesus' Name and not the titles. Most of Modern Christianity teaches it is not essential but it is! Jesus Himself told us to go ye therefore & teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost! As Christians, we recognize the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is Jesus. (Read Isaiah 9:6, Col. 3:17 and John 14:8-9). The same Paul that wrote whosever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved also stated baptism is a circumcision made without hands (see Col. 2). The Word also states he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. It is not just a sign, it is to complete remission your sins. Yes, Paul wrote Romans 10:13 but he wrote to the church in Romans. He wrote this to a church who had already received a salvation experience. Please don't turn me off! Bear with me. Please! I understand people say you don't have to do all that. I know that the Bible says you for by grace are ye saved and not through works but remember the same book also says faith without works is dead. James said if you believe Jesus is God, thou doest well but even the devils believe that. We must find out what the Word says and be willing to be obedient!

In the house of Cornelius, after they received a gift from God, Peter asked "Should we forbid any man water that these should not be baptized? And straightway, he commanded them to be baptized." That wasn't a suggestion. It was a commandment. Jesus said to go and teach all nations and baptize. That wasn't a suggestion, it was commandment. Is it any coincidence that Jesus Himself was baptized by John? No, He was saying "Follow me."

The Bible shows us clearly how to be saved. As a matter of fact, some asked the Peter how to be while they witnessed others speaking in tongues.
"Men and brethern, what shall we do?" Acts 2:37
"And Peter said unto them Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For this promise is unto you and your children and to all that are afar off even as many as the Lord our God shall call." Acts 2:38

What was that gift? The gift was the Spirit of God moving upon them just as it had on the Apostles! Abraham received a promise that he would bear a nation and God gave that promise to him. Anything God promises in His Word, will be given to us! There are people that teach that speaking in tongues is not for today but the Word says this promise is to as many as the Lord our God shall call! Has the Lord stopped calling people?? Certainly not! I myself as well countless of others have experienced this Biblical phenomenon. It's still for us today. But don't take my word for it, find out for yourself according to God's Word. The Holy Ghost is not just for those that have done good enough or even for just a select few. It's a promise for everyone so we can receive power to be witnesses, to overcome the sin in our lives, to be rewashed and regenerated because we can't make it without God's presence! It is neither mass induced nor self induced as some teach, it the evidence of the power of God working in your life! If it wasn't real then why would God even have it in the Bible?

Okay, I'm going to hit on a few popular misconceptions about tongues. Paul was not misinterpeting when he said not all speak in tongues. He meant not all have the gift of prophecy through speaking in tongues. 1 Corinthians 12 has been used to say that not everyone has to speak in tongues. However, you have to realize what Paul was addressing. Paul was writing to a group of new found believers that didn't know how to have order in their church services. Wives were yelling to their husbands, "What does that part mean in the sermon?" when they should have been quiet during the sermon. People were even spontaneously speaking in tongues loudly while a preacher was speaking. Nothing wrong with speaking in tongues it's just there is a time to do it. Also, while someone was trying to prophecy, no one would know to be quiet! Historical evidence points out people were so focused on tongues that couldn't conduct church! It wasn't very orderly. The only way I can describe to you about the order of church services is explain what happens sometimes in my church.

In my church's services, there have been times where the Spirit has been moving so beautifully that God wants to speak a word to the church after a sermon is preached. The Spirit will move on one or more and a person or two will speak in tongues. If there are two people, they will speak in tongues one at a time while the whole congregation is silent. After that, God will gently send the interpretation of the message to another person. God's message will be given to the church in that fashion. Imagine if 1 Corinthians 12 had not been written! A church service like this would be confusing if we did not have the proper order laid out by God This passage is also saying not everyone has the gift of giving tongues for interpretation. Paul was addressing how church should occur in 1 Corinthians 12. He cleared up the confusion. Yes, Paul asked do all speak in tongues? But in the next few strokes of the pen he said I thank God I speak in tongues more than you all. He then went on to write, Forbid not to speak with tongues. 

It helps to note is Paul's conversion. He was sent to Ananias after being on the road to Damascus. There, Ananias healed his blindness and baptized him in Jesus' name. Does it say he ever spoke in tongues? No, not in that passage of Scripture. However didn't Paul write that he thanked God that he spoke in tongues? It wasn't added because eventually he did. When people tell you that the Roman jailer or man in the chariot did not speak with tongues, it is important to remember the foundation of how the Apostles were saved. Remember Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are records of Jesus' ministry and Acts is the book that shows us how the church started! The rest of NT books are letters to those churches. Remember too that the disciples wrote that the Holy Spirit was poured out on the Jews then to the Gentiles. This was the salvation experience of the early church! If you write a book, you shouldn't add the same thing over and over. It would be too redundant! They didn't add the speaking in tongues part all the time because they didn't have to. The disciples knew they would receive it. If the writers knew the foundation of salvation from the beginning of Acts, the authors didn't need to repeat how it happened over and over again. Make sense?

The salvation experience consists of:

1. Sincere repentance
2. Baptism in Jesus' Name
3. Receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost through the evidence of speaking in other tongues.

Why the Holy Ghost part? Well in Acts 10, the Bible says that Cornelius was a devout man of God and his prayers came as a memorial before God. However, God had something more for Him. God sent an angel to Cornelius to tell him to wait for Peter. Peter came and the Holy Ghost fell on them. How did he know the Holy Ghost fell on them? Because Acts 10 states "

44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God."

After that, Peter commanded them to be baptized. The Lord saved Cornelius and his house because he was faithful and waited upon God. In Acts 19, Paul asked a group of John's baptism if they have received the Holy Ghost since they believed. They answered probably something like what you have said. "I haven't really heard whether there be any Holy Ghost." It says they gladly heard the Word and was baptized. Then Paul laid his hands on them and they received same experience the disciples experienced in Acts 2! This is the salvation experience of the early church! Why is it that can't we believe this same Jesus can do for us what He did for them? If you're a believer then you have a few promises if you're faithful!

Mark 16:17-18 (KJV)
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Let me close with this question: Have you received the Holy Ghost since you have believed and accepted the Lord as your Savior? If you haven't my friend, I promise there's more God has for you. It's a beautiful experience. Just prayerfully consider this post. I know what I have written is controversial but it's not about what most religion teaches, it's about what the Bible teaches Again, it's about what the Bible teaches. If it's in there, don't doubt God's promises for you just because someone has told you you can't have it today. He said on the day you seek Him with your whole heart then on that day, you will find Him. As we all know, God never disappoints. He is always faithful.

Wed, Jun. 30th, 2010, 09:46 pm
ilpostino: prayer request

Please Pray fo Josh, Christina and their baby Girl who was born today 19 to 20 weeks premature.

Mon, Mar. 12th, 2007, 08:09 am
evilgrins: footsteps on the path

Whatever your spiritual/religious belief system is, when the time comes that you pass from this Existance and go into the Next, how do you think you'll feel when you discover whatever it is you think you know as the Truth turns out not to be?

Tue, Feb. 27th, 2007, 08:04 am
evilgrins: There's much of the Torah in the Bible...

...but I think they left some stuff out.

8:13 PM 2/26/07 · Those more learned than I can probably reflect on this and bring it into clearer focus. Then again, one such type person actually got me onto this line of thought about 5 months back when he revealed to me that something a lot of Christians are aware of isn't actually mentioned anywhere in the Bible. Keeping in mind that not all of the faith actually believe in a Devil or Hell for that matter, this still seems kinda odd for me.

Actually, I'm a bit confused how the faith can exist without a bad place really. Isn't that the dividing line? Lead what is deemed the ideal life and go onto Heaven but if you're bad you're gonna burn...

The story that many know goes that the Devil was once an angel by the name of Lucifer and was among God's favorites. There was some disagreement, I've heard various versions of what it may've been about, and it was of such magnitude that Lucifer was booted out of Heaven and locked in the basement; a cute colorful reference I've heard used for Hell sometimes. Other angels were likewise knocked down there, guess Lucifer had a gang, and that was about that.

This story is not in the Bible in any variation that I am aware of...yet many of the faithful know it. After I learned it wasn't in the Bible I chatted with what few friends I have that like that sort of thing, even those that just label it as Christian mythology. All were as surprised as me that it's not in there.

The thought occurs to me that a lot of what is in the Bible is drawn from the Torah, as Christianity was literally spawned from Judaism. As much as the really religious like to slam Dan Brown there are things he's gone on about that tracks with other religious history I've heard; and by heard I mean from you guys. When the Bible was first being put into print, or I suppose inscribed might be more accurate, there was a great council/committee assembled to undergo the task. There was much debating among them about what should go into the Bible and what should not. Stuff like the Gospel of Judas Escariot was definitely out for understanable reasons...

...although how a guy can be deemed a traitor before he even had the thought of betraying anyone escapes me...

...so what I'm wondering is if the story regarding the fall of Lucifer and his rebirth as the Devil might've been in the Torah and just not made the cut for getting into the Bible. Makes me wonder what other things weren't included.

There's another tale I'm familiar with, of so called Christian mythology, that I'm fairly positive isn't in the Bible...but I could be wrong; let me know. It goes along the lines that Adam & Eve were not the first two humans...or more precisely Eve wasn't the first woman. God created a man and a woman and dubbed them Adam & Lilith and they were equal. Apparently upon their first coupling Adam had a major problem with the fact that Lilith wished to be on top, complained to God...and thus Eve was created from a part of Adam.

I've always had a problem with this story, not the least of which is I'm not sure of its authenticity. I know it's a truly ancient tale, and it would go a long way to fitting the timeframe's belief in woman are meant to be inferior to men as was the custom at the time. Not the least of which that I didn't think any coupling was going on in the Garden of Eden, thought that didn't come up as the fun activity we all know and love until much after the expulsion from paradise...

...and not to get too personal, possibly worthy of a different type of community, that's actually a favorite position of mine. Adam clearly had issues!

Regardless, I don't recall any mention of Lilith in the Bible, as the first woman or otherwise. Although history has seen fit to make most mentionings of her as some form of demon.

My question is are these tales, and others I'm not aware of, accurate? Were they originally in the Torah and not included in the Bible for some reason? Is it possible they were just of the oral tradition and deemed unnecessary to be included in the Bible?

Better still, do you know either of these two stories and where do you know them from?

Fri, Feb. 16th, 2007, 11:39 am
evilgrins: it's all kinda basic really

Maybe it's my whole acknowledging more than one God thing but when you come right down to it there's a little something funny in the water here. I mean the Greeks had the god Zeus and his extended family to worshipm the Norse had Odin and his extended family to worship, the Wiccans have Gaea, the Egyptians...you get the idea. It's pretty much a deity and his or her bretheren guarding over a specific group of people.

When Moses popped up with his whole "Let my people go!" riff he was a representative of their god (who is generally just known as 'God'; it;'s all about the capital G wth this one). The Egyptians did not discredit the existance of this deity but simply labelled It has was appropriate from their point of view; God of the Jews.

Time goes on, things change, a nice wholesome virgin girl gives birth to Jesus/Yeshua/whatever name you choose to refer to him by; the son of God (big G). For the longest time I didn't wholly buy that the Christians, as a whole, believed Jesus was actually God given flesh and not just the son of...but a post I made to that effect a couple weeks back has shown otherwise. However, this does represent a mildly odd problem when you think about it...

...least when I do.

The Jews worship God.

The Christians worship Jesus.

While it can be argued, and it is by many of them, that the Christians acknowledge that Jesus is in fact God (little g)...the Jews do not share this opinion. Seeing as it was their God (big G) first then it stands to reason they should be the authority on this.

So which way do we look here?

Jesus and God are different beings, said so by the different people that worship them. The Chrisitians can toss up that "Holy Trinity" bit as much as they like but without the faith that God originated from backing the concept (an oddly polytheistic "3 as 1" concept no matter how you slice it) then it can not be used as an irrefutable fact.


Sun, Jan. 21st, 2007, 07:21 pm
evilgrins: Funny Ha Ha

I suspect there are a lot of them out there but I only know a couple. With all the humor that seems to surround Jesus, in the form of standup comedy and stuyff we pick up in school, you'd think there'd be a lot of them. Short of cracking open a joke book and going to the religious humor I can't name that many...

...but as I said, I know two.

Warning: contents may be sacriligiousCollapse )

Do you know any Jesus jokes?

Fri, Jan. 12th, 2007, 04:39 pm
evilgrins: Personally I say yes!

Was having one of my usual odd religious chats, sparked by my always bizarre religious posts, when this came up. Because of it, rather that going on into an extensively lengthy post (preamble is my family's genetic curse), I have one simple question for you.

Can God be sexy?

Fri, Dec. 22nd, 2006, 11:15 am
evilgrins: Happy Holidays!

In my continued quest to come up with a question that no one can quote scripture at me for...

Let's say, hypothetically, God pops up in front of you and asks for a cookie. What kind would you get?

Obviously there's no wrong answer to this but feel free to explain your response.

Wed, Nov. 29th, 2006, 05:09 pm
evilgrins: What's in a name anyway?

This is kinda touching on a post I made last night about taking God's name in vain, though not entirely. The thing of it is that when you come right down to it no one really takes God's name in vain because "God" isn't a name.

It's a title.

It's a position of status.

It's the sign you'd see on God's cubicle...if God were the type of deity to sit in a cubicle.

I've never quite understood why it is no one refers to God by an actual name, instead going with the title. This is not a problem you get with polytheists...although that might be that since you're dealing with a multitude of gods in those instances it would be a little confusing to refer to each one as simply "God". Suppose if it were the title and the field of expertise that might work but really...

...names are much simpler.

A stretch back I figured Islam had the leading edge on the whole use of name thing...until someone explained to me that "Allah" is just "God" in another language.

Oh well.

The name in vain post popped up the possible reason that it used to be very bad mojo (for wont of a better word) to actually refer to God by a name. Sadly I was kinda floating on fumes of caffine at the time and don't remember why that is so let's stick with the essentials; maybe that same person will revisit that response and remind me.

Near as I know, from a Judeo/Christian perspective, God has two perfectly decent names to work with...maybe just one because I heard there was something of a scandal on one of them; no, I don't remember what. Those names are Jehovah (scandalized one) and Yaweh. These are two really nice, happy, easy to remember names.

Why doesn't anybody use them? Why is it all about the title and not the name?

Mon, Nov. 13th, 2006, 10:12 am
evilgrins: Not what you came with but what you've done

1:00 PM 11/12/06 · I've never been a big fan of an ancient belief, that is still practiced in the world today, that the sins of the father are visited upon his children. It's not limited in scope to just that, pretty much any ancestor done wrong and the descendents get blamed.

What a crock of *insert appropriate word here*!

Not surprisingly, to me at any rate, as an extension to this I don't believe in original sin. It just doesn't make any sense to me. Sure, folks sin but they shouldn't be blamed for the sins of others just because of some distant familial line. If I'm not mistaken, the whole original sin package stems from either Adam & Eve (snacking on the fruit of knowledge) or Cain killing Abel (nothing like a little sibling rivalry).

Either way, their sins were their sins. No one elses.

However, people do sin; it's a thing! There does seem to be some waywardness in what is and isn't a sin depending on a person's belief system. However, let's keep this fairly simple.

What are your sins? Yeah, you...the person reading this. If you're so gung ho on everybody sinning then you must have some idea what your own sins are.

Care to share with the class?

10 most recent