What Did Jesus Intend?

[Leonard James]

Also, remember that Peter was speaking after Pentecost, when the Spirit came. Jesus as a man was sent to the Jews only, but when he sent his spirit he enabled the disciples to speak in the languages of all nations, so it was really Jesus speaking through them.

Do you seriously believe that the disciples suddenly understood and spoke every language on earth?

[Leonard James]

Music transcends every language on earth 

No matter what language someone speaks they can still appreciate a good tune 

" if I were a rich man ....dee Dee dee......"

No doubt, Rose, but unless it is sung in their language they aren't going to glean much from it.

[jeremyp]

Music transcends every language on earth 

Not necessarily true. East Asian music sounds distinctly foreign to Western ears and vice versa. They use different scales and everything apparently.

[Hope]

Not necessarily true. East Asian music sounds distinctly foreign to Western ears and vice versa. They use different scales and everything apparently.

Whilst that is true, it doesn't mean that a Westerner can't appreciate East Asian music.  'Appreciation' and 'liking' aren't necessarily synonymous.

[floo]

Also, remember that Peter was speaking after Pentecost, when the Spirit came. Jesus was sent to the Jews only, but the Spirit enabled the disciples to speak in the languages of all nations.

Like as if!

[Spud]

This is total fantasy.  "Matthew" didn't "write" the Gospel, it's a cut-and-paste job.  "Mark" wrote half of it.  The bit at the end is transparently a clumsy add-on. Nobody thinks that really happened - not least because no other Gospel has a remotely similar story.  Luke, John and the end of Mark were all written later than most of Matthew and are essentially 3 denials that Matthew's Great Commission on the mountain in Galilee ever happened.  (Though not intentionally, since that bit hadn't been written yet.)

The bit at the end of Matthew fits nicely with previous verses such as 26:31-32. The shepherd re-gathers the sheep and promises to be with them until the end of the world.

[ad_orientem]

The bit at the end of Matthew fits nicely with previous verses such as 26:31-32. The shepherd re-gathers the sheep and promises to be with them until the end of the world.

Red Giant is talking bollocks. Matthew in its entirety was written by Natthew, Mark by Mark and so on and so forth. Modern "scholars" aren't worth shit.

[floo]

Red Giant is talking bollocks. Matthew in its entirety was written by Natthew, Mark by Mark and so on and so forth. Modern "scholars" aren't worth shit.

And you know that for sure, because?

[ad_orientem]

And you know that for sure, because?

Because it is what we have received through the Holy Spirit.

[Dicky Underpants]

Because it is what we have received through the Holy Spirit.

We are encouraged to "test the spirits, whether they be of God" - can you suggest a reliable method of doing this?

[ad_orientem]

We are encouraged to "test the spirits, whether they be of God" - can you suggest a reliable method of doing this?

One way is to see if it has been consistently believed by the Church.

[Hope]

We are encouraged to "test the spirits, whether they be of God" - can you suggest a reliable method of doing this?

Yes.  In the same way that scientists can check a discovery against existing scientific documentation, to decide whether it is likely to be realistic/viable, so Christians can use documentary evidence to see whther a new idea or teaching (spirit) is realistic viable.  If the scientific discovery flies too much in the face of accepted norms, one has to reconsider it, recheck it, try to recreate it, etc.  The same goes with matters spiritual.

[Hope]

One way is to see if it has been consistently believed by the Church.

Unfortunately, there have been things that have - at certain times - been consistently believed by the Church yet are clearly not consistent with the teachings of Christ, or even the ideas that the Jews were called to proclaim.  That is why I tend to disregard Church tradition in the main.

[Shaker]

One way is to see if it has been consistently believed by the Church.

There are names for the two fallacies in there, you know.

[ad_orientem]

Unfortunately, there have been things that have - at certain times - been consistently believed by the Church yet are clearly not consistent with the teachings of Christ, or even the ideas that the Jews were called to proclaim.  That is why I tend to disregard Church tradition in the main.

But you are a Protestant. You have to constantly innovate and reject the faith of the ancient Church.

[floo]

One way is to see if it has been consistently believed by the Church.

And the church is infallible of course, NOT!

[ad_orientem]

And the church is infallible of course

Indeed!

[Shaker]

You missed out the NOT! bit.

[ad_orientem]

You missed out the NOT! bit.

I corrected it for her.

[Nearly Sane]

I penetrated my anus with a bust of Putin.

Indeed.

[Shaker]

I corrected it for her.

No you didn't, you misrepresented what she wrote to make it read what you think it should have said instead of what Floo intended it to say. Typical dishonesty from some of you lot - seen it a million times before.

[ad_orientem]

No you didn't, you misrepresented what she wrote to make it read what you think it should have said instead of what Floo intended it to say. Typical dishonesty from some of you lot - seen it a million times before.

But not when you and your ilk fo it. Hypocrite!

[Nearly Sane]

Butter helped ease the bust of Putin into my rectal passage . I am a  Hypocrite!

Indeed

[Shaker]

But not when you and your ilk fo it. Hypocrite!

Examples?

[ad_orientem]

You and your ilk have done it to me before. I do not care to go through thousands of posts just to prove smoething you already know.