Knowing Your Enemy: Satan's Attacks On SDAs

[Musicman1228]

John317: I agree with most of it. The issue I see is what we determine is the work of Satan. Any lies passed off as or accepted as truth are still lies and no lie has it's origin from God, even if the originator claims they received the information from God. I know that God has given us all the information we need to determine wheither someone claiming God given authority actually has such authority. I say this because Jesus said this. These two texts are examples that show that we must test everyone that claims that God called them and gave them specific information.

Revelation 2: 'I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false ;

20 'But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.

What do these two verses tell me. They say that there will be some men who claim to be His apostles and they are not. He says that "you" put them to the test (the test is His testimony, the truth) and "you" found them to be false. The second warning is about a woman who claims to be a prophetess and He calls this woman Jezebel; therefore I must test every woman who claims to be a prophetess or who accepted being a prophetess or is claimed to have been a prophetess, to see if they are 100% accuarate when held to the standard of the testimony of Jesus. They must also reject those who claim to be apostles and are not.

Matthew 24:4 And Jesus answered and said to them, "See to it that no one misleads you. 5 For many will come in My name, saying 'I am the Christ' and will mislead many."

The following is hypothetical; the names have been changed to protect the guilty. Try this:

Hi everyone, my name is Musicman and I am an official apostle of Jesus Christ. I declare this to you out of my own mouth that the above statement is true and correct. I believe in Jesus as my personal Savior, therefore you must believe me when I tell you what I have been sent here by God to tell you. What I have to say to you can be found in a book titled "The Spirit of the Church". Every single word in this book is the very Word of God because God inspired me to write it. I really didn't want to write it because I knew how much trouble I would be in if I did write it. But God compelled me to write by giving me a messenger of Satan to buffet me until I accomplished this great task. This messenger of Satan came in the form of cancer and a massive heart attack, which God gave me to keep me humble and not boastful, and which forced me to finish the book to the glory of God.

I was visited in vision by Jesus Christ Himself, and He showed me that the church is in grave danger because of rampant error in the understanding of Truth and prophecy. Jesus showed me that I am the only one (I am not boasting in this) who has the truth and that everyone who has previously made the claim that they are or were a disciple of Jesus Christ are liars and frauds.

Jesus showed me that everything that He had told His own disciples was wrong and that we are not saved by works but by grace through faith. Today, the only way for anyone to reach heaven is to believe my testimony that Jesus actually came to me in vision and told me exactly what to say. But don't worry, even if you don't believe me you will be saved anyway, because Jesus loves you and will not loose anyone because they made a bad choice.

End of hypothetical.

Now John and Co., If I had actually said this and actually meant it what would be your response? Would you not rightly question whether I was telling the truth? Would you try to find out through secondary sources whether what I said happened actually did? Would you not try to find eyewitnesses that saw God call me to His service? Would you at the very least not question my sanity?

You would not give me a pass based on the texts the wayfinder cited in Revelation, would you? Why would you not immediately believe me when I made these declarations? Would you test them and try to find out whether they were true or not? What would you do if you did not have enough information to actually know whether what I said was true? Would you accept what I said anyway, just because I said it, believing what I said 'by faith'?

If you feel it prudent (wise) to ask these questions about me and my claims (and it certainly would be wise) WHY will you not ask those same questions about anyone else that makes the same claims that I did? Why will you give both Paul and EGW a complete pass by not demanding answers from their writings about these same questions? Because you CHOOSE to believe them REGARDLESS of any evidence that might me presented that counters their claims to having the authority of God. You choose to do this because if you apply the same standard to them as you have applied to me in this hypothetical situation then the answers would certainly make you uncomfortable, and possibly shake your faith to it's foundation.

Now you have a better understanding about what will cause the Shaking of the SDA church; the presentation of the straight truth as called forth by the testimony of the 'True Witness', Jesus Christ.

[skyblue888]

The straight testimony is that our position in the world is not what it should be. That we have resisted the light that is to lighten the whole earth with its glory, that "there is salvation for us but only through the merits of Jesus Christ." That we have rejected the reformatory steps of the 1901 General Conference that would have instituted Gospel Order within our ranks. That we have put God aside and accepted the devisings of men in order to bring men under the control of men. That in the 1950s we have compromised the pillars of our faith in secret meetings with the enemies of our faith in order to be recognized by them as a Christian denomination instead of being categorized as an anti-Christian cult. That we are responsible for causing many to look upon God as a tyran. That we are repeating the history of ancient Israel to the very letter.

May God help us.

sky

[John317]

I agree, sky. That is really one of the main themes of, or reasons for, this thread.

[skyblue888]

Yes John. The great apostle of evil hates the truths that God has entrusted to us as a people. He has been working against the precious light all the time. "With all possible deception Satan will manifest his power, calling to his aid all the fallen angels of his realm." The Great Controversy, p.398.

"As Satan took control of the minds of the Jews, again he is seeking to blind the minds of His servants that they may not be able to discern the precious truth." E.G. White, Review and Herald, Feb.18,1890.

sky

[Dr. Rich]

Sky, while your post was interesting, if this is true, then what is this new truth that causes the shaking just before the time of trouble. It could not be anything that we now know or it would not be 'new truth'.

[Guest]

I don't see where sky said anything about a "new" truth. The straight testimony is not a "new" truth.

Rich, you're so out of touch with the 3 angels' messages now, and the truths that we adventists hold dear, that I doubt if you even know what the straight testimony is.

Part of it is: "Yes you CAN keep the 10 commandments, and yes it IS necessary to keep them, if you're planning on going to heaven".

People don't seem to want to hear that anymore for some reason.

[John317]

As Richard said, sky didn't say anything about "new truth." It won't be "new truth" that will do the shaking. It will be a realization and acceptance of the truth that God revealed a long time ago and which the church has not fully accepted and practiced yet.

There are actually many causes of the shaking. There's been a shaking going on in the church for quite some time now. But it will get more intense the nearer we come to Christ's return. It is like all the other signs in that way-- they increase in intensity like the birth pains of a woman having a baby. Some people are shaken out of the church while others are shaken in. Someday, shortly before the second coming, God will shake out all the weeds and it will leave a pure church. One cause of this great shaking will be persecution.

[Dr. Rich]

Hey guys, (John and Richard) would you be surprised if I told you that I tend to agree for the most part? Straight testimony is the testimony of Jesus. Like I said before, trust and obey, for there is no other way. And, for this group of people, I believe Satan will do what ever he can to stop them.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

That in the 1950s we have compromised the pillars of our faith in secret meetings with the enemies of our faith in order to be recognized by them as a Christian denomination instead of being categorized as an anti-Christian cult.

Call me stupid, ban my chocolate, and take away my remote control, but what happened in the 1950's???? Who had secret meetings with whom?

[John317]

sky is referring to the meetings between 3 SDA leaders, including Roy Allen Anderson and Leroy Froom, and Dr. Barnhouse, a man who was writing a book about cults. He had planned to include SDAs among the cults, or groups he considered non-Christian, but decided to make sure whether we were a cult or not. That led to his meetings with Anderson and Froom. Anderson was Ministerial Secretary and editor of Ministry, a journal SDAs published for our pastors. These meetings eventually resulted in the book, Questions On Doctrine.

Here's a portrait of RAA taken at his home the year he passed away:

[Musicman1228]

I don't see where sky said anything about a "new" truth. The straight testimony is not a "new" truth.

Rich, you're so out of touch with the 3 angels' messages now, and the truths that we adventists hold dear, that I doubt if you even know what the straight testimony is.

Part of it is: "Yes you CAN keep the 10 commandments, and yes it IS necessary to keep them, if you're planning on going to heaven".

People don't seem to want to hear that anymore for some reason.

Richard,

I think maybe the word 'old' is the problem here in defining the information that the SDA church holds a truth. I think a better term would be 'established' truth. Just because certain information has been 'established' as true does not necessarily make it true in fact. Tradition often gets in the way of finding what is real truth.

The Shaking of the SDA church will happen because there will be some who come along and question the 'established' truth that the church currently holds. These folks will show Scriptural evidence that the established beliefs that have become tradition have been based on misinformation, misunderstanding, or outright lies. According to the prophecy in Matt. 25:1-13 five will embrace this 'new' information, and five will stay with the 'established' belief system. Again, according to the prophecy the five that embrace the 'new' truth will go into the marriage feast, and the five that don't will be left out in the outer darkness. It's going to be a very difficult choice for many people who feel that they cannot give up any of that to which they have become accustomed. When these people find out that they have lost eternal life forever because they chose the easy path of sticking with tradition. They will be very angry with God and accuse Him of being unfair, after all, they believed everything the church said and that should be enough for salvation-this is the gnashing of teeth spoken of in another prophecy of the end.

[John317]

... I think a better term would be 'established' truth. Just because certain information has been 'established' as true does not necessarily make it true in fact.

But on the other hand, just because certain information has been "established" as true doesn't mean it is false, either. But I know there are many people who are seeking for novel ideas and are bored with established truth.

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

Tradition often gets in the way of finding what is real truth.

That is not all that gets in the way of finding real truth, of course.

[John317]

... According to the prophecy in Matt. 25:1-13 five will embrace this 'new' information, and five will stay with the 'established' belief system. Again, according to the prophecy the five that embrace the 'new' truth will go into the marriage feast, and the five that don't will be left out in the outer darkness. It's going to be a very difficult choice for many people who feel that they cannot give up any of that to which they have become accustomed. When these people find out that they have lost eternal life forever because they chose the easy path of sticking with tradition.

What "new" information are you referring to? Anything specific?

And what truth is it you speak of as being necessary for people's salvation?

[John317]

...The following is hypothetical; the names have been changed to protect the guilty. Try this:

Hi everyone, my name is Musicman and I am an official apostle of Jesus Christ. I declare this to you out of my own mouth .....

....Jesus showed me that everything that He had told His own disciples was wrong and that we are not saved by works but by grace through faith. Today, the only way for anyone to reach heaven is to believe my testimony that Jesus actually came to me in vision and told me exactly what to say. But don't worry, even if you don't believe me you will be saved anyway, because Jesus loves you and will not loose anyone because they made a bad choice.

End of hypothetical.

The problem with your hypothetical is that it leaves out so much and is therefore nothing like the situation of Paul. You evidently forget about the other Christians who witnessed Paul's preaching and saw the miracles of God that attended Paul's work. Christians who knew Ananias knew that he had been given a vision in which the Lord told him about Paul. What God revealed to him about Paul-- and what God told Paul himself-- was fulfilled. There's also the change that everyone saw in Paul. He went from being a man who was persectuing the church to one who loved Christ and loved Christ's church. He was willing to suffer and even die for the church.

A lot of what you say merely demonstrates (again) that you don't understand Paul's message.

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

...The following is hypothetical; the names have been changed to protect the guilty. Try this:

Hi everyone, my name is Musicman and I am an official apostle of Jesus Christ. I declare this to you out of my own mouth .....

....Jesus showed me that everything that He had told His own disciples was wrong and that we are not saved by works but by grace through faith. Today, the only way for anyone to reach heaven is to believe my testimony that Jesus actually came to me in vision and told me exactly what to say. But don't worry, even if you don't believe me you will be saved anyway, because Jesus loves you and will not loose anyone because they made a bad choice.

End of hypothetical.

The problem with your hypothetical is that it leaves out so much and is therefore nothing like the situation of Paul. You evidently forget about the other Christians who witnessed Paul's preaching and saw the miracles of God that attended Paul's work. Christians who knew Ananias knew that he had been given a vision in which the Lord told him about Paul. What God revealed to him about Paul-- and what God told Paul himself-- was fulfilled. There's also the change that everyone saw in Paul. He went from being a man who was persectuing the church to one who loved Christ and loved Christ's church. He was willing to suffer and even die for the church.

A lot of what you say merely demonstrates (again) that you don't understand Paul's message.

You response assumes that the other Christians that 'saw' these things actually did. The only record in the Bible that these events occurred come via Paul or Luke. You cannot name one person that actually saw what happened on the road to Damascus other than Paul. No one confirms this. This is also true for Ananias; where is his direct testimony? We only have Paul's word that this took place.

Time neither establishes or de-establishes truth. Truth must stand on it's own, and be looked at with a critical eye and compared with an unimpeachable source. There is only one unimpeachable source for truth that I am willing to bet my life on and that is the OT and the Words and Testimony of Jesus Christ as given by His own disciples/eyewitnesses. This is personal with me and not subject to debate. Just because someone (anyone) says that because of tradition or time the Bible is this well established truth does not make it so, to me. You are free to do whatever you want with that thought.

[John317]

You response assumes that the other Christians that 'saw' these things actually did. The only record in the Bible that these events occurred come via Paul or Luke.

Here's the bottom line: The Bible says they saw those things. Can you prove they didn't?

Originally Posted By: Musicman

You cannot name one person that actually saw what happened on the road to Damascus other than Paul.

It's true that no one else understood what was said to Paul,but the men traveling with Paul saw the light and heard the voice. They saw Paul fall to the ground.

There's also the fact that it was revealed to Ananias what would happen-- that a man named Saul would come to him and that God had chosen this man Saul as a vessel for carrying the gospel to the Gentiles and to kings, etc. The prophecy proved to be true.

Originally Posted By: Musicman

No one confirms this.

I see no reason to doubt it. Can you prove that it didn't happen just the way Paul says? The evidence supports it. Paul did go on to do what the Lord told him and Ananias that Paul would do.

Does anyone confirm what you say on pages 122, 123 of your book, The Spirit of the Church? What you've written there is absolutely false, a fact that can be easily demonstratted to anyone willing to look at a few Greek text books, yet you seem to ask everyone to take your word for it. Can you produce even one Greek scholar who agrees with what you say on those pages?

Originally Posted By: Musicman

This is also true for Ananias; where is his direct testimony? We only have Paul's word that this took place.

Are you claiming that you need a separate statement by Ananias before you'll accept what Paul said and what Luke wrote?

But if you don't accept Paul or Luke, why would you accept the direct testimony of Ananias? If Ananias agrees with Paul, wouldn't you need a separate statement by someone agreeing with Ananias?

Where is the direct testimony of Jesus? All you have is John's word for much of what he says. Is John's word sufficient for you?

But just as you have no reason to believe John is lying, neither do you have reason to believe Paul and Ananias are lying.

Personally I'm satisfied with Paul's and Luke's word for these things.

Originally Posted By: Musicman

Time neither establishes or de-establishes truth. Truth must stand on it's own, and be looked at with a critical eye and compared with an unimpeachable source.

For me the unimpeachable source is the Bible, all 66 books. I will gladly accept the word of those Scriptures over any other evidence.

Originally Posted By: Musicman

There is only one unimpeachable source for truth that I am willing to bet my life on and that is the OT

Not too long ago, you said it's possible that Eve was not really the first human to commit sin but that it may well have been Adam. You suggested it's possible that Moses or one of the "translators" made it appear that Eve was the one who first fell into sin. Do you recall this? Therefore, how can you say that you are willing to bet your life on the truth of the OT?

Keep in mind that the same God who inspired the Old Testament and kept the truth pure also inspired the NT and kept it pure. God doesn't change the way He works. You've said this before yourself.

Originally Posted By: Musicman

and the Words and Testimony of Jesus Christ as given by His own disciples/eyewitnesses. This is personal with me and not subject to debate. Just because someone (anyone) says that because of tradition or time the Bible is this well established truth does not make it so, to me. You are free to do whatever you want with that thought.

Can you prove that everything that's said in the Gospel of John is true? Have you proved or confirmed it by independent testimony? You will need to do this the same as you require for the books of Paul and Luke.

Just beccause someone comes along and says the books of Paul and the Gospels of Luke and Mark and the books of Hebrews, James, and Peter are wrong means they are wrong.

[Musicman1228]

John said, "It's true that no one else understood what was said to Paul,but the men traveling with Paul saw the light and heard the voice."

The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. Act. 9:7.

No one with Saul saw anything, so no one can confirm that this being was in fact who the being said he was. This cannot be proven by Saul's own eyes because he was conveniently blinded so he could not actually see who was speaking. Your 'faith' allows you to believe that this was the true Jesus Christ, mine doesn't.

[John317]

It's true that no one else understood what was said to Paul,but the men traveling with Paul saw the light and heard the voice.

Originally Posted By: Musicman

The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. Act. 9:7.

No one with Saul saw anything,

Not true.

The men traveling with Paul saw the light and heard the voices but did not understand the voices. They must also have seen Paul fall to the ground.

(ESV) Acts 22:9

Now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me.

Originally Posted By: Musicman

...so no one can confirm that this being was in fact who the being said he was.

What kind of proof are you looking for? Can you prove that the angel Gabriel was the one who came to Daniel or to Mary? Only Mary saw Gabriel, right? So why do you believe it was Gabriel when you only have Mary's word for it?

Would you accept the testimony of the men who were going with Paul to capture and possibly kill Christians?

How would they know it was Christ? Christ didn't appear to them, and they didn't understand what Jesus said. Are you going to tell God He was wrong to appear to Paul in that way? Are you going to tell God that the reason you didn't accept Paul was that God didn't do it right?

I don't think that will go over too well, MM.

Quote:

This cannot be proven by Saul's own eyes because he was conveniently blinded so he could not actually see who was speaking.

If Paul had seen Christ, would you then be convinced that it was Christ? Is your lack of belief in Paul's ministry due to the fact that he didn't actually see Christ on the road to Damascus but only saw a blinding light and heard the voice of Jesus?

But why would you believe someone you take to be a liar and of the devil? Would it really make a difference to you if Paul said he saw Jesus?

Quote:

Your 'faith' allows you to believe that this was the true Jesus Christ, mine doesn't.

I believe because of all the evidence in the New Testament, including Paul's letters and the narrative we have in the book of Acts. I love the apostle Paul and look forward to meeting him in heaven. His letters are one of the main reasons I am not a practicing homosexual today but have given my life entirely to Christ. I study the Pauline epistles-- as well as other parts of the Bible-- every day, and they have made the greatest impact on my life of any other single piece of writing. This is proof for me that they are of God-- because when I study them, I hear the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking to my heart and mind, convicting me that what I am reading is the truth and the very word of God. I've studied all the scriptures of the great religions of the world, but none can compare with the NT, and particularly with the letters of Paul.

[phkrause]

John said, "It's true that no one else understood what was said to Paul,but the men traveling with Paul saw the light and heard the voice."

The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. Act. 9:7.

No one with Saul saw anything, so no one can confirm that this being was in fact who the being said he was. This cannot be proven by Saul's own eyes because he was conveniently blinded so he could not actually see who was speaking. Your 'faith' allows you to believe that this was the true Jesus Christ, mine doesn't.

And how about the man God told to go to Paul? As far as Faith is concerned, many things written in the Bible can only be accepted based on faith, so what's the big deal. Are you saying you have none? Have you actually seen God? Were you there when God created the earth and this solar system? If you go back a number of years the only way to believe that King David, Daniel and a few others ever existed was by faith alone. Its just in the last few years that they actually found proof that King David was real. So I'm guessing that your believe in the OT is only based on proof and not that you have faith that the Bible is true, unless actual proof exists?

[wayfinder]

Acts 9:3 As he was traveling, it happened that he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him; 4 and he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?"

5 And he said, "Who are You, Lord ?" And He said, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, 6 but get up and enter the city, and it will be told you what you must do."

Acts 22:6 "But it happened that as I was on my way, approaching Damascus about noontime, a very bright light suddenly flashed from heaven all around me, 7 and I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?' 8 "And I answered, 'Who are You, Lord ?' And He said to me, 'I am Jesus the Nazarene, whom you are persecuting.' 9 "And those who were with me saw the light, to be sure, but did not understand the voice of the One who was speaking to me. 10 "And I said, 'What shall I do, Lord ?' And the Lord said to me, 'Get up and go on into Damascus, and there you will be told of all that has been appointed for you to do.' 11 "But since I could not see because of the brightness of that light, I was led by the hand by those who were with me and came into Damascus.

Acts 26:13 at midday , O King, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining all around me and those who were journeying with me. 14 "And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew dialect, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.' 15 "And I said, 'Who are You, Lord ?' And the Lord said, 'I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. 16 'But get up and stand on your feet ; for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a minister and a witness not only to the things which you have seen, but also to the things in which I will appear to you; 17 rescuing you from the Jewish people and from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending you, 18 to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.

Three different accounts of the same event, by the third rendition it has really grown in size. Question, why was Saul blinded by the light, that was bright as the Sun and those with him were not. And did they hear the voice or not. Also, the Son of God/Son of man, never reffered to Himself by the name Jesus.

John 8:24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins ; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."

25 So they were saying to Him, "Who are You?" Jesus said to them, "What have I been saying to you from the beginning ?

26 "I have many things to speak and to judge concerning you, but He who sent Me is true ; and the things which I heard from Him, these I speak to the world."

27 They did not realize that He had been speaking to them about the Father.

28 So Jesus said, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me.

29 "And He who sent Me is with Me; He has not left Me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to Him."

[John317]

Acts 9:3 As he was traveling, it happened that he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him; 4 and he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?"

5 And he said, "Who are You, Lord ?" And He said, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, 6 but get up and enter the city, and it will be told you what you must do."

Acts 22:6 "But it happened that as I was on my way, approaching Damascus about noontime, a very bright light suddenly flashed from heaven all around me, 7 and I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?' 8 "And I answered, 'Who are You, Lord ?' And He said to me, 'I am Jesus the Nazarene, whom you are persecuting.' 9 "And those who were with me saw the light, to be sure, but did not understand the voice of the One who was speaking to me. ....Acts 26:13 at midday , O King, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining all around me and those who were journeying with me. 14 "And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew dialect, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.' 15 "And I said, 'Who are You, Lord ?' And the Lord said, 'I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.

...Three different accounts of the same event, by the third rendition it has really grown in size. Question, why was Saul blinded by the light, that was bright as the Sun and those with him were not.

Yes, different words but that's to be expected since these are the words of Paul on three different occasions separated by both time and circumstances. However, they all tell the same story. In this way it is similar to the story of the resurrection-- there are differences but it's obviously the same event being narrated.

Originally Posted By: Wayfinder

And did they hear the voice or not.

Yes, Paul says that they heard the voice but did not understand it.

Originally Posted By: Wayfinder

Also, the Son of God/Son of man, never reffered to Himself by the name Jesus.

Jesus refers to Himself by name when He talks to Saul on the road to Damascus. Are you saying Jesus is not free to refer to Himself by His name?

Are you going to tell God that one reason you refused to accept Paul's ministry is that Jesus referred to Himself by the name of Jesus?

[wayfinder]

John3:17, This is only an observation of mine, that Jesus never call Himself, or referred to Himself as Jesus or Jesus the Nazarene.

If this was the only evidence I had it would be moronic to draw any concrete conclutions. I have an abundance of evidence.

[John317]

What is that evidence?

Is part of your evidence what Musicman wrote on pages 122, 123 of The Spirit of the Church. Do you support, and teach, what he wrote on those pages about the correct translation of Acts 2: 3, that it should read "a tongue" rather than "tongues"? I'm wondering if anyone who knows the Greek language went over those pages before they went to the printer.

[wayfinder]

No. If you would like we could get together again for dinner and go over the evidence.

[John317]

Sure, we could do that.

We can plan for sometime this coming week.