Dave-regenerated

Your response makes no sense and has nothing to do with what I said and the topic of the conversation here.

Jesus said that if you equate a demonic possession with devils casting out devils instead of God doing it, you have blasphemed the Holy Spirit. I'm really sorry, but when you say, "that's not what Jesus said" either you misunderstood what I already explained or you are attempting to disagree with me for some odd reason. Some anecdote about a person that is not supposed to be "spirit filled" (Whatever THAT means!) attempting to do an exorcism that failed really isn't evidence at all, it is some eyewitness testimony only that could be mistaken. It's interesting to me that you talk about the Holy Spirit being within Christians which basically just means you contradicted yourself. I'll be up front and honest with you - your response addressed nothing in my OP.

I don't know what to make of Padre Pio because I am not Catholic. But he appears to have performed genuine miracles of healing and cast demons out of people, as well as having the Stigmata. I searched a lot online for any Protestant views of him and I found hardly anything. Why is that? Don't forget that Jesus said if satan casts out Satan (in demonic possession) that is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. And yet we see Padre Pio doing this, so that cannot be demonic if it's true. If you believe that Pio was demonically influenced or used, how do you explain his exorcisms? What do you have against him? I am not interested in the Skeptics' analysis of him, because I have read all the literature and their explanations are wrong.

I cannot see any differences between the two version in this you posted: - Ezekiel 24:7 [1769] - Jerusalem is a very bloody city and sinful city. The poetic language in the 1769 says that "For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it not upon the ground, to cover it with dust..." - implying no humility and no repentance. Jerusalem would not humble itself. Ezekiel 24:7 [1611] - This Bible says, "For her blood is in the middest of her: she set it vpon the toppe of a rocke, she powred it vpon the ground to couer it with dust...” The 1611 says that they DID pour their blood upon the ground - implying humility and repentance. One of them is simply updated English and they are both saying exactly the same thing.

You don't seem to know the difference between belief and knowledge. I already explained that strong beliefs aren't the same as knowledge.

You have already been given numerous and countless examples of how Jesus fulfils the prophecies of the Old Testament. The reason you don't understand that or seem to see it is because you are not BORN AGAIN yet. That means you have no experience of God, or "Hashem" as you call Him. You have rituals, beliefs, and nothing else. Paul was a Pharisee and he said the "god of this world has blinded them" because "it is spiritually discerned".

The charismatic movement doesn't have the fruit of the spirit of self control. Their services look like lunatic asylums.

Before I was saved I went to a spiritualist church once. They wanted to do laying on of hands for healing. It creeped me out so I left before it started.

They erroneously believe you cannot be saved unless you speak in tongues. There is absolutely nothing in the entire Bible that validates that viewpoint. It derives from the year 1900 in some sect in the USA. No tongues since the 4th century (at the most) and it takes 1500 years and all of a sudden it reappears? Nonsense.

No.

Because it is either 1) fraudulent 2) mistaken 3) demonic

It seemed to me you were insinuating I was Catholic even though I said I wasn't. Asking for sources makes sense if you don't know any better I suppose.

No I don't agree with Catholicism because I am not a Catholic. But you could have just asked me that first in a nice friendly way.

Here's some more for you - pneumatology - Did any early Church Fathers record the event of the ceasing of spiritual gifts? - Christianity Stack Exchange We could go on and on but it would largely be a waste of time. You asked for Church fathers on the decline of tongues and prophesy and I have already given enough evidence. The burden of proof is not on me because there is no debate.

Augustine is considered to be an early church father. Are you making the claim that he wasn't one? Evidence please. Most of the early church fathers said many things that were wrong. You won't find evidence to the contrary that the later church had tongues and prophecy as sign gifts until the year 1900. I can back up everything I say with text citations, internet evidences, books and so on. You were very quick to jump on me about claims requiring proof. Now, I would appreciate it if you could give us all evidence for tongues and prophecy in the middle ages. Cheers.

Taking apocalyptic literature literally is obviously not a wise thing to do. The book of Revelation contains veiled symbolism and imagery that is obviously not literal. So Jesus coming on a "white horse" would not constitute a normal reading of the text. The trouble is that even scholars cannot decipher it. Somebody without any education in the Jewish religious history and cultures through time that reads Revelation in modern English is obviously not going to be reading it with anything near to a comprehensive understanding in laymen's terms. But there are so many cults and sects that do just that. It's very stupid in my opinion.

I can certainly do your work for you if you want. If you really want. I suspect you are too lazy to do the reading and studying yourself, though. Here's the first thing that came up when I googled it:- Augustine on the cessation of sign gifts | Immoderate (wordpress.com) If that isn't enough, let me know.

There's so many I don't know where to begin, nor would I remember at all times. I can assure you if you google Augustine and the sign gifts, you can find out for yourself.

I just wrote about that. See above.

The early Church Fathers are considered to be disciples of disciples of the Apostles in some cases, and many others later on that wrote books and other writings including the New Testament quoted all over. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Clement, Augustine, Jerome, Athanasius, and many others. By Augustine's time (400- ish AD), he wrote that the sign gifts had ceased.

It is a virtually pointless attempt to convince a Jew that their traditions of Talmud, including Kabbalah, have no bearing on the Bible or as Christians call it, The Old Testament. They are brainwashed from childhood to mix Talmud with Bible. Unless they separate them, their conditioning will not allow them to open their mind. Sad but true.

I used to be.

It depends who you live with. I live with people that want to watch TV news all day long and I can't just interfere with that. I hate all TV except cooking shows (and even then I am careful with what I watch). I just watch Youtube channels I am subscribed to which are all Christian based programmes. The problem there, as Starise mentioned, is that Youtube requires a hefty subscription to get rid of adverts and I don't want to waste money just for that. So I endure the ads that come up. I would really rather not though, as most ads annoy me. My Holy Spirit radar starts beeping when I see a lot of that stuff. Children do need decent programmes to watch. But these days, a lot of it seems to be trying to indoctrinate them and the content leaves a lot to be desired of.

The early church fathers reported that the gifts of tongues and prophecy had ceased by the 2nd or 3rd century AD. Those gifts are called "sign gifts" and were used by the Apostles to spread and authenticate the Gospel. That settles it for me.

The Bible says God breathed the breath of life into Adam's body and he became a living soul. Nowhere is pre-existence mentioned in the Bible. Instead, we are told that God knew his own before the universe came into existence, He foresaw and knew people from eternity past who exist in time and space.