United Church of God

Paul Adams Comments

%user:name Comments

Paul Adams

10

Comments

Contact Paul Adams

×
  • padams50
    What a great sermon.
  • padams50

    The book, "The Two Babylons," by Hislop, is a good place to learn about the paganism that's been incorporated into what is called "Christianity" today.

  • padams50
    Because "faith comes by hearing," I've pretty much given up on worrying about who doesn't understand, and who does. Because it is God who is sovereign, Bible truths should be on a hilltop, not under a bushel. "Good job" for sending this info out into the world.
  • padams50
    De 12:30-32 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. People celebrate x-mass & Easter, go to church on Sunday, and wear crosses, all done as elements of worship to God. The church says not to do it because God says not to do it. It doesn't matter whether we believe it's okay or not. How did the pagans worship their gods? I think I'll worship my god the same way. God says don't do it. "The Two Babylons," by Hislop, is a really good book exposing paganism.
  • padams50
    I just remembered. HWA had a good study booklet, entitled, "The Tongues Question," still available for pdf download online.
  • padams50
    The Jesuits devised this gibberish-talking teaching for one purpose only: Ecumenism. If they could get a Jesus follower to speak in gibberish, just like their Pentecostal Catholic or Methodist neighbor, thus showing that, "Just believing on Jesus" is all that matters, and that it makes us all the same (Unity Movement), then the groundwork is laid for the anti-christ's New World Religion. Do not, in any way, support any person, school, or church that teaches, preaches, promotes, or condones the floor-flopping, gibberish-talking Pentecostal movement, third wave or whatever. And be very careful who you allow access to your children.
  • padams50
    There's an interesting note in the NIV about 1 Corinthians 12:31, just before Paul says he's going to show us "the most excellent way." NKJV The note says that instead of it being translated, "But eagerly desire . .," it can be translated, "But you are eagerly desiring;" the difference being between the imperative and the indicative form of the verb "zeloo," Strong's # 2206. The KJV translates it as the imperative, as, e.g., "do this." Paul's context though, is the indicative. Throughout chap. 12, he's been chastising them for this way that they've been doing things. He would hardly tell them to continue. Instead, he says, "But now I want to lay out a far better way for you." Message Bible And then he pens chap. 13, The Love Chapter.
  • padams50
    continued ~ Besides, there is no evidence in Scripture that angels use a heavenly language. Whenever angels appear in Scripture, they communicate in normal human language (e.g., Lk 1:11-20, 26-37, 2:8-14). Nowhere does the Bible teach that the gift of tongues is anything other than human languages. Nor is there any suggestion that the true tongues described in 1 Corinthians 12 -14 were materially different from the miraculous languages described in Acts 2 at Pentecost."
  • padams50
    "Are Tongues A Heavenly Language? What did Paul mean by the "tongues of . . . angels?" Many believe Paul was suggesting that the gift of tongues involves some kind of angelic or heavenly language. Indeed, most charismatics believe that the gift of tongues is a private prayer language, a heavenly language known only to God, celestial speech, or some other kind of unearthly idiom. There is no warrant in the text itself for such a view, however. Paul was making a hypothetical case, just as in the subsequent verses, where he speaks about knowing all mysteries and knowledge (even Paul could not literally make that claim), giving all his possessions to the poor, and giving his body to be burned. Paul was speaking theoretically, suggesting that even IF these things were true, without love they would be meaningless. To make his point about the necessity for love, Paul was trying to stretch his examples to the outer limits.
  • padams50

    Dear UCG;

    My understanding is that the first century New Testament church, Jew & Gentile alike, continued the practice of eight-day-old boy circumcision. A “believers circumcision” was rejected by the Jerusalem council (c. A.D. 52) as being “trouble” and a “greater burden.” (Acts 15:19-28) Eight-day-old boy circumcision is not mentioned in the record of the council except in that Moses “is read every Sabbath in the synagogues,” (Acts 15:21) which would include preaching of the rite.
    Some like to say that circumcision was done away at the crucifixion. Someone might find validity in that belief had it come from Moses. But Scripture says, “Joh 7:22 Moses gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), . . .
    As a Gentile grafted into Israel (New Covenant), I find it difficult to believe it has no value to me, salvation aside as Paul says. There is always a spiritual element in obedience, whether known by us or not. Wrong uses of the rite by the Jews does not negate God’s ordination of it.