Nr. 795:
What name is the Holy Spirit? Every person has a name if they are one person!
Throughout church history God has been portrayed in a false way. And why? More profoundly, there is an intense and ugly Jew contempt behind. Or as a backdrop that allows an easier understand how such unbiblical teachings are entered among the believers.
God's Spirit is spoken of in Scripture as a force winds, with properties and more. But never with his own name, which clearly indicates that the Spirit is not a person, but the person performing the faders and Son's will. Observing and speak in Dam site. Thus, we find the Spirit described as a person but it is Nevertheless it illogical and unscriptural to make Spirit a person.
Photo of Paul in no way believed in the Trinity. Here is one of his quotes, and he believed in a triune God, as we had found it here and other places clarification. But we find the opposite:
1 Cor. 8. 4b. there is no God but one. 5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth - as there be gods many, and lords many - 6 as it is yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we by him.
Let us take up this topic here: What name is the Holy Spirit?
Nettop, no name.
Every person has a name if they are a person mind you!
But the Holy Spirit is no person, not a name.
How was it that the Spirit was a 3rd person in the Godhead?
Did Jesus ever that he was God? No, he never did it.
In the Bible he is called "the Son of God." And he said, "Father. . . is greater than I am. "(John 10: 34-36; 14: 28) Jesus also said that there were certain things that neither he nor the angels knew but that only God had knowledge of. (Mark 13: 32)
Jesus prayed also to God. On one occasion he said: "Thy will be done, not mine." (Luke 22: 42) If Jesus were God Almighty, who was there when he asked for? He might not pray to himself? The Bible says about what happened after Jesus' death: "God raised this Jesus." (Acts 2: 32) It is therefore evident that the Almighty God and Jesus are two different people. Not even after his death and resurrection and ascension of Jesus was equal with the Father. - 1 Corinthians 11: 3; 15: 28.
The church is trying to point out a lot of things it. The doctrine of the Triune God is not Biblical.
A book about the Greek people's history says about the attitude to religion that largely prevailed among Roman emperors in the third and fourth century: "Even when those who were on the imperial throne, was not especially preoccupied by religion but complying with the spirit, they found it necessary to give religion an important status within their political plans to give their actions a certain religious significance. "- Istoria tou Ellinikou Ethnous.
Constantine was certainly a man of his time. At the beginning of his career he needed a form of "divine" support, and he could not get out of the Roman gods, who had lost much of its luster. World Kingdom with its religion and other institutions were in decline, and there was a need for something new and stimulating to bring its strength back. The Greek lexicon Hidria says: "Constantine was particularly interested in Christianity because it was in support of him in both his victory and the reorganization of his empire. The Christian churches that existed everywhere, his political support. . . . He surrounded himself with future major prelates. . .. And he insisted that they should preserve its unity. "
Constantine realized that the "Christian" religion - even as apostate and corrupt it appeared at that time - with good effect could be used as a restorative and unifying force and be of benefit to him in his ambitious plans to achieve imperial power. He accepted the basic features of the apostate Christianity to win support to further their own political goals and decided to unite people in one "catholic" or universal religion. Pagan customs and festivals were given "Christian" names.
Since Constantine sought religious unity for political reasons, he was quick to bring all dissidents to silence, not on the basis of what was the true doctrine, but on the basis of what the majority found to accept. The profound doctrinal differences within the highly fragmented "Christian" church gave him the opportunity to intervene as a 'divinely appointed' bridge builder. Through his knowledge of the Donatists in North Africa and Arius' followers in the eastern part of the empire, he soon realized that persuasion was not enough to bring about a solid and united religion. It was in an attempt to resolve the dispute with the Arians, he called together for the first ever synod.
Historian Paul Johnson says of Constantine: "One of his main reasons to tolerate Christianity, may have been that it gave him and the state the opportunity to oversee the church's rules on what's jurisprudence, and measures against those who deviate from the right doctrine. "
What role did the unbaptized emperor Constantine during the Council of Nicaea? Encyclopœdia Britannica says: "Constantine himself was chairman and led an active discussion. . . For fear of the Emperor signed the bishops, with only two exceptions, creed, and many of them did much against his wish. "
After two months of fierce religious debate took this pagan politician in and hit a decision in favor of those who said that Jesus was God. But why? "Constantine had not really any understanding of the questions that were asked in Greek theology," it says in a book about the Christian doctrine of history. (A Short History of Christian Doctrine) What he understood was that division in the religious area was a threat to his kingdom, and he wanted to strengthen his kingdom.
Regarding the final document which was drawn up in Nikaia under the supervision of Constantine, says the aforementioned book about the Greek people's history (Istoria tou Ellinikou Ethnous): "This is evidence of Constantine's indifference to learning issues. . . His persistence urgency in trying to restore church unity at any cost, and finally his conviction that he 'bishop of those who stood outside the church', had the final say in every religious question. "
The Bible says: "There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all." - 1 Timothy 2: 5, 6.
Jesus was a perfect man on earth, became a ransom that exactly replaced what Adam had forfeited - the right to perfect human life on earth. The apostle Paul could therefore rightly call Jesus "the last Adam".
Paul also said in this regard: "Just as all die in Adam, all will be made alive in Christ." (1 Corinthians 15: 22, 45) Jesus' perfect human life was the "corresponding ransom" that divine justice required - neither more or less. Also when it comes to human sense of justice, it is a fundamental principle that the price to be paid shall respond to the injustice that has been committed.
But if Jesus was part of a deity, would redemption price have been infinitely higher than God's law demanded. (2. Exodus 21: 23-25; 3. Exodus 24: 19-21) Adam who sinned in Eden, was only a perfect man, not God. For the ransom really should be in harmony with God's justice, it had to be of the same value - a perfect man, "the last Adam". When God sent Jesus to earth as a ransom, he made Jesus therefore to what would satisfy justice, not an incarnation, not a gudmenneske, but a perfect man, who was "made lower than the angels." (Hebrews 2: 9;-Compare Psalm 8: 6, 7.) How could a part of an omnipotent deity - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - ever have been lower than the angels?
Jesus knew that he was not equal with the Father, Jesus came again and again with such statements as these: "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do." (John 5: 19) "I am not come down from heaven to do my own will, but the will which hath sent me. "(John 6: 38)" My teaching is not my own, it is from him that sent me. "(John 7: 16) "I know him (God), because I am from him and he sent me." (John 7: 29)
The sending is larger than the one being sent. The one who is sent, a subordinate, a servant. It is God who sends, and it is Jesus being sent. They are not the same person. As Jesus put it: "The servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger is not greater than he that sent him." - John 13: 16.
Jesus Himself said, "Father. . . is greater than I am. "(John 14: 28) We should believe Jesus, for he knew of course how his relationship with his father was. The apostle Paul knew that God is greater than Jesus, and he said, 'Son (Jesus) even (should) submit to God. "(1 Corinthians 15: 28) It is also evident from Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 11 3, "the head of Christ is God."
Jesus acknowledged that he had a God who was bigger than he was, when he said to his disciples: "I rush up to him who is my Father and your Father, my God and your God." - John 20: 17.
After Jesus died, he lay in the tomb for about three days. Who raised him? Since he was dead, he could not raise himself. And if he was not properly dead, he could not have paid the ransom for Adam's sin. The apostle Peter tells who raised Jesus: "God raised him up and released him from the pains of death." (Acts 2: 24)
To view it yourselves - instantly scripture says something other than human, so it is misdirection. As with Tomas' "my God". For it is there, why should he not have meant what it says? Why should we impose on him our logical analysis that Jesus and be God?
This text is a good example of that - for us - illogical but nevertheless Triune:
(John 14.16-18) "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter (Jesus is therefore also advocate, my comm.), Who will be with you forever, the Spirit of truth. The world can not take against him, for the world neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans, I will come to you. "
Who's coming and going to be? "I" Jesus or the Spirit? Is this a logical sentence after normal requirements?
"My Lord and my God"
There is no objection to Tomas talked about Jesus as a god. It would be consistent with the fact that Jesus in his prehuman existence certainly was a god, that is a mighty, divine person. And he hath been since his death and his resurrection to heavenly life. Jesus quoted from the Psalms to show that even powerful people were called "gods". (Psalm 82: 1-6; John 10: 34, 35)
The Apostle Paul stated that there are "many 'gods' and many 'lords'." (1 Corinthians 8: 5) Even Satan is called a "god", "god of this world". - 2 Corinthians 4: 4.
Christ has a far higher position than imperfect people and Satan. When these can be referred to as "gods" can of course Jesus is referred to as a god, and he was too. Because of its unique position in relation to God the Father, Jesus is "the only begotten God" (John 1: 18), a "Mighty God" (Isaiah 9: 6) and "one God" (John 1: 1). Thus it was not improper for Tomas to mention Jesus in this way. Tomas said that Jesus was a god for him, a divine, powerful person. But he did not say that Jesus was God the Father, and therefore he said "my" God and not just "God".
Already three verses later, in John 20: 31, the Bible says, "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." It removed all doubt as to what Tomas meant. John clearly says that Jesus is the Son of God, the Almighty God.
Personification no evidence of personality.
Jesus spoke of the holy spirit as a "helper / advocate" and said that this helper / Comforter would "learn", "witness" provide "convincing evidence", "lead", "speech", 'hear' and 'get'. It appears from the Greek text that Jesus in that regard sometimes used the personal pronoun in the masculine about this "helper" (paraklet). (Ref. John 14: 16, 17, 26; 15: 26; 16: 7-15.) But the Bible is not unusual for something that is not a person, being personified.
Wisdom is personified in the book of Proverbs (1: 20-33; 8: 1-36), and female forms of the pronoun is used here about it in the Hebrew text and also in many translations. (KJ, RS, JP, AT; see also Ord 8: 2, EN, NB.)
Wisdom is also personified in Matthew 11: 19 and Luke 7: 35, where it is described as having both "works" and "children". The apostle Paul spoke of both sin and death and grace as "kings". (Ro 5: 14, 17, 21; 6: 12) He says about sin that it "got a chance", 'caused greed', "enticed" and "killed". (Ro 7: 8-11) Nevertheless, it is clear that Paul did not mean that sin is a person.
Jesus' words about the Holy Spirit, which John referred, must also be considered in the context they are in. Jesus personalized the holy spirit when he spoke of the spirit as a "helper" (gr. Parakletos, masculine). It is therefore rightly John in his rendering of Jesus' words using personal pronouns in the masculine gender when he refers to the spirit as a "helper".
In contrast, when the Greek word pneuma is used in the same context, using John pronoun in the neuter of the Holy Spirit, as pneuma is a intetkjønnsord. The fact that John uses a personal pronoun in the masculine when he refers to parakletos is therefore an example that he follows the grammatical rules, and thus has no doctrinal significance. - John 14: 16, 17; 16: 7, 8.
Final comment:
It is not as difficult this with Trinity and reject it!
We have a spirit man. Satan and the Antichrist is that God the Father and the Son, one Spirit in Biblical admonition. How can I continue. However, proper names, we meet the Spirit in the Bible? Not once without Azazel was the animal that was to be released as the scapegoat.
3 Exodus 16. 5 And the children of Israel shall he receive two goats for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering. 6 And Aaron shall offer the sin offering bull and make atonement for himself and for his house. 7 And he shall take the two goats and present them before the LORD at the door of the tabernacle. 8 And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats, one lot for the Lord and the other lot for Azazel. / 9 And the goat on which the lot has become the Lord of Aaron shall bring the sacrifice for sin. 10 But the goat on which the lot has become the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, that it shall make an atonement with it, and then it is sent into the wilderness to Azazel. 11 And Aaron shall bring the sin offering bull and make atonement for himself and for his house, he shall kill the sin offering bull.
This is the closest in Scripture one finds a name of a spirit and it is possibly Satan's Spirit. Or we can understand it to mean that Azazel is Satan himself? But that's where Satan is with His Spirit?
No and again a no. The entire Trinity is a big Rolpa and nonsense from beginning to end. But that said, it must be obvious, that Jesus said about divorce and remarriage as well.
Matt. 19. 12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs of men: and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it!
Notice what Jesus said as a conclusion: "The one who can accept this, let him receive it."
I accept that others do not see it like that myself, and there may be various reasons for it. But for my part, I do not believe in either Jesus only doctrine or the Trinity. But the Jewish-Christian understanding of this that one finds among the early Christians before the church was infected and so much strange and unbiblical teachings.
I have a watch-Christian understanding and learning, and I am proud and happy to have. Then others think and learn what they want, but I do not go away from this learning for all in this world!
Related Links: http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2011/06/nr-1-is-god-trinity-or-not.html
http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2011/06/nr-8-why-do-you-think-that-both-trinity.html
http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2011/08/nr-21-is-holy-spirit-person-or-part-of.html
http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2011/09/nr-25-jesus-says-he-and-father-come-to.html
Nr. 794:
God forgives us unless we repent? Or is repentance necessary?
After been a believer in the now 34 years I become more and more puzzled over Christianity, not least the Free Church. How far they are from healthy and true evangelical faith and doctrine. Whether we are forgiven, or we are not. When I bring up different preachers I take only the only public figures, never, never ordinary church members. They should also be held accountable to God, and Jesus warned them as much as shepherds and teachers. Eg. if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit. But here on our blogs and our website will be excluded only public figures mentioned, at least if it is in negative terms.
Photo of Pope Frants one here surrounded by Kenneth Copeland (who is also divorced and married for three time as Hanvold) that is like a small boy to enumerate against Pastor Jan Hanvold raining when Pope has, after all, both morality and integrity. Hanvold missing actually absolutely everything, sad but true.
This is from a debate on day of Jan Hanvold and Vision Norway.
I will not revisit the names of the debaters, just what they say. And there are those who "keep" with Hanvold, and there are those who realize that he is living in sin is a false prophet.
Debater A: That Norway need a Christian TV channel is okay. But it is sad that this man is the boss of the channel.
Debater b: What January Hanvold have done in the past, well then no sense? Your sins are forgiven, go and sin no more, says the Bible. Well there is hope for everyone. January Hanvold should be commended for the job he has done!
A: He is divorced twice and married for the third time. Is there something in the Bible also that no distinction should be leaders.
B: A website claims he is divorced, but remember that he is allowed to remarry if it were KONA THAT WOULD HAVE DIVORCE and not him, then it is she who has broken the marriage and not him.
And many of the allegations Jan Kåre Christensen comes with, he has no proof that Jan Hanvold said. It's word against word.
A: The truth can be painful and swallowing. Worse, when one is unable to see it.
B: Did you read is not what I wrote? He is allowed to remarry if it were wife THAT WOULD HAVE DIVORCE and not him, then it is she who has broken the marriage and not him.
I think rather it is you who are out to judge people.
(end of quote).
Here, it is the free-for Hanvold and colleagues in Protestant thought. There is a lot to grasp. But let us collect some few things.
Is Hanvold the so-called "innocent" party? He has said several times on radio here in Oslo (I do not mostly on TV Vision Norway, hear anything on the radio if I can stand and have the opportunity).
The following have Hanvold said several times. Forgive me I have caused two true legal violations. But I also had bad sex with my first two wives, now I have super sex (this is what Hanvold have said and this is in my opinion completely beyond all reason and sense).
He said that he had been a bad husband for Berit on radio here in Oslo but were happy for her now that she had a new and good husband that he first was furious. But he had forgiven everyone and everything. Can Hanvold then claim to be the innocent party when he was thrown in also married to an "extra" lady from his first wife who is his right and now his last wife Inger? How strange and sick shall all be? I can not believe such is possible and he will be a Christian preacher who says he is an apostle, and I do not know what?
I do not believe the innocent party. I've done it for so-called "Pentecostal doctrine" I've been colored and marked by good and bad.
Here on the innocent party that we have on now website:
The theory of the innocent party based on these two scriptures. Matthew 5: 32 "But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her adultery. And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Matt.19: 9: But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another, commits adultery. And whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery. It is these two scriptures often called exception to the rule. With these scriptures at hand are many marriage was dissolved on grounds that one spouse has been unfaithful, why the other spouse is entitled to be separated and remarry. This is a rewrite of the truth and you do not have to look further than the last part of the verse to see that which excluded the possibility of being able to marry again with someone else. It can be easy to have such an approach. This solution provides the opening for it in Christian contexts is called the innocent party. Those who remain innocent in a marriage where their spouse has been unfaithful could use their newfound t freedom to remarry. This is not a proper representation of the word of God. This option will also cause them to live ride infidelity in marriage a new and thus still live ri sin. It would in any case not be possible to judge righteously for the innocent party we practice in Norwegian churches today. Who will decide who first cheated? What form of infidelity to apply and justify an innocent party? If sinful thoughts lead to a description of adultery in a marriage? Where should the line be drawn? What criteria should be applied? It would be an impossible situation to judge the tea within the concept of the innocent party. How will this be decided? God will in no way leave it up to man to judge in such impossible situations. These events would have led to an indulgence in opinions, assumptions, speculations and proprietary solutions that simply would have created chaos and did not lead to peace and reconciliation for God. 11 Stand in the engagement phase In order to get the full and complete overview of the use of these scriptures we see it in the light of the fact that he addressed to the Jewish disciples of the Jewish community.
When we first chapter of Matthew Gospel reading about Joseph who sought to divorce his wife, even though they were not married, came to this opening to divorce his future bride. Joseph had promised Maria and her family that he would marry her. This engagement phase is called the Jewish tradition of Kiddushin. During this period, which lasted at least 12 months did not survive the man and woman together sexually, but they were still seen as man and wife. For the Jewish custom of this pledge as safe and serious as the marriage commitment. But even gave Marriage Act opening that they could stand on it turned out that his wife had been unfaithful during this period. This was also the reason that this phase lasted for over a year, because if my fiance had cheated so it should be possible for the future husband to see whether she had had sexual relations with another man and pregnant. Josef would therefore stand in silence because the law said that anyone who was caught in adultery could be stoned if someone put forward accusations of it. That this could be solved in this way during the engagement phase was that those who were married had not consummated the marriage and thus was "the innocent party" free to e poison themselves again. But these days we do not say we differ from her fiancé, we make it just ended and has no theological problems with it. But in today's marriages are customary to finish off with sexual intercourse on the wedding night. Therefore sits spouses in the position that they actually live in constant adultery if they remarried. After the two betrothed had undergone the second phase, the actual marriage ceremony, wedding party, they could have sexual intercourse with each other, and of course just another. This part was often referred to as the man "took her unto his own home." If one of the parties, such as man, was reliably informed that the woman had had sex with another man during the engagement period, he could separate the email from her before phase two, the actual wedding, and then by giving her a bill of divorce.
history
The theory of the "innocent party" its right to remarry is less than 500 years old. The idea that Matthew chapter 5 and 19 passages or "clauses" that give the "innocent party" right to remarry, did not show up until this year 1519, when Erasmus, a great humanist, presented his interpretation of First Corinthians 7. Erasmus' interpretation of Scripture introduced human reason in the interpretation, rather than let the text interpret text. His interpretation of Scripture was marked by humanistic overtones, in which he emphasized the people's happiness ahead of obedience to God's word. Erasmus was neither traditionalist or reformer, but wanted the utmost to be perceived s about a godly man. He managed, however, to take payment for sin and also found simpler solutions thatched people. He served as the Gnostics rate an excessive intellectual experience. Spirit lifted according to Erasmus the moral code of laws which had been the cornerstone of Jewish thought. The last 50 years have left these heresies gained a foothold in the churches. There is one paradox that the church has increasingly focused on spiritual gifts, healings and services that take our breath away, yet increasing number of divorces in the same churches. Frenzied manifestations of the spirit is intoxication leading to more liberal Christian understanding, rather than being more true to the word. Biblical infallibility was undermined and Erasmus attacks scriptural accuracy. He tied the Christian ministry with God's holiness of life. Erasmus taught that love should precede any marriage and emphasized that it was not "loving" made by the Church to insist that unhappy people would continue to live together. He believed that the church should set them free, who lived in the so-called bad marriage. Reformers adopted Erasmus' views on divorce and remarriage, but this idea was not taught in nearly 1,500 years before Erasmus, from Christ's time and the early Christians. Although this theory is less than 500 years old, many Christians looking for a "loophole" or an excuse, that makes it okay for them to remarry. Therefore Erasmus interpretation of first Corinthians gladly accepted by Christians looking one is able to follow his carnal desire to love a new person after one's marriage has been "destroyed" or they state that you live in an unhappy marriage.
In 1532 King Henry VIII did exactly this. He wanted to divorce his wife Catherine, to marry Ann Boleyn. He did Erasmus' interpretation of 1 Kor.7 popular and eventually broke with the Catholic Church because he wanted to remarry. David was a king and trying to solve a problem in their own way, with bad luck. 2. Sa m 12: 7-15: And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man! Thus saith the LORD God of Israel: I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul. I gave you your master's house and your master's wives into thy bosom. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah, and was there fo r small, so I would have given you even more, both the one and the other. Why have you despised the word and done what is evil in his sight? Hittites hast killed Uriah with the sword. His wife, have you taken a wife for yourself, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. So, the sword shall never depart from your house, because you despised me and taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be his wife for yourself. Thus says the Lord: Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own house. I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them to another man. He shall lie with your wives, as the sun here is witness to it. For what you have done, you did in secret. But I will do this for all Israel, and in broad daylight. And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. However, because by this deed you have given the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, so shall also the son you've got surely die. Then Nathan home. And the LORD struck the child one that David had with the wife of Uriah, so it was crazy. David tried to hide a sin with another. It is often what is done by remarriage too.
David is seen as the greatest king in Israel's history. Yet he made the mistake of marrying Bathsheba, Uriah's wife. It was a curse for David. Despite this, David used his opportunity before God to pray for his son with Bathsheba so that he died. It is tragic fates of several one the two spouses in such cases. The children remains an innocent sufferer party in such situations, but sin always consequences.
Final comment:
We are not going away from whatever biblical one has. Belief in an "innocent" party or not. So live Hanvold in adultery. This can be turned around and turned on, even the most liberal can not explain away that he has had three marriages and are thus guaranteed not innocent. Something he also openly stand up confessing. I wonder then what must be done? I realize that the flesh is weak, for all of us. But how far should we indulge our flesh? Think this is so bad, manipulative and seductive looks that we did not have a luck prophet and apostle here to do, who can be a false apostle and a false prophet if not Hanvold it? Even the Pope in Rome is a new kid in town to work here compared to Hanvold and unfortunately many of the day Charismatic Pentecostals and others.
Is Hanvold forgiven? If he repents. Forgiveness and repentance are like a hub of a wheel and spokes. They are inextricably Knuttes together for the wheels go round and the bike work. Should Christian life work and everything intact so must and shall confession and repentance go hand in hand, not be separated.
Conclusion:
1 Cor. 7. 10 To the married I have this requirement, yet not I, but the Lord: A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
Hanvold have no special rights, it has none. We are all equal and have to relate to the word of God where God has no "favorites".
It's strange to those who support Hanvold, they do not hear what he says and holds up ?! Now I hear rarely Hanvold, but in the beginning when he began broadcasting for 5 to
10 years ago, I heard the part. And for a vocabulary, even when I thought that Hanvold was a false prophet and represented anything but that which is healthy, right and good. He said among other things, when he was separated from his wife no. two and walked alone before he hijacked armor that he was so overkåt that he hhttps://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7043790554374234626#editor/target=post;postID=7301873603982132950ad to sit down in a potato cellar for where it went for him etc. I would certainly never have written this without I showed with 100% certainty was true. I have asked others who are critical of Vision Norway if they have heard the same, indeed several have done so.
Where is Emanuel Minos, David Ostby, Arvid Bentsen and everyone else? It was not I who should have warned against him, and those who are in league with him. And I warn not only against him, but all the others who have not repented of their sins and confess Jesus' name. Unfortunately, it looks like today's Pentecostal karismatiskere is the worst in this respect. I do not know why? Could it be that preaching is inadequate and misleading? I do not have the full and complete answer. But I believe in preaching the whole counsel of God to salvation and keep up what one looks like in the word of God!
I do this even if the resistance is high, then the blessing is always greater than the resistance. It is amazing with God, little resistance, then one blessed. Greater resistance, greater blessing, glory be to God and to the Lamb for evermore, and forever!
Related Links: http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2011/10/nr-105-qualifications-for-leadership.html
http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2012/02/nr-240-pentecostal-charismatic-become.html
http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2012/02/nr-254-akan-sin.html
http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2014/10/nr-789-journey-into-yourself.html
http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2014/10/no-793-allowing-hanvold-torp-or-others.html
http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2014/10/792-january-hanvold-live-in-blatant.html
http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2014/02/nr-760-benny-hinn-enchanter.html
http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2013/05/nr-499-todd-bentley-remarried-with-his.html
http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2013/04/nr-490-pentecostals-and-charismatics.html
