BIBLOS | Nicodemus Came to Jesus 

What a statement! “The Morning Star of the reformation“ Thank you for that. It touched my heart. A word fitly spoken…

Praying for Divine healing for her in the Mighty Name of Jesus Christ our Lord

@@andrewmitchell3969 Thank You

Prayers

@@theunsettled5683 Thank You

Prayer for her healing In Jesus Christ Name! 🙏

We are the ONLY (1) church in town that in Oneness apostolic pentecostal church for hundreds of miles!! Pray the Lord sends labour's here. Anointed pastor, teachers of this truth!

I lived in Durham, NC back when I was a kid in the late 60's. I wish I would have known about this church then. :)

I live in Pineville LA. God bless you.

@@keithparker5625 we should do lunch sometime. Where do you go to church?

@@truthwaychurchatlasalle I live in Pineville currently. I attend POA.

It’s entirely possible.

I haven’t heard it suggested that these were only men previously. I have heard that it was only the 12 apostles. A position that cessationists like to use to mean that tongues were only for the apostles and ended after they died. You are saying that it was only men because it was specifically “men” mentioned in verses 8, 13 and 14? Well…I can see why that might be the case if we were only using KJV but have you considered that when addressing “men” specifically to denote gender Greek speakers used a derivative of Anthropos, the word for men specifically? In these verses you point out, the writer doesn’t use that term. He uses Aner and even Hekastos which was gender neutral and almost always (in the case of hekastos) refers to a multitude of people. Additionally, scripture is written in patriarchal form. The word “men” is used in a male dominant society but it doesn’t that only males were present but that a multitude was present and the males were prominent. Mark 6:44 states that 5000 “men” (aner) were fed but then Matthew 14:21 further notes that included women and children in addition to that number. The ancient world recognized the men as the heads corporately of a household. It didn’t mean that there weren’t women and children present. In Acts 2:8 only KJV uses the term “men”. All other translations use the term “each of us”. Verse 13 does they same. I.e. King James Bible Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine. New King James Version Others mocking said, “They are full of new wine.” New American Standard Bible But others were jeering and saying, “They are full of sweet wine!” NASB 1995 But others were mocking and saying, “They are full of sweet wine.” Verse 14 Peter uses the term "Andres" but that was common in addressing households as I said previously. I’ve never heard that it was only males present from the perspective you are presenting. Am I understanding you correctly?

@pastorurshan That is correct a study that should be considered. I have noted that verses 8 and 13 that, man and men are phrases being collective, "our & are." By the way, I get my translation from Thayer's Greek Lexicon. But verse 14 as stated, Peter stood with the eleven, and not with the 119. It goes on to say that Peter addresses; "...ye men (masculine noun, a reference to sex, a man) and ALL that dwell at Jerusalem..." From which I would consider that men were addressing men. Which brings us to another fact that this was The Feast of Pentecost were in which only men celebrated this Feast ( every 7th year, all were able to), from which was the depiction of The Law given at Mt. Sinai and Moses took 70 elders (Men) up with him, feasted, and then went on up to meet the LORD and received the Covenant. The Day of Pentecost all replayed, the fire coming down, the thunder, the confusion of the people, 3000 dying/being saved. Something to consider is all, I am not a theologian by any means 😊

I’m happy to provide it for you. I’ve actually done several sessions on exactly what you’re asking for. One is the water water/spirit paradigm. There are others. I’ll be tied up most of the day, but I’m glad to provide the scriptural evidence that you need when I’m able to sit down. I’m happy to help you and I commend you for searching this out.

You know, after giving it some thought, I think I’ll do an entire session on this. Enough people ask for it that I think it would help.

John 3:5 born again of water is referencing baptism. All early church fathers agree on this, but also scripture does as well. Here are a few scriptures you can use as references before Bro Urshan makes a detailed response video (which will do more justice than my comment lol) John 3:5 Mark 16:16 Luke 24:47 Matthew 28:18-20 Acts 2:38-41 Acts 8:9-17 Acts 10:44-48 Acts 19:1-6 Acts 22:16 1 Peter 3:20-21 Romans 6:4 Colossians 2:12 Galatians 3:27 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (the word washed here is only used one other time in the New Testament and that is in acts 22:16 when Paul is recounting his conversion experience as he was baptized and the name of Jesus was invoked upon him “calling on the NAME of the Lord”)

Early church fathers before the second/third century When we see that many other doctrines started to break into the early church. Also the Catholic Church (where many other church denominations have come out of) openly admits in their catholic encyclopedia that they changed the method of baptism that the early church followed (in the name of Jesus Christ) to in the name of the father son and Holy Spirit (which there is no biblical account of using titles) This information can be easily found on google as well!

Very well said.