|
Post by toparrow on Jul 27, 2016 5:50:34 GMT -5
Peter Hingeley interviewed about tent mission. The interview on Radio Norfolk Sunday 24 07 2016 from 06-00 am He sounded a real plonker.
|
|
|
Post by alistairhenderson on Jul 27, 2016 7:18:53 GMT -5
Can you provide a link? What was a worker doing on the Devil's mouthpiece?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2016 7:49:24 GMT -5
Peter Hingeley interviewed about tent mission. The interview on Radio Norfolk Sunday 24 07 2016 from 06-00 am He sounded a real plonker. And you come over like a real judgemental plonker yourself. What is the real reason for your post? It does not contribute to anything enlightening.
|
|
|
Post by toparrow on Jul 27, 2016 10:47:15 GMT -5
I am not sitting judgement of Mr Hingeley . He was the worker who said it would a better example if the friends removed radios from their cars. I can think of stronger words than plonker. How about HYPOCRITE .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2016 17:35:25 GMT -5
I am not sitting judgement of Mr Hingeley . He was the worker who said it would a better example if the friends removed radios from their cars. I can think of stronger words than plonker. How about HYPOCRITE . How about the words mistaken or misguided. Radios can be switched on and switched off, having one in car in itself is not a bad example, they can be very useful to relay traffic warnings and other useful information such as road conditions etc.
|
|
|
Post by pa on Jul 27, 2016 18:40:21 GMT -5
I am not sitting judgement of Mr Hingeley . He was the worker who said it would a better example if the friends removed radios from their cars.I can think of stronger words than plonker. How about HYPOCRITE . How about the words mistaken or misguided. Radios can be switched on and switched off, having one in car in itself is not a bad example, they can be very useful to relay traffic warnings and other useful information such as road conditions etc. That was the point of toparrow's post.
|
|
|
Post by moonmans on Jul 28, 2016 1:33:06 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2016 4:45:29 GMT -5
How about the words mistaken or misguided. Radios can be switched on and switched off, having one in car in itself is not a bad example, they can be very useful to relay traffic warnings and other useful information such as road conditions etc. That was the point of toparrow's post. That may well be so, but by referring to him as a plonker outright, does not clarify and explain the point that he is making. As I have explained it above, the readers can now decide in their own minds how short sighted in his views, that worker was/is without having to resort to name calling. I have lived in the UK for many years and I am familiar with the connotations of the word "plonker" and how it is used.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2016 17:40:29 GMT -5
Personally, I thought that Peter handled the interview pretty well. He is someone who has mellowed over the years (like most of us, hopefully!). Today I find him a very spiritual man and a helpful brother. The word "evangelist" springs to mind when I think of him. And no-one could doubt his sincerity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2016 4:07:18 GMT -5
I think Peter expressed himself well on the radio.
i was interested in his comment on no rules and regulations though.
We weren't in the 2x2s that long, but my wife was told not to wear trousers to the morning meeting, and we were both told to use an old translation of the Bible (old english). But maybe we were just unlucky where we lived.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2016 7:07:03 GMT -5
I think Peter expressed himself well on the radio. i was interested in his comment on no rules and regulations though. We weren't in the 2x2s that long, but my wife was told not to wear trousers to the morning meeting, and we were both told to use an old translation of the Bible (old english). But maybe we were just unlucky where we lived. They are plenty of unwritten rules and regulations, always have been for as far back as I can remember. This is normally made known with statements like: " we don't do it like that." Or " we don't do it like the worldly churhes." This does not always come from workers directly, it comes from elders and friends too. No point in denying it, God loves the truth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2016 11:32:10 GMT -5
I think Peter expressed himself well on the radio. i was interested in his comment on no rules and regulations though. We weren't in the 2x2s that long, but my wife was told not to wear trousers to the morning meeting, and we were both told to use an old translation of the Bible (old english). But maybe we were just unlucky where we lived. Yes, I think that Peter was, perhaps, slightly disingenuous in his comment on no rules and regulations (although the interview was otherwise capably handled). The "no trousers for women" is a typical example. There is no scriptural justification for this. One would be bonkers today to think that a woman wearing trousers is impersonating a man or wearing mens clothing. I have had several conversations which went broadly like this: Q: Why do none of your women wear trousers? A: It is our custom that women do not generally wear trousers (exceptions for certain trades/occupations etc.). Q: What is the difference between a custom and a tradition? A: A custom is something we do because we feel it is right. Q: So explain precisely why you think that your custom is right. A: Er ... Consider our new female Prime Minister who is a regular churchgoer (although not part of our fellowship at this point!). She regularly wears trousers (including in church). And very elegant she (usually) looks too. I try not to get too hung up on this and other petty rules and focus rather on the vital core message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. PS: Should any of our American board members read this, for "trousers" read "pants"!
|
|
|
Post by toparrow on Jul 29, 2016 14:34:59 GMT -5
At the 1974 Debenham convention Percy Fletcher said from platform . If you have radio or tv in your home I will not have visit with you. Since then things have changed dramatically. Mr Peter Hingely felt he could speak freely about the tent mission on radio. The question I want an answer to is do think in all honesty . Yes or No Do you believe Percy Fletcher would have agreed to a radio interview about the tent mission? If your answer is yes then standards Percy and the ones before him have deteriorated far more than I realised. This religion is in a downward vortex.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2016 16:24:43 GMT -5
At the 1974 Debenham convention Percy Fletcher said from platform . If you have radio or tv in your home I will not have visit with you. Since then things have changed dramatically. Mr Peter Hingely felt he could speak freely about the tent mission on radio. The question I want an answer to is do think in all honesty . Yes or No Do you believe Percy Fletcher would have agreed to a radio interview about the tent mission? If your answer is yes then standards Percy and the ones before him have deteriorated far more than I realised. This religion is in a downward vortex. Has it occurred to you that quite possibly someone listened to that radio programme, went along to the tent mission and found Jesus (whom to know is Life eternal). So the better question to ask is, if that happened, was it a good thing or not that someone found salvation (or at least had the opportunity to find salvation) through hearing Peter be interviewed on the radio?
|
|
|
Post by conundrum on Jul 29, 2016 20:24:47 GMT -5
Peter handles the interview well. The only problem is that he is dishonest. The workers do not presch the gospel in the Bible. They do not presch the gospel of grace, they claim they are the only evangelists who are right in the world and people can only come to Christ by professing through them. They also do not preach the deity of Christ. I am sure that Peter has good intentions but it simply is not the truth. My recommendation to any reading here is to go and listen and line up what you hear against Romans (the gospel of God), Galatians, Ephesians etc. If Peter is preaching the same gospel as the 2x2 church workers preach locally, it definitely will not line up with the Bible. a judgemental and confused post from a dude who left a decade or so ago (but can't get away from it). He claims to be non exclusive? ?? claims he know the grace of God? ??
|
|
|
Post by conundrum on Jul 29, 2016 20:47:41 GMT -5
The response but yet inadvertently confirms the accuracy of my post; your silence is deafening.
|
|
|
Post by toparrow on Jul 30, 2016 15:50:06 GMT -5
Please answer yes or no Would Percy Fletcher have agreed to give radio interview ? I await your answer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2016 16:02:31 GMT -5
Please answer yes or no Would Percy Fletcher have agreed to give radio interview ? I await your answer. How can anyone answer that question - Percy Fletcher died a number of years ago and times were very different then. Unless of course, you can find someone like the witch at Endor who can bring him back so that you can put the question to him. But what does it matter? Let's try and live in the present. There is little merit in living in the past. Today is the day that counts (not yesterday or tomorrow). Percy was a man who knew the scriptures inside out (so I am told) so if approached by a reporter, I suspect that he would have remembered the words of Peter "Be ready always to give an answer to EVERY man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you". But I don't KNOW and neither does anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Jul 30, 2016 20:13:05 GMT -5
Please answer yes or no Would Percy Fletcher have agreed to give radio interview ? I await your answer. How can anyone answer that question - Percy Fletcher died a number of years ago and times were very different then. Unless of course, you can find someone like the witch at Endor who can bring him back so that you can put the question to him. But what does it matter? Let's try and live in the present. There is little merit in living in the past. Today is the day that counts (not yesterday or tomorrow). Percy was a man who knew the scriptures inside out (so I am told) so if approached by a reporter, I suspect that he would have remembered the words of Peter "Be ready always to give an answer to EVERY man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you". But I don't KNOW and neither does anyone else. Next time you read through that account, notice how shocked the witch was. She didn't expect Samuel to actually come up. She thought she was going to have to play the scam the way she usually did.
|
|
|
Post by conundrum on Jul 31, 2016 5:00:48 GMT -5
How can anyone answer that question - Percy Fletcher died a number of years ago and times were very different then. Unless of course, you can find someone like the witch at Endor who can bring him back so that you can put the question to him. But what does it matter? Let's try and live in the present. There is little merit in living in the past. Today is the day that counts (not yesterday or tomorrow). Percy was a man who knew the scriptures inside out (so I am told) so if approached by a reporter, I suspect that he would have remembered the words of Peter "Be ready always to give an answer to EVERY man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you". But I don't KNOW and neither does anyone else. How do you know that Peter H was approached by the media? If I'm correct Peter has had a profile piece in both the newspaper and on the radio in the last couple of years. Knowing the media well and how it works, I'd respectfully suggest that Peter Hingeley approached the radio station and asked for an interview which was granted. The same with the newspaper. Nothing wrong with that - Peter is proactively using the media that he once castigated. Given that he has now used the newspaper and radio, he may now approach the local TV station for an interview. I respectively suggest you have not the slightest slither of fact or evidence for your mischievous post and wonder if Peter would proactively castigate you (nothing wrong with that) if he knew what nonsense you were posting about him? I further suggest that your response to this post (if you follow your past form) will be another 'straw man' personal attack and have nothing to do with the refutation I make of your imaginative post.
|
|
|
Post by pa on Jul 31, 2016 5:22:58 GMT -5
How can anyone answer that question - Percy Fletcher died a number of years ago and times were very different then. Unless of course, you can find someone like the witch at Endor who can bring him back so that you can put the question to him. But what does it matter? Let's try and live in the present. There is little merit in living in the past. Today is the day that counts (not yesterday or tomorrow). Percy was a man who knew the scriptures inside out (so I am told) so if approached by a reporter, I suspect that he would have remembered the words of Peter "Be ready always to give an answer to EVERY man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you". But I don't KNOW and neither does anyone else. Next time you read through that account, notice how shocked the witch was. She didn't expect Samuel to actually come up. She thought she was going to have to play the scam the way she usually did. Anytoll, why do you twist the scriptures or am I now judgemental? You preach this rubbish you add from your imagination to the scriptures in your sermons to others, I hope not!! You minimize the power of God's Word thru your imaginations and doctrine. You need to repent and I say this with all the love in my heart. 1 Sam 28:12 " Now when the woman saw Samuel, she cried with a loud voice: and the woman spake to Saul, saying, Why has thou deceived me? for thou art Saul.(KJV)" She suddenly realised that she was dealing with Saul himself and was surprised/dismayed because she knew he killed other women like her. Nowhere do we read she did not expect Samuel to come up, nowhere do we read about her scam.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2016 7:21:00 GMT -5
How can anyone answer that question - Percy Fletcher died a number of years ago and times were very different then. Unless of course, you can find someone like the witch at Endor who can bring him back so that you can put the question to him. But what does it matter? Let's try and live in the present. There is little merit in living in the past. Today is the day that counts (not yesterday or tomorrow). Percy was a man who knew the scriptures inside out (so I am told) so if approached by a reporter, I suspect that he would have remembered the words of Peter "Be ready always to give an answer to EVERY man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you". But I don't KNOW and neither does anyone else. How do you know that Peter H was approached by the media? If I'm correct Peter has had a profile piece in both the newspaper and on the radio in the last couple of years. Knowing the media well and how it works, I'd respectfully suggest that Peter Hingeley approached the radio station and asked for an interview which was granted. The same with the newspaper. Nothing wrong with that - Peter is proactively using the media that he once castigated. Given that he has now used the newspaper and radio, he may now approach the local TV station for an interview. I have known Peter for a number of years. And I do know that he did not approach the radio station.
|
|
|
Post by conundrum on Jul 31, 2016 13:20:20 GMT -5
I respectively suggest you have not the slightest slither of fact or evidence for your mischievous post and wonder if Peter would proactively castigate you (nothing wrong with that) if he knew what nonsense you were posting about him? I further suggest that your response to this post (if you follow your past form) will be another 'straw man' personal attack and have nothing to do with the refutation I make of your imaginative post. If you read my response carefully you'll find that I'm questioning the assumption that Finlandia made that the radio station approached Peter. He doesn't know that so I am simply hypothesising the opposite which is far more likely. As I said it's good to have the NZ brother worker formerly known as Review005 back on TMB. Welcome back - we all look forward to your contribution. oh well true to form....if nothing else. Finlandia thanks for your post , a contrast to the imaginative mischief of this dude.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Aug 1, 2016 17:36:29 GMT -5
Next time you read through that account, notice how shocked the witch was. She didn't expect Samuel to actually come up. She thought she was going to have to play the scam the way she usually did. Anytoll, why do you twist the scriptures or am I now judgemental? You preach this rubbish you add from your imagination to the scriptures in your sermons to others, I hope not!! You minimize the power of God's Word thru your imaginations and doctrine. You need to repent and I say this with all the love in my heart. If that's your imitation of love, you're not fooling anyone. (I must add: except maybe Dennis and Ross, who seem to actually "like" your post, but probably only because it contains hateful speech against me) Do you really believe some witch would have power over a prophet of God who had died? Samuel was resting with God and noone except God had the power to grasp at Samuel and pull him out from where he was. The Bible nowhere says that the witch had that power. Devils do not have power over the souls of those who are resting in peace with God, and you are teaching a very, very dangerous doctrine indeed. Slow down and think through the consequences of your interpretation. And how did she suddenly know the man who came to her was Saul? It seems that something happened which she was not expecting. Since "when the woman saw Samuel, she cried with a loud voice", as if in surprise, it doesn't seem like she really expected to see Samuel, does it? Next time, stop and think things through before you go hurling insults.
|
|
|
Post by pa on Aug 1, 2016 21:04:51 GMT -5
Anytoll, why do you twist the scriptures or am I now judgemental? You preach this rubbish you add from your imagination to the scriptures in your sermons to others, I hope not!! You minimize the power of God's Word thru your imaginations and doctrine. You need to repent and I say this with all the love in my heart. If that's your imitation of love, you're not fooling anyone. (I must add: except maybe Dennis and Ross, who seem to actually "like" your post, but probably only because it contains hateful speech against me) You added things that was not in the Bible, do you not accept correction done in love. No hateful speech against you Anytoll, just trying to correct you and implore you to repent with love. I pray for you Anytoll.Do you really believe some witch would have power over a prophet of God who had died? Samuel was resting with God and noone except God had the power to grasp at Samuel and pull him out from where he was. The Bible nowhere says that the witch had that power. Devils do not have power over the souls of those who are resting in peace with God, and you are teaching a very, very dangerous doctrine indeed. Slow down and think through the consequences of your interpretation. That is your twisting of my words, I just stated what was written. Don't accuse me of something I did not write. Did I write doctrine?? No I did not. Yes I do believe as you that the devil has no power over the souls of the faithful. God is all powerful and how do we not know that he may have sent a spirit in the form of Samuel to give Saul that message from God. Actually you in all your wisdom is implying that the Bible is wrong where it states "Now when the woman saw Samuel", a very wrong doctrine really and think of the consequences of your interpretation. Anytoll please repent, I pray for you.And how did she suddenly know the man who came to her was Saul? It seems that something happened which she was not expecting. Since "when the woman saw Samuel, she cried with a loud voice", as if in surprise, it doesn't seem like she really expected to see Samuel, does it? Next time, stop and think things through before you go hurling insults. I may have hurled 1 Sam 28:12 at you, however that is scripture and if you experience that as insults then so be it. "The truth sometimes hurt". I write all this to you in love Anytoll and I pray for you with humility and love.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Aug 2, 2016 9:17:53 GMT -5
If that's your imitation of love, you're not fooling anyone. (I must add: except maybe Dennis and Ross, who seem to actually "like" your post, but probably only because it contains hateful speech against me) You added things that was not in the Bible, do you not accept correction done in love. No hateful speech against you Anytoll, just trying to correct you and implore you to repent with love. I pray for you Anytoll. You are not correct and there has not been any sense of love in your posts. Rather it seems like your pride was offended and you took great offense that someone had an understanding of Scripture that differed from your own. You are the one who added to the what is in the Bible, and what you added was a very dangerous doctrine. finlandia said -- and you agreed or at least implied agreement by casting aspersions at the content of my post which was intended to offer correction to his -- that the witch of Endor herself was able to "bring him back". I pointed out that she did not have the power. Only God had that power. No, finlandia wrote it but you supported it. The wrong doctrine you were promoting was that the witch of Endor had the power to bring up Samuel, when that power belonged exclusively to God. Now you agree with me, so how is it you still disagree? Consider Matthew 7:3 and who you should be deciding is in need of repentance. No, actually I was the one to make reference to that verse specifically. Look again and notice the woman's reaction. Why would she cry out with a loud voice if she had seen exactly what she was expecting to see? She didn't have the power to bring up Samuel, so how could she have expected to see him? Only God had the power to bring him up, and that is exactly what he did in this instance, which was a very shocking occurrence to the witch. If you pray for me, I thank you. I hope it is prayer in faith and that the Holy Spirit works in you as in Romans 8:26. I will pray for you as well.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Aug 2, 2016 9:19:49 GMT -5
For the record, I'd never like a post because it contains hateful speech - which I don't believe it does anyone. Thanks, that's good. You really believe that a witch had the power to bring up a person who had died?
|
|
|
Post by pa on Aug 2, 2016 15:34:18 GMT -5
Anytoll, I never referred to Finlandia's post though with hitting the "Quote' button her post was included, This gave you the impression I supported her comment. I apologise for this, I should've edited her post out. I now understand some of your comments in a different light, however my posts was just addressing what you added to the scripture or what I understood you added. Maybe I stand to be corrected on that too, which I am happy to receive.
To get back to 1 Sam 28:12. I would like to understand where you come from.
1.) where do you read that the witch never expected to see Samuel? Where do you read about her scam?
2.) Do you believe the Bible is wrong when it states that the witch saw Samuel?
3.) Do you believe the bible is wrong in the verses after where it states that Samuel spoke to Saul?
|
|