[Learner99]

Originally Posted by MitzaLizalor

ACTS 1
17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

It is not. Perhaps you are thinking of this passage?

ACTS 2
2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

It's not used there either:

verse 2


verse 4
.

(..and it's not the same word).

The words used here for

a) [mighty rushing] wind
b) [Holy] Ghost
c) [the] Spirit

do all have the same root, from which we get our word pneumatic.

yeah ! but Sheikh deedat of the muslim also alleged that this verse have sexual tones. Replying to this, Sam Shoun said, "In Luke's Gospel one often reads of their Holy Spirit coming upon people and in every case the expression implies an anointing of his holy influence. Simeon was a man "righteous and devout" and the "Holy Spirit was upon him" (Luke 2:25) and when Jesus was baptised and was praying, the "Holy Spirit descended upon him" (Luke 3:22). Likewise we read that when the glory of God appeared above Jesus when he was transfigured, "a cloud came and overshadowed them" (Luke 9:34). How can anyone say, when similar expressions are used of the conception of Jesus (i.e. that the Holy Spirit "came upon" Mary and that the power of God "overshadowed" her), that this is "distasteful - gutter language"?"

Note: As you know muslim don't believe God have son, so this something blaspheming for them.

So sister , what's your reply to sam shoun who still holds that there is no sexual union?

[Deaner]

Originally Posted by Learner99

Likewise we read that when the glory of God appeared above Jesus when he was transfigured, "a cloud came and overshadowed them" (Luke 9:34). How can anyone say, when similar expressions are used of the conception of Jesus (i.e. that the Holy Spirit "came upon" Mary and that the power of God "overshadowed" her), that this is "distasteful - gutter language"?"

I'll tell you why; you sound like you're describing two queers having sex in a bathroom stall and trying to justify it Biblically. Go put your panties on and pray to your father satan.

[O'Lemon]

Pics, or it didn't happen.

[Cranky Old Man]

Originally Posted by O'Lemon

Pics, or it didn't happen.

If God wanted us to have pictures, there would have been pictures in the Bible...

[Evil DrPorkchop]

So does that mean that God has a *foul language deleted*?

[MitzaLizalor]

Originally Posted by Learner99

— deleted —

I don't suppose anyone wants to read that again, but I would mention that in the case of Mary a child resulted.

[monkelinx]

I am glad to hear about this. This to me means that a woman is a vessel for offspring. Even in the eyes of our Lord, he used his creations as they were intended. And yet unbelievers ramble about complexity. Praise God for his infallible logic.

The other thing is that this is indeed a next step in our crusade against Mary-worshipping phonies. There is nothing special or holy about Mary.

[Levi Jones]

Originally Posted by monkelinx

I am glad to hear about this. This to me means that a woman is a vessel for offspring. Even in the eyes of our Lord, he used his creations as they were intended. And yet unbelievers ramble about complexity. Praise God for his infallible logic.

The other thing is that this is indeed a next step in our crusade against Mary-worshipping phonies. There is nothing special or holy about Mary.

Amen, friend. So true.