In the holy bible, Pentacostalism Is the only true way to be saved

The Problem with interpretation My opponent dismisses my example as irrelevant, without fully understanding it's impact. Obviously modern day writing is extremely different then the much older text in the bible. The entire point is about how we as humans see things the way we want to see them, in written context. But my opponent things the "lack of understanding" is based purely on the fact that it was translated from Hebrew, which is clearly not the case. Though the Hebrew translations have tended to complicate English understanding of certain verses. Since my opponent wasn't so fond of my previous example, here is a bible related example. Exodus 14:15 Then the Lord said to Moses, "Why are you crying out to me? Tell the Israelites to move on. Many Christians have latched onto this verse as encouragement that as they face trials in their lives they need only to wait in their current situation and the LORD will deliver them. Oddly enough, other Bible translations like the New King James and the ESV translate the verse as "The LORD will fight for you, and you shall hold your peace," and, "The LORD will fight for you, and you have only to be silent," respectively. These translations indicate the verse has nothing to do with holding your ground. The Hebrew word translated here does not have an English equivalent, but means all of the things stated in those 3 translations"to be still, peaceful, and silent. (1) However if you look at the very next verse (Exodus 14:15) it says "Why are you crying out to me? Tell the Israelites to move on." People understand the previous verse to mean to just wait through the hard times and they will fix themselves, whereas God literally is telling the people to get moving in their faith, and walk through the parted Red Sea. My opponent was so kind as to summarize my argument for me perfectly here: Then he goes on to say, that every Christian interprets the passages from the Bible, in the way they see it. This is false, if this was to be true, then we wouldn"t have all of these different denominations, such as Jehovah Witness, Latter Day Saint, and Pentecostalism, because if they all interpreted the passages differently, there wouldn"t be a set denomination, we wouldn"t have any "religions". This is exactly my point. The fact that so many different Christian religions exist (funny how she classifies Pentecostalism as a Christian religion here by the way), is exactly proof of how there are multiple interpretations of the Bible. I don't understand my opponents logic here at all. She is saying there wouldn't be religions if people didn't interpret the Bible differently... That's exactly why there is different religions! My opponent herself says that many Christians "Chose to ignore passages of the Bible, even though they acknowledge the scripture". This is kind of a narrow way to look at the world and people with conflicting beliefs, is it not? How do you know they are actively choosing to close their ears to something, as opposed to them just seeing it differently then you did? My opponent goes further to talk about speaking in tongues, and quotes Acts 2:39, which again is talking about how all of the Lord's people can receive the promise (which is interpreted from the previous verse to mean "The Gift of the Holy Ghost"). Please keep in mind that the Pentecostal translation is taken from one verse where "the people" were granted the ability oh the Holy Spirit to speak in tongues, where NOWHERE in the entire bible it says this gift is required. And Peter himself even says it's not required to get into heaven, and then she vaguely makes a correlation to Jesus saying this is required, though he (Jesus) fails to mention that speaking in tongues is a requirement himself. This is exactly the problem with trying to interpret the scriptures. In here last line on this rebuttal she mentions that Pentecostalism is not a Christian religion. Now we have discussed this issue privately, but arguing that a religion that follows the teachings of Christ isn't a Christian religion, is like trying to argue that an Orange isn't really the color Orange. The religion that is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ The only defining difference between Pentecostalism and most other Christian religions seems to be the verse about speaking in tongues. In lamens terms, just because an Orange went rotten, doesn't make it any less of an orange. ;-) Basing Beliefs on Faith and Prayer So my opponent seems to agree with me that basing answers to prayer on extraordinary events in ones own life is fallacious. We can drop this line of argument, and delve into a new on brought on by my opponent. My opponent equates a real prayer to be answered when it is spoken in "tongues" to God. So assuming you commence in a "real prayer" by speaking in tongues, how then does God answer your prayers? Does he answer them by physically speaking to an individual? My opponent should elaborate on this in the next round. Because if his answer is in anyway spiritual guidance by a strong feeling, we can dis-regard her entire rebuttal. My Opponents "case" Speaking in Tongues Right off the bat, my opponent represents the Holy Spirit as "speaking in tongues". This is quite literally the worst possible way to define the Holy Spirit, and probably the most inaccurate I have ever seen. An exact Biblical by my opponent is not given to devolve the entirety of the Holy Spirit to be "speaking in tongues" though. In fact, what the Holy Spirit is, seems to vary throughout different religions. But after researching "What the Holy Spirit is" I didn't see any sources that directly define it as the ability to speak in tongues. This leads me to believe that my opponents entire understanding of the Holy Spirit is based on the verse in Acts 2:1, which again NEVER says that speaking in tongues makes up the entirety of the holy spirit, just that it was a "gift" of the Holy Spirit, which is repeated later in my opponents own argument when she quotes Jesus in John 3:5. In the verse she quotes (Corinthians 12:7) it says: Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8 To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues,[a] and to still another the interpretation of tongues. (3) This verse literally states that speaking in tongues is merely one "gift" of the holy spirit. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines.(3) Again, let's not forget 1 Corinthians 14:2-5 where Peter literally said that the Gift of speaking in tongues was less important then Prophecy. (See Round 1) False. I have already discussed Acts 2:38 and John 3:5, which says it is mandatory to speak in tongues to go to heaven. My opponent is now completely dropping my argument. Not once in her defense of my entire attack on her case, does she solely define the Holy Spirit as being "The Holy Spirit" from an actual Biblical verse. Not once does she deem to clarify why Jesus himself doesn't mention that speaking in tongues is a mandatory for access to the Kingdom of heaven. Nowhere in John 3:5 does Jesus admit that Paul's phrasing in Acts 2:1 are contingent principles of the Holy Spirit, even in Acts 2:38. In fact both Acts 2:38 and John 3:5 should be mutually exclusive from Acts 2:1 unless my opponent can tell us where specifically and what wording gives Pentecostals the idea that Jesus himself stated speaking in tongues was a requirement. Summary My opponents impacts are all over the place in this debate. For one, she essentially agrees with me that copious religions based on the same book = a mis-understanding from one of these parties. However we have been given no absolute reason to believe that Pentecostals are the ones that have it right. By my opponent admitting that these religions mis-interpret the Bible, she is essentially affirming my point about how easy it is to mis-interpreting written text. With all this in mind, my opponent leaves you little to nothing to believe that Pentecostalism is the one and only true way to be saved from the Bible. She doesn't explain how other Christian religions are excluded from the Kingdom of God because of their failure to come to the conclusion that speaking in tongues is anything more than a singular gift from the Holy Spirit. So what reasons has my opponent given you to think that Pentecostalism is the only true way to be saved? Even if you buy her rather ludicrous arguments that the Bible is propagating the gift of tongues, other Christian religions also acknowledge the gift of tongues as being a gift of the Holy Spirit. If one of them has the Gift, but doesn't believe that the Bible is telling us that it is the mandatory way to get into heaven, would they still be "saved"? I thank my opponent for this insightful look into the mind of a Christian, and I wish her luck in her final round in this debate. Sources 1. http://truthbygrace.org... 2. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 3. https://www.biblegateway.com...