Is New Age movement displacing Chritianity or...?

you interpreting my questions as rude says more about you than me. ive spoken with people who showed similar lack of understanding as yours BECAUSE of a language barrier or a traditional exegetical methodology. stop being selfish for 5 seconds and think about WHY questions are asked, this isnt about you or your ego.

You were being rude. I've not going to lie for you - just so that you don't feel bad. I'm not being selfish either. You accused me of not having the Spirit and of stretching words out of context. I said, many commentaries agree with me. and I think such judgmental attitudes needs to be addressed. There is no church on earth that is exclusively right. And yet the invisible church, has an umbrella for many congregations of different denonominations. I might not agree with many of the doctrines of many of these churches, yet so far as we do agree with the primary doctrines then the secondary doctrines - although important, aren't salvific.

such primary doctrines are in relation to God, the Trinity, Jesus as God. Jesus' physical death and bodily resurrection. The Spirit of God descending at Pentecost. The second coming. And in relation to salvation, Christ's atonement for his people on the cross.

Most other doctrines, like baptism, communion, the gifts of the Spirit, church government, sanctification, eschatology, the bible, are secondary doctrines on which people all around the world have different views. Is there one right understanding? Probably, yet differing on these things do not stop one from being a Christian. Recall Peter and James and Paul at the first council of Jerusalem. Each came with different views. They were all still Christians at that point. They discovered or held the council to sort out their doctrines. They even had a serious argument. Peter was wrong. Paul was right. Peter's views were challenged and he changed his view. All remained Christians.

So called believers outside of umbrella are not historically in line with the biblical understanding of Christian. Either because they reject the Trinity or because they incorporate the Trinity into their already polytheistic worldview. Or they reject the deity of Jesus. Or that he rose bodily and physically from the grave. Others reject the idea that Jesus is returning. Having a distorted view on baptism as do the baptists however doesn't make them heretics. Or taking a wrong direction in relation to church government does not make one a heretic. These things of course, cause problems or create them, but it doesn't push them out. suggesting that all people must speak in tongues - as a sign or evidence of the Spirit is not historical Christian thinking. It is a relatively new thought and changes what Jesus said - which is that you will know my people because of their love for one another. Respectfully, you don't seem to show that much love for the brethren or for your enemies. Perhaps I have only seen what you write to me. But even with your - in my view - of your outlying extreme views on the Spirit, this would not exclude you from being a Christian. Yet you did not answer me about whether you see the Spirit as a person or an it. I am not sure from your writing whether you hold to the Trinity or not. I am wondering whether you are part of a group known as the Oneness. Still, that is a matter for you.

the commentaries allow it in exegeting the context to ALL OF SCRIPTURE. not that 1 verse. i do wish you to show me the commentaries that show the idea of "sons of God taking responsibility" WITHOUT CROSS REFERENCING TO ANOTHER VERSE(S) it doesnt exist, unless its non scholarly.

Commentaries often cross reference. Do you have a problem with that? And given your understanding that the evidence of the Spirit is speaking in tongues, I honestly don't think you are much of a scholar. I am not trying to be offensive, but most Pentecostals I know and most charismatics I know who speak in tongues would never be as hardline as you. In fact, the ones which had a similar view were considered even by the Pentecostals as "outside of ordinary pentecostalism".

The Romans passage I referred to above is used in the way I did. It's not the only way, but it fits - and not with a shoehorn, but naturally. Let me guess. You are also one of those people who think the end of the world is imminent. As in the rapture is going to happen any minute. Eschatologlically, I hold to the biblical position of Postmillenialism. Sometimes I call it optimistic Amil. I grew up in a dispensational premill congregation. Thankfully, God guided me away from that position as he systematically helped me to become more consistent in understanding the bible.