PDA

View Full Version : Speaking in Tongues a Stupid Practice and Probably "Annoys God."



Traditio
July 16th, 2015, 02:59 PM
The purpose of speech is to communicate, i.e., to convey my thoughts to you in a way that you can understand.

The Protestant practice of "speaking in tongues," i.e., asking God to endow them with the use of a languge that neither they nor anybody else understands, is completely contrary to the intrinsic expressiveness/communicativeness of language. In other words, the practice presupposes that God will endow you with linguistic skills stripped of their natural expressiveness, will give you a language that frustrates its own natural ends.

As sodomy is to the sexual act and lying is to assertion, so too is speaking in tongues to language.

The protestant who asks God to give them such speech asks God to pervert his own creation, and that's Satanic.

HisServant
July 16th, 2015, 03:02 PM
The purpose of speech is to communicate, i.e., to convey my thoughts to you in a way that you can understand.

The Protestant practice of "speaking in tongues," i.e., asking God to endow them with the use of a languge that neither they nor anybody else understands, is completely contrary to the intrinsic expressiveness/communicativeness of language. In other words, the practice presupposes that God will endow you with linguistic skills stripped of their natural expressiveness, will give you a language that frustrates its own natural ends.

As sodomy is to the sexual act and lying is to assertion, so too is speaking in tongues to language.

The protestant who asks God to give them such speech asks God to pervert his own creation, and that's Satanic.

Well... its a Pentecostal practice which is an extreme minority of Protestants (thank goodness).

And I agree, if someone is speaking in tongues and there is no one there that understands it... it is not from God and is probably demon possession.

There was a distinct reason for speaking in tongues... that reason does not exist anymore.

glorydaz
July 16th, 2015, 03:06 PM
The purpose of speech is to communicate, i.e., to convey my thoughts to you in a way that you can understand.

The Protestant practice of "speaking in tongues," i.e., asking God to endow them with the use of a languge that neither they nor anybody else understands, is completely contrary to the intrinsic expressiveness/communicativeness of language. In other words, the practice presupposes that God will endow you with linguistic skills stripped of their natural expressiveness, will give you a language that frustrates its own natural ends.

As sodomy is to the sexual act and lying is to assertion, so too is speaking in tongues to language.

The protestant who asks God to give them such speech asks God to pervert his own creation, and that's Satanic.

Hmm....how many years was the mass conducted in Latin? :think:

aikido7
July 16th, 2015, 03:12 PM
"Glossolalia" or speaking in tongues is an involuntary response to a feeling of the sacred divinity that runs the world.

Some people's ego and everyday existence collapses and is replaced by an honest feeling that prompts the event.

Because it comes from honest Christian believers, I think we should take it seriously.

It is one of the many ways the power of the divine is made manifest in human beings.

Psalmist
July 16th, 2015, 03:13 PM
Hmm....how many years was the mass conducted in Latin? :think:
And maybe the priest was reading a Latin wine menu.

quip
July 16th, 2015, 03:18 PM
nother-ay em-jay om-fray ad-Tray. :thumb:

glorydaz
July 16th, 2015, 03:22 PM
And maybe the priest was reading a Latin wine menu.

Could be.....it was certainly Greek to me. :chuckle:

oatmeal
July 16th, 2015, 03:30 PM
The purpose of speech is to communicate, i.e., to convey my thoughts to you in a way that you can understand.

The Protestant practice of "speaking in tongues," i.e., asking God to endow them with the use of a languge that neither they nor anybody else understands, is completely contrary to the intrinsic expressiveness/communicativeness of language. In other words, the practice presupposes that God will endow you with linguistic skills stripped of their natural expressiveness, will give you a language that frustrates its own natural ends.

As sodomy is to the sexual act and lying is to assertion, so too is speaking in tongues to language.

The protestant who asks God to give them such speech asks God to pervert his own creation, and that's Satanic.

Acts 2:4 it was good enough for the apostles it is good enough for me

I Corinthians 14:18 it was good enough for the apostle Paul, it is good enough for me.

Many people who speak in tongues abuse it and make themselves into idiots.

However, that is not God's plan.

Anyone who respects scripture would never do the contemptuous things that some do while speaking in tongues.

Speaking in tongues is God designed and available to all believers.

You do not read in scripture anyone who respects God and the word of God and the things of God acting foolishly while speaking in tongues.

Speaking in tongues is an incredible powerful manifestation.

"If you knew how powerful speaking in tongues is, you would do it all the time." VP Wierwille

Traditio
July 16th, 2015, 03:33 PM
Well... its a Pentecostal practice which is an extreme minority of Protestants (thank goodness).

And I agree, if someone is speaking in tongues and there is no one there that understands it... it is not from God and is probably demon possession.

There was a distinct reason for speaking in tongues... that reason does not exist anymore.

The only case in the New Testament which immediately springs to mind in which people actually speak in tongues is around Pentecost. After the Apostles are "filled with the Holy Ghost" in the upper room and emboldened to preach the gospel, they confronted a language barrier. There's people from all over the place who speak all kinds of different languages, and they (the Apostles) are more or less uneducated people who don't speak those languages. There's a language barrier. God miraculously allows them to breach the language barrier: the apostles speak, and all of the hearers understand what they've said in their own language.

Speaking and interpreting tongues makes sense, e.g., for St. Padre Pio. Someone is on the other side of the confessional, and St. Padre Pio doesn't know the language. Well, he needs to speak that language in order to understand and speak to the penitent. So God grants it in this particular case. That makes sense.

But the pentecostal practice is just ridiculous. "Give me, O God, the power to speak Greek, which neither I nor anyone else will understand."

Traditio
July 16th, 2015, 03:36 PM
Hmm....how many years was the mass conducted in Latin? :think:

The reason for that is so that anyone, no matter what their native tongue may be, could understand what's happening at any given point in the mass. I could be an English speaker visiting France, not speak French, but still be able to follow along at mass.

glassjester
July 16th, 2015, 03:38 PM
1 Corinthians 14:5 - 7

Traditio
July 16th, 2015, 03:39 PM
1 Corinthians 14:5 - 7

A single verse taken out of context in which St. Paul offers pretty much no explanation.

Traditio
July 16th, 2015, 03:43 PM
Acts 2:4 it was good enough for the apostles it is good enough for me

Out of context. Read the whole passage.

Squeaky
July 16th, 2015, 03:45 PM
1 Cor 14:18-32
18 I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all;
19 yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.
20 Brethren, do not be children in understanding; however, in malice be babes, but in understanding be mature.
21 In the law it is written: "With men of other tongues and other lips I will speak to this people; and yet, for all that, they will not hear Me," says the Lord.
22 Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe.
23 Therefore if the whole church comes together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those who are uninformed or unbelievers, will they not say that you are out of your mind?
24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an uninformed person comes in, he is convinced by all, he is convicted by all.
25 And thus the secrets of his heart are revealed; and so, falling down on his face, he will worship God and report that God is truly among you.
26 How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.
27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret.
28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God.
29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge.
30 But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent.
31 For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged.
32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
(NKJ)

Traditio
July 16th, 2015, 03:47 PM
Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers

And to understand why this is true, we have to refer back to the story in Acts. Which basically indicates exactly the opposite of what Pentecostals do.

Bright Raven
July 16th, 2015, 04:21 PM
Tongues is a gift of the spirit and Paul tells us that;

1 Corinthians 13:8King James Version (KJV)

8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

In other-wards that tongues are still in effect, but that they will cease some. But he stresses that there is a more excellent way, love. Please humor us Pentecostals who still believe in speaking in tongues as the spirit see fit.

Psalmist
July 16th, 2015, 06:07 PM
The purpose of speech is to communicate, i.e., to convey my thoughts to you in a way that you can understand.

The Protestant practice of "speaking in tongues," i.e., asking God to endow them with the use of a languge that neither they nor anybody else understands, is completely contrary to the intrinsic expressiveness/communicativeness of language. In other words, the practice presupposes that God will endow you with linguistic skills stripped of their natural expressiveness, will give you a language that frustrates its own natural ends.

As sodomy is to the sexual act and lying is to assertion, so too is speaking in tongues to language.

The protestant who asks God to give them such speech asks God to pervert his own creation, and that's Satanic.

I understand what you are communicating.

The (Protestant) Pentecostal practice of speaking in tongues is not asked for; it is indwelling of the Holy Spirit that happens when a person is saved, some say it is second definite work, some also call it sanctification.

Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

As sodomy is to the sexual act and lying is to assertion, so too is speaking in tongues to language. Putting sodomy and speaking in tongues is a terribly bad comparison and equation.(shameful)

"The protestant who asks God to give them such speech asks God to pervert his own creation, and that's Satanic."
> It is a gift, and you do not have to ask for a gift.
> To ask for speech to pervert God's creation is foolish, and probably doesn't happen.
> To say Protestant and Pentecostals are satanic as it seems implied, would be foolish as well.




If you have it in for the Pentecostals, their churches and denominations, you need to let it go and move on, unless you are a modern day crusader against the Pentecostals I would think you take up a valiant cause in your own church or denomination that needs to be dealt with.

User Name
July 16th, 2015, 07:44 PM
A tendril of the growth nurtured in early Greek religion wound its way into Roman acceptance and flowered into the belief that gods had a language all their own. Deities did not communicate in the mundane speech of mortals, however. In his hymn to the gods, Hesiod, who lived in the eighth century b.c., described the multiheaded monster, Typhoeus, who besides bellowing, roaring, barking, and hissing, could also speak in a " 'normal' voice, ... [making] the same kind of noise as a human larynx does ... though the language he speaks is of course that of the gods."

By the time Plato developed his philosophy, it seems that the concept was unchanged. He, too, believed that the gods spoke a language that humans could not possibly comprehend. But a way had been provided for humans to understand their speech. Men from any linguistic background could speak the language of deities only if their minds were unhinged by the gods. Indeed, incoherent speech was viewed as a gift from the gods. Socrates explains in Phaedrus, "The greatest blessings come by way of madness, indeed of madness that is heaven-sent." Plato reiterates this concept in the Timaeus. In sound and reason, if the speaker was understood by his audience, it was proof he did not possess this gift of the gods.

Some Christians want to deny Paul's use of glossolalia in his doctrine, but it is there. (Jesus certainly never took up the subject.) In First Corinthians Paul teaches: "When a man is using the language of ecstasy he is talking with God, not with men, for no man understands him; he is no doubt inspired, but he speaks mysteries." Further on in this chapter, Paul declares: "Thank God, I am more gifted in ecstatic utterance than any of you." Being the clever man he was, however, Paul understood the ramifications of what he was teaching and attempted to control this branch of his gospel by pruning some of its wild growth. Therefore, he warned his followers, it is better to "speak five intelligible words ... than thousands of words in the language of ecstasy."

Even so, the precept remains a part of Paul's creed, and he goes on to follow Plato's pattern by insisting that interpreters be present when ecstatic utterances are part of a meeting. Here are Paul's instructions: "To sum up, my friends: when you meet to worship, each of you contributes a hymn, some instruction, a revelation, an ecstatic utterance, or the interpretation of such utterance." After unintelligible sounds were produced by a human voice, another person was called on to explain them to an audience of believers who had faith that God was using these noises to communicate with them.

Apparently, this idea, too, comes from the Timaeus, where Plato gives these directions: "But, while [the enthralled one] continues demented, he cannot judge of the visions which he sees or the words which he utters; ... And for this reason it is customary to appoint interpreters to be judges of the true inspiration." Surely Paul's rules in First Corinthians are too similar to Plato's directions in the Timaeus to be accidental. Yet whether a stand is being taken for or against glossolalia in Christianity, Paul's advice on the subject is used to support the argument.

A good example of what can happen in worship when the element of ecstasy takes over is described in I Samuel 19:18-24. During the time when Saul was hunting David to kill him, he commanded his soldiers to find and apprehend the former shepherd. While searching for David, however, the men came upon Samuel's school of prophets in Naioth and found his students enjoying a rapturous state. The king's men also "fell into prophetic rapture" and left off their search to join the prophets in their activities. When Saul's men failed to return with David, he sent two other bands to search for him, but they, too, fell into the spiritual abandonment led by Samuel.

Despairing at the failure of his men, Saul himself set off in pursuit of his former harp player. Upon arriving at Naioth, however, Saul also became possessed. He took off his clothes, and, naked and prone on the ground, "fell into a rapture before Samuel and lay" in that state for the rest of the day and all that night. The rapt Saul was no more successful than his men had been. Samuel Sandmel calls this group of Samuel's "loathsome whirling dervishes."

What Samuel incited his prophets to do was in direct disobedience to Yahweh, according to passages in Exodus. Encouraging His priests to spare Him the sight of their private parts, God instructed them in Exodus 28 to wear linen drawers. Surely this rule of covering oneself before God extends to prophets, since shedding one's sense of speech apparently leads to casting off other considerate social items as well.

Quoted from: Saint Paul's Homage to Plato (http://web.archive.org/web/20120402034721/http://www.worldandi.com/newhome/public/2004/April/mtpub2.asp), by F.F. Powell

StanJ
July 16th, 2015, 08:07 PM
The purpose of speech is to communicate, i.e., to convey my thoughts to you in a way that you can understand.

The Protestant practice of "speaking in tongues," i.e., asking God to endow them with the use of a languge that neither they nor anybody else understands, is completely contrary to the intrinsic expressiveness/communicativeness of language. In other words, the practice presupposes that God will endow you with linguistic skills stripped of their natural expressiveness, will give you a language that frustrates its own natural ends.

As sodomy is to the sexual act and lying is to assertion, so too is speaking in tongues to language.

The protestant who asks God to give them such speech asks God to pervert his own creation, and that's Satanic.


Of course your opinion is a very typical, uninformed RC opinion.
Here's a command for you
1 Cor 14:39 (NIV)

StanJ
July 16th, 2015, 08:10 PM
The (Protestant) Pentecostal practice of speaking in tongues is not asked for; it is indwelling of the Holy Spirit that happens when a person is saved, some say it is second definite work, some also call it sanctification.


Actually it is a separate experience, apart from salvation.
Acts 10 and Acts 19 record this.

musterion
July 16th, 2015, 08:24 PM
Speaking in Tongues a Stupid Practice and Probably "Annoys God."What response do you get when you say that to charismatic Catholics? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charismatic_Renewal)

glorydaz
July 16th, 2015, 08:33 PM
Tongues is a gift of the spirit and Paul tells us that;

1 Corinthians 13:8King James Version (KJV)

8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

In other-wards that tongues are still in effect, but that they will cease some. But he stresses that there is a more excellent way, love. Please humor us Pentecostals who still believe in speaking in tongues as the spirit see fit.

Only you could ask so sweetly. :thumb:

Psalmist
July 17th, 2015, 10:49 AM
Tongues is a gift of the spirit and Paul tells us that;

1 Corinthians 13:8King James Version (KJV)

8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

In other-wards that tongues are still in effect, but that they will cease some. But he stresses that there is a more excellent way, love. Please humor us Pentecostals who still believe in speaking in tongues as the spirit see fit.
Yes, please do.

musterion
July 17th, 2015, 11:28 AM
Wonder how long until we get answers...

aikido7
July 17th, 2015, 11:34 AM
Wonder how long until we get answers...

Anything humans do or have that connects them and expresses with their own spirituality towards God does not annoy God.

musterion
July 17th, 2015, 11:47 AM
Well aarons sons offered strange fire and they were consumed right there in front of everyone for doing it their own way. The lesson? Do it gods way or you have another thing coming.

The purpose of tongues was to rapidly spread the gospel. I do not know if we have the same issue as we had in the past so the need for tongues is very little.

I agree with the view that tongues were primarily a sign of warning of impending judgment against unrepentant Israel, right out of the O.T.

aikido7
July 17th, 2015, 11:56 AM
Well aarons sons offered strange fire and they were consumed right there in front of everyone for doing it their own way. The lesson? Do it gods way or you have another thing coming.

The purpose of tongues was to rapidly spread the gospel. I do not know if we have the same issue as we had in the past so the need for tongues is very little.
The priestly sacrificial cult of the Aaronites was only one tradition found in the Bible. The more ancient tradition (that Jesus and John the Baptizer followed was that of a God of mercy who demanded repentance and not a blood sacrifice) is also in the text. Jesus quotes God as Hosea believed when he (Jesus) talked of a God who "demanded mercy not sacrifice."

And since (in my view) the Bible is a human product that has many different and diverse inspired interpretations of the divine and the sacred, it is going to be a fool's errand to find out what "God really wants" for the answers are different enough to provoke strong differences of opinion among all who come to these forums.

If you peel back the meaning of the spiritual event among the early Christians during Pentecost as recorded in Acts we clearly have a divine sign that the various groups of the early Jesus movements found a way to understand their brothers and sisters and were then able to think of themselves as a united front.

Traditio
July 17th, 2015, 12:16 PM
The (Protestant) Pentecostal practice of speaking in tongues is not asked for; it is indwelling of the Holy Spirit that happens when a person is saved, some say it is second definite work, some also call it sanctification.

1. I was speaking to a pentecostal just a couple of days ago, and he told me that his pastor told him, and I quote, "of all of the spirits of the holy ghost to ask for, this one is probably the most selfish."

I subsequently was informed by a Catholic associate of mine with strong so called "charismatic" tendencies that it is necessary to "practice" speaking in tongues.

Were they mistaken?

2. Say it's the "indwelling of the Holy Spirit" if you want, but what grounds could you possibly have to believe that? I looked up the wikipedia page on the pentecostal practice of glossolalia, and the linguistic consensus seems to be: pentecostals are babbling unintelligible nonsense (no offense intended in my saying this).

So, I know on three grounds that the Holy Ghost would never do such a thing:

A. Glossalalia fails at being language (linguistically proven, if I am surmising correctly)...whereas, if the Holy Ghost wished for someone to speak in a language he doesn't know, I'm pretty sure that linguistic act would be a successful one. If the Holy Ghost wishes to produce a linguistic act, then He will produce a linguistic act. Since there is no linguistic act in glossalalia, we can safely reason that the Holy Ghost is not acting to produce one.

B. Even if it succeeded at being language, it fails at communicating either to the person who is committing or receiving the linguistic act, which is, of course, contrary to the nature and purpose of linguistic acts.

C. Even if one or two persons who ordinarily wouldn't understand the linguistic act are empowered to understand the linguistic act, this is superfluous, whereas God does not act in superfluities.


Acts 2:4 [I][COLOR="Black"]And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Read the whole passage. What it's describing isn't glossalalia. What it's describing there is xenoglossia (i.e., speaking an actual foreign language that the speaker doesn't actually know). In the subsequent passages to which I'm sure you'll make reference, we must assume that the Biblical authors are referring to xenoglossia, not glossalalia (i.e., the pentecostal practice).


Putting sodomy and speaking in tongues is a terribly bad comparison and equation.

Here, you must understand that I mean no offense. My point is as follows:

Sodomy contravenes the nature and natural purpose of the sexual act. It's a commission of an inherently fecund act which renders that very act sterile.

A lie is the commission of an assertion (i.e., the expressing that one believes that x is true), and so to express one's mind, in order to do the opposite.

Likewise, what we are here describing is the commission of a linguistic act with the expressed purpose of not communicating. I won't go so far as to say that it's a sin. However, it most certainly doesn't come from God.

Jamie Gigliotti
July 17th, 2015, 12:17 PM
The purpose of speech is to communicate, i.e., to convey my thoughts to you in a way that you can understand.

The Protestant practice of "speaking in tongues," i.e., asking God to endow them with the use of a languge that neither they nor anybody else understands, is completely contrary to the intrinsic expressiveness/communicativeness of language. In other words, the practice presupposes that God will endow you with linguistic skills stripped of their natural expressiveness, will give you a language that frustrates its own natural ends.

As sodomy is to the sexual act and lying is to assertion, so too is speaking in tongues to language.

The protestant who asks God to give them such speech asks God to pervert his own creation, and that's Satanic.

I don't speak in tongues and I am not Catholic. It is accepted and practiced by charismatic Catholics at Franciscan University in Steubenville Ohio. To the best of my knowledge the Vatican endorsed them doing so.

Traditio
July 17th, 2015, 12:19 PM
What response do you get when you say that to charismatic Catholics? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charismatic_Renewal)

1. The charismatic movement in Catholicism is a fairly recent thing. I don't know very much about it, and given its historical "newness," so to speak, I'm distrustful of it. :idunno:

2. As in many cases, it's possible that the charismatic Catholic and the Protestant simply may mean different things by "speaking in tongues." The practices may be different. I'm not as familiar with the charismatic Catholic practice.

Traditio
July 17th, 2015, 12:21 PM
I don't speak in tongues and I am not Catholic. It is accepted and practiced by charismatic Catholics at Franciscan University in Steubenville Ohio. To the best of my knowledge the Vatican endorsed them doing so.

Again, there's a question of what is meant by "speaking in tongues." The biblical sense of that term is "speaking in [foreign] languages." That's presumably what is meant by Catholic authors who talk about it.

That's not what pentecostals mean.

I'm not entirely sure what charismatic Catholics mean by it.

meshak
July 17th, 2015, 12:23 PM
I'm not entirely sure what charismatic Catholics mean by it.

Why don't you try to find out?

Danoh
July 17th, 2015, 12:31 PM
Anything humans do or have that connects them and expresses with their own spirituality towards God does not annoy God.


There is a principle, or general rule of thumb you might consider, and that the following addresses.

Proverbs 3:

1. My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments:
2. For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee.
3. Let not mercy and truth forsake thee: bind them about thy neck; write them upon the table of thine heart:
4. So shalt thou find favour and good understanding in the sight of God and man.
5. Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
7. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.

So long as we go by the school of "what makes sense to me" we will only come up with and or agree with "what makes sense to me" and it will - "because it makes sense to me" - "from where I look at things."

And therein lies the beginning of a problem.

For that is all that will be - one's own wisdom in one's own ignorance - the ignorance that because a thing "makes sense to me," it is therefore "right."

Romans 12:

1. Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
2. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

Apparently, while it is all fine and wonderful for people to want to humor one another, on the other hand, just as apparently, it appears that throughout Scripture, the Scripture takes great issue with God not being worshipped "according to knowledge" of His Word on the worship issue to begin with.

The whys and wherefores needing to be understood; not subscribed to merely because a thing appears to make sense to one, or feels right.

1 Corinthians 12:

1. Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.
2. Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.

Prior to their conversion, the Corinthians had worshipped whatever it was they had worshipped "not according to knowledge" of what is actually behind such worship, but from the fact that they were "ignorant" of the actual mechanics behind all that.

In other words, in their ignorance of how things work - of the fact that they were led by their emotions in their own notions as a result of their ignorance - they had worshipped dumb idols; idols which; though they "felt better afterwards" were simply dumb idols - their own notions of worshipping "the Creator."

The very core of Paul's problems with them having been their worship as Believers now "not according to knowledge" rather; to what their fleshly mind determined as to what's what.

1 Corinthians 3:

1. And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
2. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

What is this issue here - this carnal perspective of theirs?

Their allowing themselves to be led by their own notions of what was what.

Its the same today - the carnal mind deciding in its ignorance what's what.

"The Jews require a sign," 1 Corinthians 1:22.

Writing when Paul was - back when God was turning from His sign people, Romans 9-11, while using signs among the Gentiles, Romans 15, to provoke Israel to the fact of His turning from them, and "their diminishing" from before Him as His people, the Apostle of the Gentiles reminded the Corinthians in...

1 Corinthians 14:

20. Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
21. In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the LORD.
22. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

That right there is a study in itself, the resulting wisdom of which would cause the Believer wanting to worship the Lord "according to knowledge" to reevaluate his or her understanding as to the place, if any, of gifts/tongues, etc.

aikido7
July 17th, 2015, 12:40 PM
I am struggling to take the Bible on its own terms. The Book of Acts is the only place where glossolalia is even mentioned, so in my view the entire matter should be using Acts as the primary source.

Sometimes believers bring in other verses from other parts of the Bible as challenges to things found in other parts. I do not agree with doing this because biblical hermeneutics is based on the truth that finding out what was meant in the original verse is more important than our modern interpretation of those ancient passages.

StanJ
July 17th, 2015, 02:39 PM
Well aarons sons offered strange fire and they were consumed right there in front of everyone for doing it their own way. The lesson? Do it gods way or you have another thing coming.
The purpose of tongues was to rapidly spread the gospel. I do not know if we have the same issue as we had in the past so the need for tongues is very little.


Actually the use of tongues in a corporate setting is for unbelievers. This is not to be confused with the result of speaking in tongues when one is filled with the Holy Spirit as Acts 2, 10 and 14 clearly depict.
Paul is clear in 1 Cor 14, on how this is to be properly used in a corporate setting. Personal prayer involving tongues is not included here as is shown in v28.
This is a NC/NT experience never seen in the OC/OT because it is part of the Holy Spirit becoming our advocate when Jesus left.

User Name
July 17th, 2015, 03:04 PM
Actually the use of tongues in a corporate setting is for unbelievers.

Tongues that are spoken in a language that no one can understand is not meant for public consumption (1 Cor 14:28). Paul says that tongues are a sign for unbelievers, but this is only true if the unbelievers who hear can understand, as was the case in Acts 2:11. If no one is present who can understand and interpret tongues, the speaker is to keep silent (1 Cor 14:28), but most public claims of speaking in tongues today are of the sort that no one can understand.

StanJ
July 17th, 2015, 04:43 PM
Tongues that are spoken in a language that no one can understand is not meant for public consumption (1 Cor 14:28). Paul says that tongues are a sign for unbelievers, but this is only true if the unbelievers who hear can understand, as was the case in Acts 2:11. If no one is present who can understand and interpret tongues, the speaker is to keep silent (1 Cor 14:28), but most public claims of speaking in tongues today are of the sort that no one can understand.


NOT what Paul is saying. Public tongues that are NOT interpreted are not meant for public worship, not private tongues in personal prayer.
Acts 2:11 was not the same thing. No one interpreted, the Holy Spirit allowed all those men to hear in their own language, the Apostles were not speaking those languages. There were 12 Apostles and at least 15 languages mentioned. The Greek conveys these tongues were NEW, as in NEVER before heard.

musterion
July 17th, 2015, 04:55 PM
Why don't you try to find out?

Meshak is correct. You'd best examine what YOUR church has said about it.

musterion
July 17th, 2015, 04:57 PM
I am struggling to take the Bible on its own terms.

Really?


The Book of Acts is the only place where glossolalia is even mentioned

Really?

Traditio
July 17th, 2015, 05:11 PM
The Book of Acts is the only place where glossolalia is even mentioned, so in my view the entire matter should be using Acts as the primary source.

I have to disagree with this. Acts doesn't mention glossolalia. It mentions xenoglossia, which is completely different, which reinforces my point. The purpose of language is to communicate and be understood.

oatmeal
July 17th, 2015, 05:32 PM
Out of context. Read the whole passage.

It is good enough for the apostles, it is good enough for me.

oatmeal
July 17th, 2015, 05:33 PM
A single verse taken out of context in which St. Paul offers pretty much no explanation.

Evidently, you have not read I Corinthians 12-14 nor the book of Acts

If you wish to be educated in what scripture has to say, you might start with reading it.

Eeset
July 17th, 2015, 05:41 PM
If you encounter it and it offends you then you could always cut off your ears. :)

Traditio
July 17th, 2015, 06:01 PM
It is good enough for the apostles, it is good enough for me.

What's the context? What is being described?

Puppet
July 17th, 2015, 06:25 PM
Kundulini practice is very common and the same in penticoastal churches. They use sciencetology techniques to awaken the serpent energies and makes them feel God is working though them and they respond in their own tongues not the same used in acts

Interplanner
July 17th, 2015, 06:53 PM
It was meant as additional proof to unbelieving Jews that the mission of God really was to the nations (Is 49:6), as an after effect on top of the Pentecost event (which served that purpose), in case some of them were not there. The trajectory of the cases shows that it fades out (see Acts 19), and at Corinth there seems to be something artificial going on, even though Paul reminds them why it existed for a while in the first place, by quoting Isaiah.

Poor old Peter not only had the vision of the sheets to correct him about the Gentiles, but also a tongues incident (Acts 11--exact same purpose), and then Paul! (Gal 2). God was making sure no other gospel got any traction.

Ask Mr. Religion
July 17th, 2015, 07:02 PM
Cessationism: http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=422&var3=main


The Cascade Argument can be summarized thus:

1) There are no apostles of Christ on earth today.
2) Because there are no apostles of Christ, there are no prophets.
3) Because there are no prophets, there are no tongue speakers.
4) In view of 1-3, there are no miracle workers on earth today.

1. There are No Apostles of Christ on Earth Today
A) To be an Apostle of Christ was itself a gift to the church, and the foremost of the gifts. 1 Corinthians 12:28-31 Ephesians 4:8-11 – Christ gave gifts to men, among them apostles.

B) The term “apostles of Christ” is to be distinguished from missionaries, aka “apostles of the churches,” which is a different office. Only “apostles of Christ” are no longer among us.

C) To be an apostle of Christ, there were three distinguishing marks:
----i) Directly appointed by Christ (Mark 3, Luke 6, Acts 1:2, Acts 10:41, Galatians 1:1). That’s why the lot was used.

----ii) Physical eyewitnesses of the Resurrected Jesus (Acts 1:22, Acts 10:39, 1 Corinthians 9:1)

----iii) They are able to confirm their apostlate by doing miracles (2 Corinthians 12:12).

D) The apostles of Christ spoke authoritatively for Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 14:37).

E) There are five reasons we know from Scripture that the Apostlate ceased:
----i) Ephesians 2:20 The church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, which alludes to Revelation 21:14. The analogy implies that the apostles and prophets were confined to the foundational period of church history.

----ii) 1 Corinthians 15:8 Paul “last of all” was the last one to see the risen Christ. And since being a physical eyewitness to the risen Christ is one of the marks of an apostle, Paul is the last apostle.

----iii) 1 Corinthians 12:31 and 14:1 indicate that Christians cannot seek the gift of Apostle of Christ – the greatest gift they could seek was prophecy, even though apostleship was identified as a gift.

----iv) Galatians 2:7-9 Paul received the right hand of fellowship from the 12 apostles, but no one can today.

----v) Ephesians 2:20 This passage describes the form of the New Testament as “apostles and prophets.” If there were apostles and prophets today, the canon would be open, as those apostles/prophets continued to speak authoritatively. But Charismatics (nearly all) recognize that the canon is closed, therefore they ought to recognize that the apostlate is also closed.

F. Apostolic Gift is Linked to Impartation of Other Gifts (Acts 8)
This suggests the cessation of the miraculous gifts.

2. There are No Prophets Today
A) The cessation of the apostolate creates the presumption or at least possibility of cessation of other gifts.

B) NT Prophets like the Apostles were foundational to the New Testament church. (Ephesians 2:20)

C) Definition of Prophet in Deuteronomy 13 & 18 was never rescinded, and this requires infallibility.

D) Just as the OT’s authority is summarized as “the prophetic word” (2 Peter 1:19-21) and its form is also described in about a dozen NT references to “the law and the prophets” or “Moses and the prophets”, so also the NT’s canon is summarized in Ephesians 2:20 as “apostles and prophets” (the prophets in question are NT prophets as seen in Ephesians 3:5; 4:11 and 1 Corinthians 12:28).

3. There are No Tongue-Speakers Today because Tongues was a form of prophecy.

A) Acts 2 tongue speaking is explained by reference to Joel 2, where it is described as prophecy.

B) 1 Corinthians 14:5 asserts the equivalence of the two gifts, if tongues is interpreted.

C) In both tongues and prophecy, the speaker is uttering mysteries, which refers to prophetic revelation (1 Corinthians 13:2, Revelation 1:3, 1:20, and 10:7).

4. There are No Miracle-Workers Today
There may be miracles today, but there is a difference between miracles and miracle workers.

Recommended reading:
http://www.amazon.com/To-Be-Continued-Miraculous-Gifts/dp/1879737582

AMR

Interplanner
July 17th, 2015, 08:09 PM
I don't know about tongues being a form of prophecy.

It first happened to get the same Gospel to speakers of many other languages at Pentecost. Peter spoke in Aramaic and they heard in theirs.

It then helped prove the major doctrine that God need to show several times to the unbelieving Jews: that He really did want the Gospel to go to the nations. Peter had to go through that and the visions and then have Paul clean his clock as well. All for the same purpose.

These purposes are not prophecy, although the content of Peter in Acts 2&3 did say that the conclusive judgement was going to happen to Israel soon. But mostly it more clear to say that the real tongues got the message out to the nations very quickly. It was the reverse and correction of what happened at Babel.

The last is Acts 19 and still has that purpose. But by the council of 15 Peter was straightened out. They just needed to decide how much torah was enough to honor Christ.

StanJ
July 17th, 2015, 08:59 PM
I have to disagree with this. Acts doesn't mention glossolalia. It mentions xenoglossia, which is completely different, which reinforces my point. The purpose of language is to communicate and be understood.

it would be good if you actually demonstrated your assertion to be accurate or not.

StanJ
July 17th, 2015, 09:00 PM
Kundulini practice is very common and the same in penticoastal churches. They use sciencetology techniques to awaken the serpent energies and makes them feel God is working though them and they respond in their own tongues not the same used in acts


http://replygif.net/i/1373.gif (http://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Freplygif.net%2F1373&ei=k5-VVZS8D4uaNv_7mbAC&bvm=bv.96952980,d.eXY&psig=AFQjCNFQktvER9m9gqRrOE9RUcXUzlZoSg&ust=1435955473484035)

StanJ
July 17th, 2015, 09:17 PM
Cessationism:
The Cascade Argument can be summarized thus:

1) There are no apostles of Christ on earth today.
2) Because there are no apostles of Christ, there are no prophets.
3) Because there are no prophets, there are no tongue speakers.
4) In view of 1-3, there are no miracle workers on earth today.



This is what's termed a "logical fallacy". The points are based on assumptions, not facts.
1 may be factual, there is no way of knowing for sure, but, the fact is that just as the Bible delineates different positions or offices that Christ gave the Church, a prophet does not need to be an Apostle and Prophecy does not equate to being a prophet. Prophesy is a gift of the Holy Spirit that does NOT involve tongues or interpretation, but simple faith, as Paul instructed in 1 Cor 14:32 (NIV)
Point 3 is therefore eliminated and point 4 is as well because points 2 and 3 are wrong.
Jesus said to wait and that the Holy Spirit would not come until He left.
John 14:16, 26 (NIV), John 16:7 (NIV)
The Holy Spirit replaced Jesus on earth as our advocate and He has NEVER left.

StanJ
July 17th, 2015, 09:22 PM
I don't know about tongues being a form of prophecy.



It's not...it's a form of exhortation and declaration of the presence of the Holy Spirit, for unbelievers. Prophecy is for believers. 1 Cor 14 (NIV)

CherubRam
July 17th, 2015, 09:32 PM
Acts 2:6. When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken.
It is common knowledge that tongues is languages. The miracle was not in the speaking, but in the hearing. Each heard in their own tongue / language.

Puppet
July 18th, 2015, 03:59 AM
http://replygif.net/i/1373.gif (http://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Freplygif.net%2F1373&ei=k5-VVZS8D4uaNv_7mbAC&bvm=bv.96952980,d.eXY&psig=AFQjCNFQktvER9m9gqRrOE9RUcXUzlZoSg&ust=1435955473484035)

:carryon:

Interplanner
July 18th, 2015, 07:28 AM
STanJ,
you're not quite specific enough though. The exhortation is to the unbelieving Jew that God's mission is indeed to the nations. That's why there are always unbelieving Jews in the picture and they are in need of proof that the Gospel should be going to the nations. Peter was the first one after Pentecost, which is a paradox (since he was at Pentecost), but there it is. He had caved in to Judaism's other Gospel and stood in need of correction done by tongues, by the vision and by Paul.

RevTestament
July 18th, 2015, 08:32 AM
The purpose of speech is to communicate, i.e., to convey my thoughts to you in a way that you can understand.

The Protestant practice of "speaking in tongues," i.e., asking God to endow them with the use of a languge that neither they nor anybody else understands, is completely contrary to the intrinsic expressiveness/communicativeness of language. In other words, the practice presupposes that God will endow you with linguistic skills stripped of their natural expressiveness, will give you a language that frustrates its own natural ends.

As sodomy is to the sexual act and lying is to assertion, so too is speaking in tongues to language.

The protestant who asks God to give them such speech asks God to pervert his own creation, and that's Satanic.
:thumb:
Speaking in tongues is biblical. Speaking gibberish to impress a crowd is of Satan. Speaking in a tongue so that someone can hear the gospel message is of God. Of course those who don't have that gift, but wish to impress a crowd might try to fool them by speaking gibberish, and so will call it "speaking in tongues" as they wish to appear to have a gift of God so as to attract more "tithe paying believers." Otherwise it is a purposeless act, and so is not of God. Indeed, I believe it is a sign one can rely on as to an untrue church where a demonic spirit is practicing.
That said, members of my church have had on occasion been blessed with the gift of tongues. A member of my own ward related the story of his grandfather who was struck with a throat cancer - the surgery for which caused him to largely be unintelligible. Although he wanted to go on a mission, his bishop told him he didn't see how the young man could serve since he could not understand him. Undaunted the young man persisted, until an apostle told him he could go. His mission president gave him a blessing that he would deliver the gospel message to the people, and gave him an assignment to give a talk. Although no one could understand him, the young man prepared his ideas, and arrived at the appointed time to give his talk. He not only was able to deliver the talk but delivered it in their foreign language - perfectly intelligible to the crowd. He was then able to speak somewhat normally again, and returned home this way to the great delight of his family.
That is not only an example of true speaking in a tongue, but a gift of healing rolled into one. Amen.

Interplanner
July 18th, 2015, 09:10 AM
REvTest,
I suggest you go one step more precise as I did with StanJ one post above you. It is about the mission to the nations when unbelieving Jews don't accept that the Gospel is that mission.

This is why this 'gift' does not happen when Bible translators go out to their work. There are no unbelieving Jews (actually, followers of Judaism) in the picture who need proof.

Puppet
July 18th, 2015, 09:37 AM
:thumb:
Speaking in tongues is biblical. Speaking gibberish to impress a crowd is of Satan. Speaking in a tongue so that someone can hear the gospel message is of God. Of course those who don't have that gift, but wish to impress a crowd might try to fool them by speaking gibberish, and so will call it "speaking in tongues" as they wish to appear to have a gift of God so as to attract more "tithe paying believers." Otherwise it is a purposeless act, and so is not of God. Indeed, I believe it is a sign one can rely on as to an untrue church where a demonic spirit is practicing.
That said, members of my church have had on occasion been blessed with the gift of tongues. A member of my own ward related the story of his grandfather who was struck with a throat cancer - the surgery for which caused him to largely be unintelligible. Although he wanted to go on a mission, his bishop told him he didn't see how the young man could serve since he could not understand him. Undaunted the young man persisted, until an apostle told him he could go. His mission president gave him a blessing that he would deliver the gospel message to the people, and gave him an assignment to give a talk. Although no one could understand him, the young man prepared his ideas, and arrived at the appointed time to give his talk. He not only was able to deliver the talk but delivered it in their foreign language - perfectly intelligible to the crowd. He was then able to speak somewhat normally again, and returned home this way to the great delight of his family.
That is not only an example of true speaking in a tongue, but a gift of healing rolled into one. Amen.


Kundulini tongues are the same as the babbles spoken in the penticoastals churches. If you were speaking in tongues like in Acts, then you not know how to speak german at all and then all of a sudden you speak fluent german to the germans like you lived there. That rules your tongues out and you have been doing the same thing they do in hinduism, yoga and older religions. There is nothing new in your claims. Theres nothing wrong with you babbling but babbling and lying at the same time causes ailments and corruption of the heart. Thats is the bad thing.

aikido7
July 18th, 2015, 09:48 AM
The idea of the serpent representing the life force and traveling up the spine is a mythological concept found often in ancient cultures. And--indeed--in Christian theology.

The phrase in the New Testament that Jesus is the serpent lifted up taps into this tradition. So does the iconography of the Egyptian pharaohs that shows a snake coming out of the head (the "third eye") of the carvings on the sarcophagus.

Because the snake sheds its skin it was believed to have the power of immortality.

And of course, there is the passage in the New Testament when Jesus urges his followers to be "wise as serpents and harmless as doves." The snake is tied to the earth and the dove is not.

RevTestament
July 18th, 2015, 10:10 AM
REvTest,
I suggest you go one step more precise as I did with StanJ one post above you. It is about the mission to the nations when unbelieving Jews don't accept that the Gospel is that mission.

This is why this 'gift' does not happen when Bible translators go out to their work. There are no unbelieving Jews (actually, followers of Judaism) in the picture who need proof.

If you are implying that the gift of tongues can only come to persons who are trying to relate the gospel to Jews, I see no such limitation in the scriptures.
There have been a number of people in the LDS church who wished to relate the gospel to foreigners - it seems esp true of Polynesians. Members were blessed with the gift of tongues so as to be able to relate the gospel in a language otherwise unknown to themselves.

Psalmist
July 18th, 2015, 10:19 AM
The idea of the serpent representing the life force and traveling up the spine is a mythological concept found often in ancient cultures. And--indeed--in Christian theology.

The phrase in the New Testament that Jesus is the serpent lifted up taps into this tradition. So does the iconography of the Egyptian pharaohs that shows a snake coming out of the head (the "third eye") of the carvings on the sarcophagus.

Because the snake sheds its skin it was believed to have the power of immortality.

And of course, there is the passage in the New Testament when Jesus urges his followers to be "wise as serpents and harmless as doves." The snake is tied to the earth and the dove is not.

How do you get "Jesus is the serpent" out of John 3:14-15
"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." The Son of Man must be lifted up not Jesus the snake.

This Charming Manc
July 18th, 2015, 10:40 AM
1. The charismatic movement in Catholicism is a fairly recent thing. I don't know very much about it, and given its historical "newness," so to speak, I'm distrustful of it. :idunno:


Look at the start of some of the old orders, you can see charismatics appearing at different places in catholic histories. Terms of reference maybe different but you will see those supernatural Christian experiences happening.

Knowing a few catholic charismatics and sharing experiences with them, its pretty much the same 'stuff', there maybe is a greater sense of reverence and little more freedom to interpret through tradition rather than scripture.

I still remember praying for one lovely catholic girl to be filled with the spirit, it was gentle and beautiful, she didn't speak in tongues fall over, it was just that presence of God was almost tangible, she had a very deep peace about her and she actually glowed(emotionally not bright blue or anything).


2. As in many cases, it's possible that the charismatic Catholic and the Protestant simply may mean different things by "speaking in tongues." The practices may be different. I'm not as familiar with the charismatic Catholic practice.

I suggest you get familiar before you start defining it and how its different, you've been wrong about everything you have said about it.

musterion
July 18th, 2015, 10:46 AM
Equating Christ Himself with a serpent - which the Bible does not do - should be reportable as blasphemy but there's no real point in reporting it.

This Charming Manc
July 18th, 2015, 10:46 AM
You could also describe cessationism as deism light wrapped a pseudo biblical shell.

Has church advanced to the point where it no longer requires the power of God?

Has God ceased to want to heal the sick?

Are we superior to original apostles and prophets?


Cessationism: http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=422&var3=main


The Cascade Argument can be summarized thus:

1) There are no apostles of Christ on earth today.
2) Because there are no apostles of Christ, there are no prophets.
3) Because there are no prophets, there are no tongue speakers.
4) In view of 1-3, there are no miracle workers on earth today.

1. There are No Apostles of Christ on Earth Today
A) To be an Apostle of Christ was itself a gift to the church, and the foremost of the gifts. 1 Corinthians 12:28-31 Ephesians 4:8-11 – Christ gave gifts to men, among them apostles.

B) The term “apostles of Christ” is to be distinguished from missionaries, aka “apostles of the churches,” which is a different office. Only “apostles of Christ” are no longer among us.

C) To be an apostle of Christ, there were three distinguishing marks:
----i) Directly appointed by Christ (Mark 3, Luke 6, Acts 1:2, Acts 10:41, Galatians 1:1). That’s why the lot was used.

----ii) Physical eyewitnesses of the Resurrected Jesus (Acts 1:22, Acts 10:39, 1 Corinthians 9:1)

----iii) They are able to confirm their apostlate by doing miracles (2 Corinthians 12:12).

D) The apostles of Christ spoke authoritatively for Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 14:37).

E) There are five reasons we know from Scripture that the Apostlate ceased:
----i) Ephesians 2:20 The church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, which alludes to Revelation 21:14. The analogy implies that the apostles and prophets were confined to the foundational period of church history.

----ii) 1 Corinthians 15:8 Paul “last of all” was the last one to see the risen Christ. And since being a physical eyewitness to the risen Christ is one of the marks of an apostle, Paul is the last apostle.

----iii) 1 Corinthians 12:31 and 14:1 indicate that Christians cannot seek the gift of Apostle of Christ – the greatest gift they could seek was prophecy, even though apostleship was identified as a gift.

----iv) Galatians 2:7-9 Paul received the right hand of fellowship from the 12 apostles, but no one can today.

----v) Ephesians 2:20 This passage describes the form of the New Testament as “apostles and prophets.” If there were apostles and prophets today, the canon would be open, as those apostles/prophets continued to speak authoritatively. But Charismatics (nearly all) recognize that the canon is closed, therefore they ought to recognize that the apostlate is also closed.

F. Apostolic Gift is Linked to Impartation of Other Gifts (Acts 8)
This suggests the cessation of the miraculous gifts.

2. There are No Prophets Today
A) The cessation of the apostolate creates the presumption or at least possibility of cessation of other gifts.

B) NT Prophets like the Apostles were foundational to the New Testament church. (Ephesians 2:20)

C) Definition of Prophet in Deuteronomy 13 & 18 was never rescinded, and this requires infallibility.

D) Just as the OT’s authority is summarized as “the prophetic word” (2 Peter 1:19-21) and its form is also described in about a dozen NT references to “the law and the prophets” or “Moses and the prophets”, so also the NT’s canon is summarized in Ephesians 2:20 as “apostles and prophets” (the prophets in question are NT prophets as seen in Ephesians 3:5; 4:11 and 1 Corinthians 12:28).

3. There are No Tongue-Speakers Today because Tongues was a form of prophecy.

A) Acts 2 tongue speaking is explained by reference to Joel 2, where it is described as prophecy.

B) 1 Corinthians 14:5 asserts the equivalence of the two gifts, if tongues is interpreted.

C) In both tongues and prophecy, the speaker is uttering mysteries, which refers to prophetic revelation (1 Corinthians 13:2, Revelation 1:3, 1:20, and 10:7).

4. There are No Miracle-Workers Today
There may be miracles today, but there is a difference between miracles and miracle workers.

Recommended reading:
http://www.amazon.com/To-Be-Continued-Miraculous-Gifts/dp/1879737582

AMR

Interplanner
July 18th, 2015, 10:59 AM
To RevTestament re 62
[sorry the quote thingy didn't work]
Not to express the gospel to Jews, but followers of Judaism--who don't believe the mission of God now is the gospel to the nations--have to be in the picture. It was showing them, supernaturally!, that God was doing just that. Check Acts 2, 11, 19 and the quote of Isaiah in I Cor 14 and you'll see the same thing in each case. In Acts 11 it is a further rebuke to Peter to get rid of another gospel (Gal 2) that added on things from the Law. The Gentiles there believed the gospel of Christ's atoning sacrifice for their forgiveness (the one gospel), and PETER was the former follower of Judaism needing proof of God's mission.

Paul graciously weaned the Corinthians off of whatever was going on there, but certainly nailed the above agenda again by quoting Isaiah. That is the purpose of it. I doubt if there is further need, unless Judaism today gets really agressive and needs to be shown the same thing.

Notice nothing happens in Acts 3 with the same message and people. It was already not needed.

Notice that Bible translators have worked for years without it even where it would be very helpful, because there are no followers of Judaism in the picture who need the push.

aikido7
July 18th, 2015, 11:17 AM
How do you get "Jesus is the serpent" out of John 3:14-15
"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." The Son of Man must be lifted up not Jesus the snake.

To me the text is clear. Because it is in the Bible, I have to confront it honestly and take it seriously.

Since Jesus only characterized himself as the "Son of Man" (which actually means "human being") the idea that the "Son of Man be lifted up" clearly refers to Jesus being lifted up.

The influence of the iconography of the snake climbing up a pole represents the divine energy moving up the spinal cord. The symbol for medicine shows the same image. The cult of the Brotherhood of the Snake/Serpent is associated with Freemasonry and is indicated on the dollar bill.

Only if you take this sacred language literally will you become threatened and alarmed.

Myth and metaphor in the Bible point to absolute truths in ways that logical and rational language can never do.

aikido7
July 18th, 2015, 11:26 AM
Equating Christ Himself with a serpent - which the Bible does not do - should be reportable as blasphemy but there's no real point in reporting it.If you cannot understand the sacred language in the quote as equating Jesus as the snake then I don't really know what else to tell you.

There were many, many, many ways of equating Jesus with ancient traditions. He is known as Emmanuel, Son of God, born of a virgin, the light, salvation, the Lamb--all SORTS of different theological concepts that were applied to him after his death and resurrection.

I am sorry you feel alarmed and threatened by this fact. It is not my intention to be disruptive or blasphemous. I am merely offering up some information that is actually IN the text. You need to make your own best choice about how to deal with it.

I myself have no business telling anyone what to believe or to accept my measly and pitiful opinions for today's church doctrine.

RevTestament
July 18th, 2015, 01:02 PM
To RevTestament re 62
[sorry the quote thingy didn't work]
Not to express the gospel to Jews, but followers of Judaism--who don't believe the mission of God now is the gospel to the nations--have to be in the picture. It was showing them, supernaturally!, that God was doing just that. Check Acts 2, 11, 19 and the quote of Isaiah in I Cor 14 and you'll see the same thing in each case. In Acts 11 it is a further rebuke to Peter to get rid of another gospel (Gal 2) that added on things from the Law. The Gentiles there believed the gospel of Christ's atoning sacrifice for their forgiveness (the one gospel), and PETER was the former follower of Judaism needing proof of God's mission.

Paul graciously weaned the Corinthians off of whatever was going on there, but certainly nailed the above agenda again by quoting Isaiah. That is the purpose of it. I doubt if there is further need, unless Judaism today gets really agressive and needs to be shown the same thing.

Notice nothing happens in Acts 3 with the same message and people. It was already not needed.

Notice that Bible translators have worked for years without it even where it would be very helpful, because there are no followers of Judaism in the picture who need the push.
In the example of translation I don't think it is a matter of the audience creating a need in translation, but a matter of the translator not needing an on the spot gift to relate the message to a group of listeners.

Mark 16:17
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

I don't see anything here about speaking specifically to judiazers.

Ask Mr. Religion
July 18th, 2015, 01:08 PM
This is what's termed a "logical fallacy". The points are based on assumptions, not facts.

Nicely done, that is, ignoring all the Scriptural evidence elucidated in my post and then just jumping to some other verses and claiming you have met your hermeneutical burden.

If you are going to employ the technique, at least make an effort to do so correctly (http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/54/54-3/JETS_54-3_589-606_Allen%20&%20Swain.pdf). :AMR:

AMR

RevTestament
July 18th, 2015, 01:10 PM
If you cannot understand the sacred language in the quote as equating Jesus as the snake then I don't really know what else to tell you.

There were many, many, many ways of equating Jesus with ancient traditions. He is known as Emmanuel, Son of God, born of a virgin, the light, salvation, the Lamb--all SORTS of different theological concepts that were applied to him after his death and resurrection.

I am sorry you feel alarmed and threatened by this fact. It is not my intention to be disruptive or blasphemous. I am merely offering up some information that is actually IN the text. You need to make your own best choice about how to deal with it.

I myself have no business telling anyone what to believe or to accept my measly and pitiful opinions for today's church doctrine.
Jesus wasn't the serpent who bit the people so they would die. And Jesus wasn't the serpent being lifted on the pole, but that was a semblance of looking fearlessly upon the serpent and thus overcoming fear of death through Christ. The cross represents fear of death which the serpent brought into the world by lying to Eve(or the church).

StanJ
July 18th, 2015, 01:12 PM
Nicely done, that is, ignoring all the Scriptural evidence elucidated in my post and then just jumping to some other verses and claiming you have met your hermeneutical burden.
If you are going to employ the technique, at least make an effort to do so correctly.

AMR

I was not dealing with the scriptures you supplied, just your take, or should I say your cited link, that you summarized.

You can't start with a false premise and then expect it to be exegeted when it never was.

StanJ
July 18th, 2015, 01:16 PM
STanJ,
you're not quite specific enough though. The exhortation is to the unbelieving Jew that God's mission is indeed to the nations. That's why there are always unbelieving Jews in the picture and they are in need of proof that the Gospel should be going to the nations. Peter was the first one after Pentecost, which is a paradox (since he was at Pentecost), but there it is. He had caved in to Judaism's other Gospel and stood in need of correction done by tongues, by the vision and by Paul.


At the time of 1 Cor, that was NOT the context. Peter was indeed a devout Jew, but his eyes were opened in Acts 10 and going forward HE was not as much a problem as James was in this regard.

StanJ
July 18th, 2015, 01:17 PM
Kundulini tongues are the same as the babbles spoken in the penticoastals churches. If you were speaking in tongues like in Acts, then you not know how to speak german at all and then all of a sudden you speak fluent german to the germans like you lived there. That rules your tongues out and you have been doing the same thing they do in hinduism, yoga and older religions. There is nothing new in your claims. Theres nothing wrong with you babbling but babbling and lying at the same time causes ailments and corruption of the heart. Thats is the bad thing.

http://replygif.net/i/1373.gif (http://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Freplygif.net%2F1373&ei=k5-VVZS8D4uaNv_7mbAC&bvm=bv.96952980,d.eXY&psig=AFQjCNFQktvER9m9gqRrOE9RUcXUzlZoSg&ust=1435955473484035)

Puppet
July 18th, 2015, 01:40 PM
http://replygif.net/i/1373.gif (http://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Freplygif.net%2F1373&ei=k5-VVZS8D4uaNv_7mbAC&bvm=bv.96952980,d.eXY&psig=AFQjCNFQktvER9m9gqRrOE9RUcXUzlZoSg&ust=1435955473484035)


:carryon:

Interplanner
July 19th, 2015, 12:30 AM
STanJ,
I don't think you would know that you were speaking German. It would be German to German listeners. But there has to be followers of Judaism in the room who don't think God's mission is the Gospel to the nations. That's who was shown this sign. If they think God's message to the nations is his law, they are the ones in need of the sign.

You'll find this in collating Paul's rebuttal of Peter about justification in Gal 2B and realizing that Peter (who was at Pentecost!!!) needed that rebuttal and the sheet vision and the sign of tongues to realize that the message to the nations was the Gospel not justification by observing the law.

StanJ
July 19th, 2015, 12:41 AM
STanJ,
I don't think you would know that you were speaking German. It would be German to German listeners. But there has to be followers of Judaism in the room who don't think God's mission is the Gospel to the nations. That's who was shown this sign. If they think God's message to the nations is his law, they are the ones in need of the sign.

You'll find this in collating Paul's rebuttal of Peter about justification in Gal 2B and realizing that Peter (who was at Pentecost!!!) needed that rebuttal and the sheet vision and the sign of tongues to realize that the message to the nations was the Gospel not justification by observing the law.


As I said, tongues is NOT a known language. It is a NEW language. The Greek connotes something never before seen. That this happened at Pentecost is not a coincidence as it was for the Jews FIRST, but very soon afterwards it was given to Gentiles as Peter witnessed in Acts 10 and as Paul confirmed in Rom 1:16

Paul argument with Peter was a valid one and He had the same argument with James. We discount neither in terms of veracity.

This Charming Manc
July 19th, 2015, 03:04 AM
However your process creates an argument then hangs scriptures which at best are loosely associated with the subject and interpret them in light of you argument.

There are also a number of large leaps in your argument which are neither biblical or necessarily logical.


1) There are no apostles of Christ on earth today.
A matter which we could have interesting biblical debate over, for example Acts 14:14 refers to Barnabas as an apostle.


2) Because there are no apostles of Christ, there are no prophets.
No logical or biblical connection with point 1


3) Because there are no prophets, there are no tongue speakers.
No logical or biblical connection with point 1 or 2.


4) In view of 1-3, there are no miracle workers on earth today.
based on big assumptions in points 2 and 3.

You can post all the scriptures you want but there is no clear and agreed logical flow to the argument.


Nicely done, that is, ignoring all the Scriptural evidence elucidated in my post and then just jumping to some other verses and claiming you have met your hermeneutical burden.

If you are going to employ the technique, at least make an effort to do so correctly (http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/54/54-3/JETS_54-3_589-606_Allen%20&%20Swain.pdf). :AMR:

AMR

Interplanner
July 19th, 2015, 07:17 AM
Real tongues (Acts 2, 11, 19, I Cor 14 quoting Isaiah) is a sign to followers of Judaism that God's mission is the Gospel to the nations, not the law. There has to be members of Judaism who see this sign in action. Everything else is doubtful; Paul didn't forbid it, but he certainly minimised it in ch 14.

People in Judaism after the Gospel event should have realized that this message was due to go to the nations, but the Law was/is a 'member of the trinity' to them (Yahweh--torah--'eretz). So if anything like a mission to the nations was going to happen, it was going to be the Law that went out.

the apostles learned that this was not so from Christ, and Christ raised up Paul out of the middle of agressive Judaism for that very reason; Gal 1B.

Pentecost was the spectacular display of this sign for this reason. It happened on that day because when those people returned home after the weekend they would all be taking this new message back to their locations in their language. The message would be the Gospel of forgiveness, not the Law and more ceremonies.

Pentecost was also the reversal of the curse of Babel. God now acted to redeem mankind from the curse of language division with the one message of Truth in all languages.

oatmeal
July 19th, 2015, 07:17 AM
What's the context? What is being described?

Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

That which being good enough for the apostles, is good enough for me.

oatmeal
July 19th, 2015, 07:23 AM
Out of context. Read the whole passage.

Acts 2:1-21

And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

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.

5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,

10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,

11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?

13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:

15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.

16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:

20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come:

21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.


The reference to Joel is not a literal fulfillment. The events unfolding on the day of Pentecost do not match up with the prophecy which Peter quoted from Joel.

Peter is simply comparing the seriousness of the words from Joel with speaking in tongues on that day. He aptly handled the false accusation of drunkenness by comparing speaking in tongues with the prophecy of Joel

Interplanner
July 19th, 2015, 07:28 AM
See my post above. The issue cannot be understood apart from the launching of the mission to the nations.

oatmeal
July 19th, 2015, 07:47 AM
Speaking in tongues is a commandment of the Lord.

But if you wish to remain ignorant of the commandments of the Lord, that is your choice.

Interplanner
July 19th, 2015, 08:18 AM
Oatmeal,
that was only made to one group in one letter. Even though it was very different from Acts 2, 11, 19 and the quote of Isaiah in I Cor 14, he let them do it but minimised its value and maturity.

We should move on from it, as he says about putting away childish things.

Puppet
July 19th, 2015, 09:33 AM
Speaking in tongues is a commandment of the Lord.

But if you wish to remain ignorant of the commandments of the Lord, that is your choice.

I've read those requirements of salvation in the belief statement in some false churches. If you see that, you'd better run the the next nearest church and try again. The Lord does what He wants in the Elects. The rest can babble on thier own and gain better ESP that astonishes themselves. The babbles are cause by bio electrical currents in the body due to certain repetive motions and self mind trickeries. Kundulini enetgies cause increase ESP and cure the body which is ok to those that understand then. Penticoastals don't understand the phenomenon of the human body and make up theories about what God is doing.

Interplanner
July 19th, 2015, 10:25 AM
Subjectivism tends to find one "command" about a topic like this but think there is therefore a huge validation of it. It has a hard time absorbing the whole context. In this case, that means how tongues were a sign to those in Judaism who did not think the Gospel was supposed to go to the nations, including Peter even after leading the Jewish Christian church.

RevTestament
July 19th, 2015, 11:08 AM
Speaking in tongues is a commandment of the Lord.

But if you wish to remain ignorant of the commandments of the Lord, that is your choice.
No, it is not. It is a gift of the Spirit. Not all need it or are capable of it. Indeed, it is rarely manifested.


1 Corinthians 12:30

30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?



1 Corinthians 12:28

28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

Mocking You
July 19th, 2015, 11:20 AM
That which being good enough for the apostles, is good enough for me.

How's that snake handling working out for you? How about raising the dead?

StanJ
July 19th, 2015, 12:30 PM
Speaking in tongues is a commandment of the Lord.
But if you wish to remain ignorant of the commandments of the Lord, that is your choice.

Which Lord is that, and where is this command?

StanJ
July 19th, 2015, 12:32 PM
Real tongues (Acts 2, 11, 19, I Cor 14 quoting Isaiah) is a sign to followers of Judaism that God's mission is the Gospel to the nations, not the law. There has to be members of Judaism who see this sign in action. Everything else is doubtful; Paul didn't forbid it, but he certainly minimised it in ch 14.

People in Judaism after the Gospel event should have realized that this message was due to go to the nations, but the Law was/is a 'member of the trinity' to them (Yahweh--torah--'eretz). So if anything like a mission to the nations was going to happen, it was going to be the Law that went out.

the apostles learned that this was not so from Christ, and Christ raised up Paul out of the middle of agressive Judaism for that very reason; Gal 1B.

Pentecost was the spectacular display of this sign for this reason. It happened on that day because when those people returned home after the weekend they would all be taking this new message back to their locations in their language. The message would be the Gospel of forgiveness, not the Law and more ceremonies.

Pentecost was also the reversal of the curse of Babel. God now acted to redeem mankind from the curse of language division with the one message of Truth in all languages.


I don't think repeating this even when I've explained it to you, makes you sound anymore credible. It was definitely NOT a reversal of the Tower of Babel.

Interplanner
July 19th, 2015, 12:38 PM
sure it was. Look at the result. God's message in all the languages going out to all the world. Not one human message all in one message and one centralized government. How can you look at that and not see reversals, as in redemption? I don't mean the curse of incompatible language is reversed, I mean that Babel is beaten at its game. It is God's kingdom defeating what Babel wished was going to be mans. But certain details in this are reversed. It was an experience where all these people knew they were hearing the same message.

StanJ
July 19th, 2015, 05:27 PM
Acts 2:6. When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken.
It is common knowledge that tongues is languages. The miracle was not in the speaking, but in the hearing. Each heard in their own tongue / language.


Cherub none of YOUR knowledge is common or reputable.
Prove your assertions, don't just make them.

It's common knowledge that the Greek word use for new tongues connotes a language never before used or heard.

StanJ
July 19th, 2015, 05:31 PM
sure it was. Look at the result. God's message in all the languages going out to all the world. Not one human message all in one message and one centralized government. How can you look at that and not see reversals, as in redemption? I don't mean the curse of incompatible language is reversed, I mean that Babel is beaten at its game. It is God's kingdom defeating what Babel wished was going to be mans. But certain details in this are reversed. It was an experience where all these people knew they were hearing the same message.


What the God fearing Jews heard, were believers praising God in their OWN language, those believers were NOT speaking it. God had a reason for Babel, and that won't change until the route of why He did this changes. THAT will only happen at Jesus' second coming.
Babel was NEW languages at that time. Tongues are NEWER and have NEVER been heard or used before Acts 2:4

Psalmist
July 19th, 2015, 05:31 PM
I forgot about the snake handler's, that would make anybody speak in a foreign something.

Bright Raven
July 19th, 2015, 05:32 PM
I forgot about the snake handler's, that would make anybody speak in a foreign something.

They are not my cup of tea.

aikido7
July 19th, 2015, 05:33 PM
Did drinking poison without dying and handling serpents something that "annoyed God"?

Like it or not, people, there were obviously some early Christians who were inspired by their concept of the divine to drink poison and pick up snakes.

StanJ
July 19th, 2015, 05:34 PM
I forgot about the snake handler's, that would make anybody speak in a foreign something.


THAT is called TEMPTING GOD. A definite NO NO.

Interplanner
July 19th, 2015, 07:50 PM
What the God fearing Jews heard, were believers praising God in their OWN language, those believers were NOT speaking it. God had a reason for Babel, and that won't change until the route of why He did this changes. THAT will only happen at Jesus' second coming.
Babel was NEW languages at that time. Tongues are NEWER and have NEVER been heard or used before Acts 2:4


They were believers in Judaism in the city of one of the three major annual festivals.
I don't see where you get the praising God thing.
The visiting members of Judaism heard the Gospel preached. Peter didn't just start speaking in English at v14, nor Aramaic. The supernatural translation continued.
Tongues were known languages at the time of Acts 2. See v8.

The reason members of Judaism needed to hear this was it was another proof that the mission of the Gospel of God was going to the nations. In Judaism, they were and sought to take the Law. jesus had a pretty nasty remark about that. It was the Gospel that was supposed to go.

The event is connected to Babel in that the mighty acts of God are proclaimed rather than the mighty plans of arrogant man. It is safe for all to hear in their language, and there is no confusion. Those are three redemptive reversals right there. God wanted the whole world to hear that Jesus had been made Lord and Christ.

aikido7
July 21st, 2015, 02:34 PM
Jesus wasn't the serpent who bit the people so they would die. And Jesus wasn't the serpent being lifted on the pole, but that was a semblance of looking fearlessly upon the serpent and thus overcoming fear of death through Christ. The cross represents fear of death which the serpent brought into the world by lying to Eve(or the church).Interesting personal interpretation.

Based on the symbolism and iconography of the snake in ancient cultures, I see it slightly differently.

But do I know I am right? Of course not. My thinking has an undercurrent of faith and belief, not only factually-correct history.

StanJ
July 21st, 2015, 03:22 PM
They were believers in Judaism in the city of one of the three major annual festivals.
I don't see where you get the praising God thing.
The visiting members of Judaism heard the Gospel preached. Peter didn't just start speaking in English at v14, nor Aramaic. The supernatural translation continued.
Tongues were known languages at the time of Acts 2. See v8.

The reason members of Judaism needed to hear this was it was another proof that the mission of the Gospel of God was going to the nations. In Judaism, they were and sought to take the Law. jesus had a pretty nasty remark about that. It was the Gospel that was supposed to go.

The event is connected to Babel in that the mighty acts of God are proclaimed rather than the mighty plans of arrogant man. It is safe for all to hear in their language, and there is no confusion. Those are three redemptive reversals right there. God wanted the whole world to hear that Jesus had been made Lord and Christ.

The apostle were believers in Jesus, NOT Judaism.
Did you miss v11?
"we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues."
Peter was speaking in his native tongue. How could you possible think otherwise? Do you think He would say "Fellow Jews" in Egyptian?
Tongues were NEW languages as Jesus prophesied in Mark 16:17 (NIV)

That's an assumption you have NOT corroborated.

The event is in NO way connected to the Tower of Babel.

You would get a lot farther if you actually had scripture to support your assertions.

oatmeal
July 21st, 2015, 03:51 PM
Oatmeal,
that was only made to one group in one letter. Even though it was very different from Acts 2, 11, 19 and the quote of Isaiah in I Cor 14, he let them do it but minimised its value and maturity.

We should move on from it, as he says about putting away childish things.

Have you surpassed the spiritual heights of the apostle Paul?

I Corinthians 14:18

The apostle Paul had a much different belief about speaking in tongues than you have.

Be sure to let us know how your intineraries and miracles and your rewriting of Paul's epistles are going.

oatmeal
July 21st, 2015, 03:52 PM
I've read those requirements of salvation in the belief statement in some false churches. If you see that, you'd better run the the next nearest church and try again. The Lord does what He wants in the Elects. The rest can babble on thier own and gain better ESP that astonishes themselves. The babbles are cause by bio electrical currents in the body due to certain repetive motions and self mind trickeries. Kundulini enetgies cause increase ESP and cure the body which is ok to those that understand then. Penticoastals don't understand the phenomenon of the human body and make up theories about what God is doing.

Acts 2:4 is clear about who did the speaking and Who gave the utterance.

God is right and you are wrong.

oatmeal
July 21st, 2015, 03:55 PM
No, it is not. It is a gift of the Spirit. Not all need it or are capable of it. Indeed, it is rarely manifested.


1 Corinthians 12:30

30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?



1 Corinthians 12:28

28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

Wonderful verses, but where in those verses is speaking in tongues referred to as a gift?

I Corinthians 12:7-11

But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;

9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;

10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

It is a manifestation of the spirit

Bright Raven
July 21st, 2015, 04:01 PM
Wonderful verses, but where in those verses is speaking in tongues referred to as a gift?

I Corinthians 12:7-11

But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;

9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;

10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

It is a manifestation of the spirit

Back up three verses.
1Corinthians 12:4-6 MEV

4 There are various gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 There are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. 6 There are various operations, but it is the same God who operates all of them in all people.

oatmeal
July 21st, 2015, 04:01 PM
How's that snake handling working out for you? How about raising the dead?

Snake handling?

Where do you get such a erroneous idea?

Mark 16:17-18?

And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

that if applies to the taking up of serpents, as in if someone does accidentally, as Paul did in Acts 28:3-6

Your ignorance of spiritual matters is what is annoying.

God has not had me raise anyone from the dead, yet.

When He wants me to, He will make it clear to me, by word of knowledge and word of wisdom.

It is your profound ignorance of spiritual matters that is annoying.

oatmeal
July 21st, 2015, 04:08 PM
Which Lord is that, and where is this command?

Good questions

The Lord God and the lord Jesus Christ. Acts 2:34

The son is still about his Father's business. Luke 2:49

They work together as one, with one purpose, John 10:30

What God had the apostle Paul write about spiritual matters is in I Corinthians 12-14

What God had Paul write about spiritual matters are commandments of the Lord God, I Corinthians 14:37

Spiritually minded people will acknowledge that what Paul wrote are commandments of the Lord.

Regarding spiritual matters, I Corinthians 12:1, what Paul wrote in chapters 12-14 are the commandments of the Lord

Interplanner
July 21st, 2015, 04:08 PM
Then oatmeal, you will be interested to know that tongues are one of the proofs to those in Judaism that the Gospel, rather than the law, is the message to go out to the nations. When Peter caved to Judaizers, God had to get his attention with the sheet of animals vision, with tongues and face to face with Paul. That's why Paul comes back to what they were really for in I Cor 14.

That's knowledge about tongues.

oatmeal
July 21st, 2015, 04:09 PM
THAT is called TEMPTING GOD. A definite NO NO.

That is correct, Mark 16:17-18 is understood that "if, if accidentally or unknowingly"

oatmeal
July 21st, 2015, 04:16 PM
Back up three verses.
1Corinthians 12:4-6 MEV

4 There are various gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 There are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. 6 There are various operations, but it is the same God who operates all of them in all people.

Back up to I Corinthians 12:1 KJV

Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.

One of the benefits of utilizing the KJV is that the translators italicized words that they added in the English that did not have a corresponding word in the Stephen's Greek.

The word spiritual is pneumatikos, which would have been better translated, spirituals, or spiritual matters or things concerning the spirit.

Spiritual matters include, as you point out, or rather as I Corinthians 12:4-6 points out

gifts, administrations ( ways of serving), and operations.

But that is not all that falls under the heading of spiritual matters.

the entire three chapters, 12-14 tell us of many, many, many spiritual matters.

genuineoriginal
July 21st, 2015, 05:04 PM
Speaking in Tongues a Stupid Practice and Probably "Annoys God."
Bowing down and praying to a statue of Mary is a mortal sin and causes God to weep at the fate that awaits you in the lake of fire.

Got any more?

kmoney
July 21st, 2015, 05:36 PM
The purpose of speech is to communicate, i.e., to convey my thoughts to you in a way that you can understand.

The Protestant practice of "speaking in tongues," i.e., asking God to endow them with the use of a languge that neither they nor anybody else understands, is completely contrary to the intrinsic expressiveness/communicativeness of language. In other words, the practice presupposes that God will endow you with linguistic skills stripped of their natural expressiveness, will give you a language that frustrates its own natural ends.

As sodomy is to the sexual act and lying is to assertion, so too is speaking in tongues to language.

The protestant who asks God to give them such speech asks God to pervert his own creation, and that's Satanic.

What about Catholic Charismatics. :nananana:

StanJ
July 21st, 2015, 05:52 PM
Good questions

The Lord God and the lord Jesus Christ. Acts 2:34

The son is still about his Father's business. Luke 2:49

They work together as one, with one purpose, John 10:30

What God had the apostle Paul write about spiritual matters is in I Corinthians 12-14

What God had Paul write about spiritual matters are commandments of the Lord God, I Corinthians 14:37

Spiritually minded people will acknowledge that what Paul wrote are commandments of the Lord.

Regarding spiritual matters, I Corinthians 12:1, what Paul wrote in chapters 12-14 are the commandments of the Lord

I was expecting actual answers, not just scripture quotes.

iamaberean
July 22nd, 2015, 03:50 AM
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
One must be born again or they have not been saved.

Joh 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
There will be a sound whenever one has been born again.

Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
How did Peter know that the Gentiles had been saved? Because he heard them speak with tongues.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Have faith that God can do for you what he has done for others.

Psalmist
July 22nd, 2015, 04:43 AM
You know if we were as adamant about soul winning as we are about yeahing and naying the what Scripture says about tongues, I think there would be a great harvest of souls for the Lord.

I still believe there will be a third great awakening.

Puppet
July 22nd, 2015, 08:26 AM
Acts 2:4 is clear about who did the speaking and Who gave the utterance.

God is right and you are wrong.

God is right and you are wrong

desiringGod7
July 22nd, 2015, 02:46 PM
The purpose of speech is to communicate, i.e., to convey my thoughts to you in a way that you can understand.

The Protestant practice of "speaking in tongues," i.e., asking God to endow them with the use of a languge that neither they nor anybody else understands, is completely contrary to the intrinsic expressiveness/communicativeness of language. In other words, the practice presupposes that God will endow you with linguistic skills stripped of their natural expressiveness, will give you a language that frustrates its own natural ends.

As sodomy is to the sexual act and lying is to assertion, so too is speaking in tongues to language.

The protestant who asks God to give them such speech asks God to pervert his own creation, and that's Satanic.
I see that you're Catholic, and quite uneducated in Protestantism in general to make this misleading statement..

There is typically ONE type of Protestant who would "speak in tongues", and that would be Pentecostals, who are a type of Charismatic Christians.

If you were to ask any other type of Protestant, they would likely tell you that this behaviour is not from God, it in no way glorifies God, and is indeed an obnoxious and ridiculous behaviour.

desiringGod7
July 22nd, 2015, 02:50 PM
Acts 2:4 it was good enough for the apostles it is good enough for me

I Corinthians 14:18 it was good enough for the apostle Paul, it is good enough for me.

Many people who speak in tongues abuse it and make themselves into idiots.

However, that is not God's plan.

Anyone who respects scripture would never do the contemptuous things that some do while speaking in tongues.

Speaking in tongues is God designed and available to all believers.

You do not read in scripture anyone who respects God and the word of God and the things of God acting foolishly while speaking in tongues.

Speaking in tongues is an incredible powerful manifestation.

"If you knew how powerful speaking in tongues is, you would do it all the time." VP Wierwille
On Pentecost, every man heard the Apostlesintheir own language. The only thing one hears in modern Pentecostal tongues is worthless noise, clanging cymbals.

StanJ
July 22nd, 2015, 02:58 PM
On Pentecost, every man heard the Apostlesintheir own language. The only thing one hears in modern Pentecostal tongues is worthless noise, clanging cymbals.

They heard what the Holy Spirit allowed them to hear. They did NOT hear the actual glossolalia.
As you obviously have never received the infilling of the Holy Spirit you wouldn't know what that spirit is.

desiringGod7
July 22nd, 2015, 03:57 PM
They heard what the Holy Spirit allowed them to hear. They did NOT hear the actual glossolalia.
As you obviously have never received the infilling of the Holy Spirit you wouldn't know what that spirit is.
Typical Pentecostal, claiming that because I do not "speak in tongues" I do not have the Spirit, or have nothing to do with Christ.

If you're claiming the Spirit allows you to hear anything besides noise while tongues are being spoken in this way, or that you are in any way edified by it, you are playing pretend.

What's really, really sad, is how many honestly confused Christians there are stuck in these Pentecostal churches, truly trying to find Christ but being led to believe that they aren't saved (at least not all the way - or "spirit-filled") because they can't honestly speak in tongues like they've been led to think every "real Christian" does. I've seen this sad situation with my own eyes, and it is a terrible shame.

So their church gives them pamphlets instructing them on how to be more "receptive" to these "gifts of the spirit", and they'll try and try again to "speak in tongues" without feeling like a fake, but they'll only be made to feel unsaved for their honesty.

The Spirit of Christ always leads us to Christ, and focuses our attention on Him, and most certainly does not focus our attention on our new talents, or even the Spirit Himself.

StanJ
July 22nd, 2015, 06:02 PM
Typical Pentecostal, claiming that because I do not "speak in tongues" I do not have the Spirit, or have nothing to do with Christ.

If you're claiming the Spirit allows you to hear anything besides noise while tongues are being spoken in this way, or that you are in any way edified by it, you are playing pretend.

What's really, really sad, is how many honestly confused Christians there are stuck in these Pentecostal churches, truly trying to find Christ but being led to believe that they aren't saved (at least not all the way - or "spirit-filled") because they can't honestly speak in tongues like they've been led to think every "real Christian" does. I've seen this sad situation with my own eyes, and it is a terrible shame.

So their church gives them pamphlets instructing them on how to be more "receptive" to these "gifts of the spirit", and they'll try and try again to "speak in tongues" without feeling like a fake, but they'll only be made to feel unsaved for their honesty.

The Spirit of Christ always leads us to Christ, and focuses our attention on Him, and most certainly does not focus our attention on our new talents, or even the Spirit Himself.


Actually I didn't say that, but as your DON'T speak in tongues, you DON'T have the infilling of the Holy Spirit, just as is clearly shown in Acts 19:1-7 (NIV)

The HOLY Spirit allows me to exercise my faith and be used in the corporate church to minster to saints and sinners.

Nobody that KNOWS the Bible, ever says not speaking in tongues equates to not being saved. Maybe people of your ilk try to prevaricate in that manner, but that is NOT what is taught in scripture. Orderly corporate use is what is taught BUT if you don't have the infilling of the Holy Spirit, and refuse to acknowledge what Paul clearly showed in Acts 19, then you WON'T understand.

Pamphlets? :loser:

The spirit of Christ is NOT the same, which you should know if you remember your Sunday School lessons? Jesus said to WAIT for the Holy Spirit. Apparently you don't believe Him either? You probably should read Rom 8:9 and 1 Peter 1:11 more thoroughly and IN context in order to understand the vernacular being used.

I always have wondered why a lot of usernames ALWAYS indicate the EXACT opposite of the person using them?

glorydaz
July 22nd, 2015, 06:15 PM
Typical Pentecostal, claiming that because I do not "speak in tongues" I do not have the Spirit, or have nothing to do with Christ.

If you're claiming the Spirit allows you to hear anything besides noise while tongues are being spoken in this way, or that you are in any way edified by it, you are playing pretend.

What's really, really sad, is how many honestly confused Christians there are stuck in these Pentecostal churches, truly trying to find Christ but being led to believe that they aren't saved (at least not all the way - or "spirit-filled") because they can't honestly speak in tongues like they've been led to think every "real Christian" does. I've seen this sad situation with my own eyes, and it is a terrible shame.

So their church gives them pamphlets instructing them on how to be more "receptive" to these "gifts of the spirit", and they'll try and try again to "speak in tongues" without feeling like a fake, but they'll only be made to feel unsaved for their honesty.

The Spirit of Christ always leads us to Christ, and focuses our attention on Him, and most certainly does not focus our attention on our new talents, or even the Spirit Himself.

:thumb:

Grosnick Marowbe
July 22nd, 2015, 06:25 PM
:thumb:

Yep

Grosnick Marowbe
July 22nd, 2015, 06:28 PM
Actually I didn't say that, but as your DON'T speak in tongues, you DON'T have the infilling of the Holy Spirit, just as is clearly shown in Acts 19:1-7 (NIV)

The HOLY Spirit allows me to exercise my faith and be used in the corporate church to minster to saints and sinners.

Nobody that KNOWS the Bible, ever says not speaking in tongues equates to not being saved. Maybe people of your ilk try to prevaricate in that manner, but that is NOT what is taught in scripture. Orderly corporate use is what is taught BUT if you don't have the infilling of the Holy Spirit, and refuse to acknowledge what Paul clearly showed in Acts 19, then you WON'T understand.

Pamphlets? :loser:

The spirit of Christ is NOT the same, which you should know if you remember your Sunday School lessons? Jesus said to WAIT for the Holy Spirit. Apparently you don't believe Him either? You probably should read Rom 8:9 and 1 Peter 1:11 more thoroughly and IN context in order to understand the vernacular being used.

I always have wondered why a lot of usernames ALWAYS indicate the EXACT opposite of the person using them?

For instance: God's Truth?

Grosnick Marowbe
July 22nd, 2015, 06:31 PM
They heard what the Holy Spirit allowed them to hear. They did NOT hear the actual glossolalia.
As you obviously have never received the infilling of the Holy Spirit you wouldn't know what that spirit is.

One is indwelt, sealed, and baptized by the Holy Spirit (not by water) into the Body
of Christ once they hear the Grace Message and place their faith
in Christ. That's how it works.

glorydaz
July 22nd, 2015, 06:32 PM
Actually I didn't say that, but as your DON'T speak in tongues, you DON'T have the infilling of the Holy Spirit, just as is clearly shown in Acts 19:1-7 (NIV)

The HOLY Spirit allows me to exercise my faith and be used in the corporate church to minster to saints and sinners.

Nobody that KNOWS the Bible, ever says not speaking in tongues equates to not being saved. Maybe people of your ilk try to prevaricate in that manner, but that is NOT what is taught in scripture. Orderly corporate use is what is taught BUT if you don't have the infilling of the Holy Spirit, and refuse to acknowledge what Paul clearly showed in Acts 19, then you WON'T understand.

Pamphlets? :loser:

The spirit of Christ is NOT the same, which you should know if you remember your Sunday School lessons? Jesus said to WAIT for the Holy Spirit. Apparently you don't believe Him either? You probably should read Rom 8:9 and 1 Peter 1:11 more thoroughly and IN context in order to understand the vernacular being used.

I always have wondered why a lot of usernames ALWAYS indicate the EXACT opposite of the person using them?

Jesus said to wait for the Spirit because Jesus had to ascend into heaven before He would come.


John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

And, of course, John's baptism is not the same as when we are baptized into Christ by the Holy Spirit. What you're suggesting is just off. It's clear the poster you are addressing had grounds for saying too many Pentecostals claim others aren't saved unless they speak in tongues. I've heard it many times myself.


Acts 19:2-4
He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

Grosnick Marowbe
July 22nd, 2015, 06:36 PM
I visited a place called "Melodyland" It was a charismatic Church in the 70s
I got water baptized there. For what I believed at the time was just to show
outwardly what happened inwardly. I know know that water baptism is
unnecessary and tongues and the other gifts are not for today.

Grosnick Marowbe
July 22nd, 2015, 06:40 PM
Jesus said to wait for the Spirit because Jesus had to ascend into heaven before He would come.


John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

And, of course, John's baptism is not the same as when we are baptized into Christ by the Holy Spirit. What you're suggesting is just off. It's clear the poster you are addressing had grounds for saying too many Pentecostals claim others aren't saved unless they speak in tongues. I've heard it many times myself.


Acts 19:2-4
He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

Amen.

glorydaz
July 22nd, 2015, 06:52 PM
One is indwelt, sealed, and baptized by the Holy Spirit (not by water) into the Body
of Christ once they hear the Grace Message and place their faith
in Christ. That's how it works.

Yep, that's how it works. :thumb:

freelight
July 22nd, 2015, 09:06 PM
The purpose of speech is to communicate, i.e., to convey my thoughts to you in a way that you can understand.

The Protestant practice of "speaking in tongues," i.e., asking God to endow them with the use of a languge that neither they nor anybody else understands, is completely contrary to the intrinsic expressiveness/communicativeness of language. In other words, the practice presupposes that God will endow you with linguistic skills stripped of their natural expressiveness, will give you a language that frustrates its own natural ends.

Two kinds of 'tongues' must be considered to exist here,...one that is 'known' of course (the many languages of man) and some that are 'unknown' (meaning not native to ordinary language of this earth-realm, being of a more 'transcendental' nature).

The language heard by foreigners on the day of Pentecost were in 'known' tongues,...but there remains the public and private use of 'tongues' in the religious/spiritual community of believers as described by Paul. This 'glossalalia' is 'spiritual' in nature/dimension, and can be given as a message to a congregation if meant to be 'interpreted' for all to understand (remember there is the gift of interpreting tongues, earthly or spiritual), or there may be times of prayer or even singing in 'tongues' in worship/praise to 'God' when one's own 'spirit' is expressing itself to the Infinite Spirit....in spiritual feelings, thoughts and intimations.

A form of this can be referred to often as one's own 'prayer language', when one's spirit prays in deep communion with Spirit. This 'language' transcends the ordinary mind, being of the spirit. It can be translated, or doesn't have to be,...being just one expressing toward or communicating with 'God'. Its a language of spiritual feeling as I describe it. (when one doesn't know how or what to pray,...the Spirit interceds with groanings....deep calls unto deep.)


As sodomy is to the sexual act and lying is to assertion, so too is speaking in tongues to language.

I find this comparison as quite extravagant....for lack of a better word at the moment :rolleyes: - it nears sacrilege. - what it comes down to is a matter of understanding...if you're looking in as an 'outsider' or are an insider having the experience.


The protestant who asks God to give them such speech asks God to pervert his own creation, and that's Satanic.

I don't follow or agree with the logic there. While some Pentecostals/charasmatics encourage people to ask for the gift or to pray in tongues (via laying on of hands, baptism in the Holy Spirit)...I think the true emphasis is being filled with the fullness of 'God'...emptying yourself to be filled with Him. Its a 'surrender' to His Spirit, will and the prophetic dimension, since 'speaking in tongues' is a kind of 'prophecy'...the bubbling forth of waters (spirit unto Spirit).

A lot of this also depends on what denomination you affiliate with and are being taught under, how they order their services, their 'conduct' (what they allow). You are responsible for your own 'speech' unto 'God', however that comes out, for his exaltation and purpose, to glorify his will in the earth. I'm sure some charismatic catholics sharing with protestant believers have also moved in this dimension of the Spirit, and function thereby, according to the Spirit's leading. Of course some human or carnal interference or distortions can enter in (we are imperfect in our flesh),....but you get back on track. I share from my own experience in the Spirit among Pentecostal/charismatic communities, and my own 'speaking in tongues' (communion in that Spirit-realm that transcends the mind). There's much more to the subject as well :)




pj

Traditio
July 23rd, 2015, 12:05 AM
Freelight is defending glossalalia. Do I really need any further argument for why the practice is ridiculous?

Traditio
July 23rd, 2015, 12:19 AM
For anyone who thinks the practice is defensible, I think that the following are compelling;

1. There is no unequivocal evidence in the Bible that promotes the practice (not in and of itself compelling).

2. The nature of the act is contrary to the purposes of language.

3. Linguists seem to be in accord in saying that glossalalia is not a legitimate act of speech. In fact, they seem to be in accord in saying that glossalalia is nothing supernatural; it's pretty much spontaneous gibberish produced by the "speaker."

4. One site I read indicates that glossalia has almost no history in Christianity prior to 1901 in Topeka, Kansas.

You would either have to brainwashed or a complete idiot, if you simply consider the evidence, to think that glossalalia is anything but a sham and delusion, of, not a divine, but a human, all too human, origin. It is little more than culturally induced mass hysteria. Nothing more.

Concerning xenoglossy: this is a biblical practice, and this is what Acts describes. But it is no longer widespread because there is no need for this, as St. Thomas Aquinas himself says. The Catholic Church already preaches throughout the world, to the many nations, in their own tongues. Widespread xenoglossy would be superfluous. Yet, God does grant this gift, in perhaps rare occassions, where necessary for the salvation of souls. Consider St. Padre Pio.

StanJ
July 23rd, 2015, 03:24 PM
Jesus said to wait for the Spirit because Jesus had to ascend into heaven before He would come.

John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
And, of course, John's baptism is not the same as when we are baptized into Christ by the Holy Spirit. What you're suggesting is just off. It's clear the poster you are addressing had grounds for saying too many Pentecostals claim others aren't saved unless they speak in tongues. I've heard it many times myself.

Acts 19:2-4
He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.


Jesus said God would send ANOTHER comforter or παράκλητος (paraklētos) John 14:16 (NIV). Jesus was the first Comforter.
He said wait for the "Comforter" or παράκλητος (paraklētos) John 16:7 (NIV)
You should be able to see the difference here?

You're right, but accepting Christ as our savior is NOT being baptized in Christ. receiving the spirit of Christ is not the same as being baptized or filled with the Holy Spirit, as I've already shown from scripture.
Some Pentecostals may say that, but they are uneducated or falsely taught, just as many Calvinists are. Doing what Paul instructs in Rom 10:9-11 means one is saved. Doing or having the Baptism of the Holy Spirit as Paul also instructed in Acts 19:1-7 is a separate and distinct event in our walk of faith.

StanJ
July 23rd, 2015, 03:26 PM
For anyone who thinks the practice is defensible, I think that the following are compelling;


Biased assertions don't really carry ANY weight here. A post with NO scripture whatsoever carries even less. Bias is clearly seen from you and THAT is your problem. I'll stick with scripture and the REALITY of the Holy Spirit in my life.

Traditio
July 23rd, 2015, 03:35 PM
Biased assertions don't really carry ANY weight here. A post with NO scripture whatsoever carries even less. Bias is clearly seen from you and THAT is your problem. I'll stick with scripture and the REALITY of the Holy Spirit in my life.

Show me biblical verses which unequivocally support the pentecostal practice. If you then appeal to the so called "reality" of the practice because of your experience, I'll appeal to the linguistics, who assert that you are just playing pretend.

Here's what I'm saying, StanJ. Why don't you give me some empirical proof, independently of your misreading of the Bible, that you are doing more than playing pretend? Give me some science. :p

Give me some kind of proof that can be accepted by someone who doesn't already believe in your pentecostal silliness.

oatmeal
July 23rd, 2015, 04:37 PM
[/B]
For instance: God's Truth?

oatmeal?

oatmeal
July 23rd, 2015, 04:40 PM
I was expecting actual answers, not just scripture quotes.

Now I understand you.

For you, scripture holds no answers.

That is evident by many of your answers that boast personal opinions instead of scripture.

"What saith the scripture?" Romans

Jeremiah 15:16

Psalm 119:130

You need to learn how to read and believe scripture.

oatmeal
July 23rd, 2015, 04:41 PM
God is right and you are wrong

Acts 2:4 is plain as day.

If you wish to reject that scripture, that is your loss

oatmeal
July 23rd, 2015, 04:42 PM
On Pentecost, every man heard the Apostlesintheir own language. The only thing one hears in modern Pentecostal tongues is worthless noise, clanging cymbals.

When you are taught God's instructions for the use of speaking in tongues, then you will realize that you had much to learn.

desiringGod7
July 23rd, 2015, 05:05 PM
When you are taught God's instructions for the use of speaking in tongues, then you will realize that you had much to learn.


Of all of the precious truth and instruction from God in His Word.. it takes a fool to take the idea speaking in tongues and to turn it into an idol, which is what has happened in many congregations.

I speak to my Lord, and he hears me. I use real words, and what I can't find words for, His Spirit inside of me searches and knows already. I would have to be a complete fool to think that by me making random sounds my lips and tongue I could do ANYTHING to add to the relationship I already have, because of what I have in Christ.

Real language is an ACTUAL gift of God. Learn to appreciate it.

Psalmist
July 23rd, 2015, 05:13 PM
Of all of the precious truth and instruction from God in His Word.. it takes a fool to take the idea speaking in tongues and to turn it into an idol, which is what has happened in many congregations.

I speak to my Lord, and he hears me. I use real words, and what I can't find words for, His Spirit inside of me searches and knows already. I would have to be a complete fool to think that by me making random sounds my lips and tongue I could do ANYTHING to add to the relationship I already have, because of what I have in Christ.

Real language is an ACTUAL gift of God. Learn to appreciate it.

Paul wrote in Romans 1:25
Who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

The creature more than the Creator ... The gift more than the giver.

Totton Linnet
July 23rd, 2015, 05:30 PM
Of all of the precious truth and instruction from God in His Word.. it takes a fool to take the idea speaking in tongues and to turn it into an idol, which is what has happened in many congregations.

I speak to my Lord, and he hears me. I use real words, and what I can't find words for, His Spirit inside of me searches and knows already. I would have to be a complete fool to think that by me making random sounds my lips and tongue I could do ANYTHING to add to the relationship I already have, because of what I have in Christ.

Real language is an ACTUAL gift of God. Learn to appreciate it.

I know folks who love speechifying so much in English it is an idol.

Paul spoke in tongues more than anyone.

desiringGod7
July 23rd, 2015, 05:31 PM
Paul wrote in Romans 1:25
Who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

The creature more than the Creator ... The gift more than the giver.

Exactly

desiringGod7
July 23rd, 2015, 05:40 PM
I know folks who love speechifying so much in English it is an idol.

Paul spoke in tongues more than anyone.
..yet he would rather speak 5 words using his mind, so that he could actually instruct and edify other Christians, than 10,000 words in tongues.

glorydaz
July 23rd, 2015, 05:41 PM
I know folks who love speechifying so much in English it is an idol.

Paul spoke in tongues more than anyone.

Paul had to speak in many foreign languages....he was the Apostle to the Gentiles after all.

oatmeal
July 23rd, 2015, 05:59 PM
..yet he would rather speak 5 words using his mind, so that he could actually instruct and edify other Christians, than 10,000 words in tongues.

Yes, in the church, in public, but in private, I Corinthians 14:18

desiringGod7
July 23rd, 2015, 06:33 PM
Yes, in the church, in public, but in private, I Corinthians 14:18
..yes, and I quoted 1 Corinthians 14:19, and in context or SHOULD help you to keep things in perspective.

To do this at home is one thing, but when a church full of people are all doing so at once, and it is celebrated as some sort of super-spurituality.. this is the problem. When people are treated as unsaved, or somehow less Christian, because of their "lack of the spirit".. this is the problem.

I already mentioned this here. In some churches, or denominations, if you're not speaking in tongues or healing achey knees you don't "have the Spirit", and most likely aren't saved.

Paul would absoluely be against this. He most certainly did not teach that every Christian would recieve each of the "gifts" he wrote about. He wrote against this idea, though that is obviously ignored by these churches.

Paul was ALWAYS more concerned about the FRUIT of the Spirit than the gifts -- there is a HUGE difference. And the FRUIT is what our Lord Himself was concerned about. If only modern Christians cared about such things..

StanJ
July 23rd, 2015, 06:44 PM
Show me biblical verses which unequivocally support the pentecostal practice. If you then appeal to the so called "reality" of the practice because of your experience, I'll appeal to the linguistics, who assert that you are just playing pretend.
Here's what I'm saying, StanJ. Why don't you give me some empirical proof, independently of your misreading of the Bible, that you are doing more than playing pretend? Give me some science.
Give me some kind of proof that can be accepted by someone who doesn't already believe in your pentecostal silliness.

As you haven't supplied anything but opinion, I see no reason to provide you with anything that you will only reject or equivocate on. IMO anyone who KNOWS God's Word knows what it says.
Your obvious vehemence and bias towards the works of the Holy Spirit is not much different than what the Pharisees did in Matthew 12

StanJ
July 23rd, 2015, 06:50 PM
Now I understand you.
For you, scripture holds no answers.
You need to learn how to read and believe scripture.

I don't think so...NOT even close.
Scripture holds ALL the answers but unless you can properly exegete them, you don't know them. Equivocators hate to commit themselves to scriptures, which is why, like you, they post them without any input as to what is actually there.
It has become more than evident in my posts with you, that I believe and can support that belief whereas you just opine with any knowledge.

Puppet
July 24th, 2015, 05:29 AM
Acts 2:4 is plain as day.

If you wish to reject that scripture, that is your loss

Yep, you got it. It is as plain as day. You're lost at understanding them cause you haven't yet been regenerated . The facts narrated in Acts necessitate the interpretation of the phrase “to speak with other tongues” to mean to speak with foreign languages. That what was spoken with tongues was intelligible to those who understood foreign languages, as appears from Acts 2:11. Therefore the speaking was not an incoherent, unintelligible rhapsody like oatmeal babbles.

iamaberean
July 24th, 2015, 08:09 AM
Of all of the precious truth and instruction from God in His Word.. it takes a fool to take the idea speaking in tongues and to turn it into an idol, which is what has happened in many congregations.

I speak to my Lord, and he hears me. I use real words, and what I can't find words for, His Spirit inside of me searches and knows already. I would have to be a complete fool to think that by me making random sounds my lips and tongue I could do ANYTHING to add to the relationship I already have, because of what I have in Christ.

Real language is an ACTUAL gift of God. Learn to appreciate it.

I did a word search on 'gift' at one point. I found that there is a difference between 'gift' and 'gifts'. The gifts(plural) are for the edification of the church, those that have been born again.

The 'gift'(singular) is clearly eternal life.
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The evidence of receiving the gift (eternal life) is speaking in tongues.

Act 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.

This is why faith is so important in being saved.
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Traditio
July 24th, 2015, 12:51 PM
As you haven't supplied anything but opinion, I see no reason to provide you with anything that you will only reject or equivocate on. IMO anyone who KNOWS God's Word knows what it says.
Your obvious vehemence and bias towards the works of the Holy Spirit is not much different than what the Pharisees did in Matthew 12

Translation: "I have no evidence for my silly beliefs to which I irrationally cling despite having no sound reasons to do so." As you were. :idunno:

desiringGod7
July 24th, 2015, 01:44 PM
I did a word search on 'gift' at one point. I found that there is a difference between 'gift' and 'gifts'. The gifts(plural) are for the edification of the church, those that have been born again.

The 'gift'(singular) is clearly eternal life.
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The evidence of receiving the gift (eternal life) is speaking in tongues.

Act 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.

This is why faith is so important in being saved.
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
..any word study (done by you, in this manner) would lead you to the same conclusion, because that's what you want it to say. But where in Acts does it say that tongues are THE proof of conversion, that will occur at EVERY conversion? It doesn't. The NT does offer some proofs of conversion (1 John, for example), but tongues are most definitely not one of them.

Two places, it mentions speaking in tongues at conversion. For every conversion where something the translators call "speaking in tongues" occurs, there are MANY others where nothing of the sort happens. So, in your mind, these are not real conversions? If it were the one sure proof of conversion, wouldn't God tell us? Wouldn't the writers include the tongues being spoken in every conversion? If that were the case, they would be.. But it's not.

Pentecostals refuse to deal with this. They cling to the two mentions of this behaviour, which were actually occurances of xenoglossy, not glossolalia (big difference), and ignore everything else. They seem to totally ignore Jesus's teaching on prayer in Matthew 6, especially where he opposes the certain Gentile method of praying which many believe to be exactly what you practice.

I imagine its because It makes them feel good in some way while they practice it, even if it's just the pride they feel from being so super "spiritual".

I've explained my opposition to this.. Tongue speakers will claim someone isn't saved, or "doesnt have the spirit" because they know they can't honestly do this and claim it is of God. They would have you think they're some kind of super-Christian, totally filled with the Spirit, but they're just playing pretend..

Totton Linnet
July 24th, 2015, 03:30 PM
..yet he would rather speak 5 words using his mind, so that he could actually instruct and edify other Christians, than 10,000 words in tongues.

I have a bible with the 1st letter of Paul to the Corinthians, I can read what Paul said. Nothing he says amounts to a prohibition on the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

"If any speak in a tongue let it be only two or three at most and let one interpret. But if no-one is there to interpret let each of them keep silence in church and speak to himself and to God.

Let two or three prophets speak and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting by let the first be silent...for you can all prophesy one by one. So that ALL may learn and ALL be encouraged."

What a church eh? no wonder they turned the world upside down. Everybody participates here.

desiringGod7
July 24th, 2015, 03:36 PM
I have a bible with the 1st letter of Paul to the Corinthians, I can read what Paul said. Nothing he says amounts to a prohibition on the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

"If any speak in a tongue let it be only two or three at most and let one interpret. But if no-one is there to interpret let each of them keep silence in church and speak to himself and to God.

Let two or three prophets speak and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting by let the first be silent...for you can all prophesy one by one. So that ALL may learn and ALL be encouraged."

What a church eh? no wonder they turned the world upside down. Everybody participates here.
Nowhere did I say he prohibited it.. I simply quoted his own words on the matter. And the words you just quoted show that he would be against a whole church full of people rambling on "in tongues" at once, with no goal accept the "feel goods" they may get from it..

Interplanner
July 24th, 2015, 03:43 PM
To all:
please remember the true purpose was a sign to unbelieving Jews that God's mission really was the message of Christ and to go the nations. That's why there are unbelieving Jews observing this happen and seeing the impact on Gentiles.

Whatever was going on at Corinth is a subjective abberation of this, and even then, Paul still tells them and quotes to them why it was happening.

The reason it would end would be that there were fewer and fewer unbelieving Jews who would need to shown that.

StanJ
July 24th, 2015, 03:58 PM
Translation: "I have no evidence for my silly beliefs to which I irrationally cling despite having no sound reasons to do so." As you were.

I just don't cast pearls before swine, bu7t feel free to prove you fallacious assertions. :loser:

StanJ
July 24th, 2015, 04:00 PM
To all:
please remember the true purpose was a sign to unbelieving Jews that God's mission really was the message of Christ and to go the nations. That's why there are unbelieving Jews observing this happen and seeing the impact on Gentiles.

Whatever was going on at Corinth is a subjective abberation of this, and even then, Paul still tells them and quotes to them why it was happening.

The reason it would end would be that there were fewer and fewer unbelieving Jews who would need to shown that.

The Church at Corinth were NOT Jews.

It was in Southern Greece.

desiringGod7
July 24th, 2015, 04:19 PM
I have a bible with the 1st letter of Paul to the Corinthians, I can read what Paul said. Nothing he says amounts to a prohibition on the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

"If any speak in a tongue let it be only two or three at most and let one interpret. But if no-one is there to interpret let each of them keep silence in church and speak to himself and to God.

Let two or three prophets speak and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting by let the first be silent...for you can all prophesy one by one. So that ALL may learn and ALL be encouraged."

What a church eh? no wonder they turned the world upside down. Everybody participates here.
..also, I've never witnessed anybody interpreting the "tongues" being spoken these days.. Why?.. because the sounds mean nothing. Why do you think Paul wanted interpreters if there were people speaking in tongues? To ensure that if it was happening, it was authentic, and useful (edifying), and to keep people from the meaningless babbling the pagans practiced long before Charismatic Christians ever did.

Like I said before, the event on the first pentecost, the "speaking in tongues" was the phenomenon known as "xenoglossy", not the meaningless pagan practice of glossolalia that charismatics practice today. If you don't know the difference, look it up, because it's important to this conversation..

Also important, glossalalia actually puts one in a mindset that is not conductive to Christian prayer or worship.

Again, try to understand.. My problem isn't that people practice it privately in prayer or worship. I don't believe at all that it's authentic, but that's not the issue.

The problem is, there are churches that ultimately turn salvation into whether or not you have been "filled with the Spirit" and received the ability to speak in tongues. It's a strange form of works righteousness when it comes down to it, but they don't see it that way.. Instead of looking to Christ for salvation, they have people looking in themselves to see if the "tongues" they're forcing out are "real" or "of the spirit. The church passes out pamphlets teaching them to do something that is supposedly a "gift of the Spirit".

There are so many true Christians who are spiritually starving to death in the very churches that are supposedly "spirit-filled", because they're not being fed what they need, which is the truth, the Gospel of Christ.

Let me apologize now, I know that I have probably come off as rude, or condescending.. I don't mean to.. It's just that I started my Christian walk in this kind of environment and have witnessed these things first hand, and it breaks my heart to know there are others where I once was with this..

I honestly, truly, speak out against this out of love for my brothers and sisters who are caught in this, thinking that God must not love them because they haven't recieved this certain gift.. But I am passionate about this, so it gets hard to keep emotions in check.

Just search yourselves. Search the Word. Search for the Truth. Seek Jesus, seek Him first, and above His gifts.

Bright Raven
July 24th, 2015, 04:21 PM
Why would anything that is attributed to being of God be stupid?

Interplanner
July 24th, 2015, 07:11 PM
The Church at Corinth were NOT Jews.

It was in Southern Greece.


That's why Paul reminds them what the purpose was. It was not needed, or very little.

there were some Jews there. Jews were all over the Med basin and rim cities. Otherwise there wouldn't be issues like ch 8 about foods, etc.

Interplanner
July 24th, 2015, 07:12 PM
Why would anything that is attributed to being of God be stupid?


1, when the attributing is inaccurate
2, when the true purpose of the thing or feature or phenomenon has been explained elsewhere and is not being done correctly

StanJ
July 24th, 2015, 08:04 PM
That's why Paul reminds them what the purpose was. It was not needed, or very little.
there were some Jews there. Jews were all over the Med basin and rim cities. Otherwise there wouldn't be issues like ch 8 about foods, etc.

You're being pretty vague here.
Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles. Rom 11:13 (NIV)
I don't know what you are referring to by chap 8....there's a lot of chapters eights.

Nick M
July 24th, 2015, 08:09 PM
The purpose of speech is to communicate, i.e., to convey my thoughts to you in a way that you can understand.

Of course it is. It was also a sign to the unbeliever that a Judean could speak his language.


The Protestant practice of "speaking in tongues,"

Whose practice?

meshak
July 24th, 2015, 08:29 PM
.

Let me apologize now, I know that I have probably come off as rude, or condescending.. I don't mean to.. It's just that I started my Christian walk in this kind of environment and have witnessed these things first hand, and it breaks my heart to know there are others where I once was with this..

I have joined and served two Pentecostal churches and witnessed shenanigan. I can confidently say they were faking.

StanJ
July 24th, 2015, 11:30 PM
I have joined and served two Pentecostal churches and witnessed shenanigan. I can confidently say they were faking.


LOL...you autta go to a few Baptist churches to see fakers.

Totton Linnet
July 25th, 2015, 06:19 AM
To all:
please remember the true purpose was a sign to unbelieving Jews that God's mission really was the message of Christ and to go the nations. That's why there are unbelieving Jews observing this happen and seeing the impact on Gentiles.

Whatever was going on at Corinth is a subjective abberation of this, and even then, Paul still tells them and quotes to them why it was happening.

The reason it would end would be that there were fewer and fewer unbelieving Jews who would need to shown that.

You need to read what Paul taught...not what others have taught you. Tongues when coupled with interpretation is to profit withal, for edifying the assembly, as with word of wisdom and knowledge or revelation or prophecy.

Moreover Paul specifically told us when the gifts would cease in the church.

"for our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect, but when the perfect is come the imperfect will pass away"

Nothing to do with the Jews.

"For now we see in a glass but darkly but then face to face, now I know in part then I shall understand fully even as I have been fully understood."

Some would have us believe that Paul was speaking about the bible....but Paul had the bible, he was the writer of a goodly piece of it.

You cain't tell me that the revelation that Paul had in his soul became more perfect when it was written down than when he was teaching and preaching it live in the very presence of God. That is daft.

As far as scripture knowledge and revelation was concerned Paul had it.

But yet he said "now we know in part, now we see partially, when the perfect is come we shall know fully, we will see face to face"


The perfect which still IS yet to come is not the scripture but what the scripture prophesys....the kingdom when we shall see the Lord face to face. Then we will all know and be known.

Totton Linnet
July 25th, 2015, 06:30 AM
I have joined and served two Pentecostal churches and witnessed shenanigan. I can confidently say they were faking.

From the great Fake herself...the widow who is not a true widow but is a busybody going from house church to house church gossiping, poking her nose in, having betrayed her first pledge she has turned back to follow satan and is captured by him to do his will.

meshak
July 25th, 2015, 06:56 AM
I have joined and served two Pentecostal churches and witnessed shenanigan. I can confidently say they were faking.

I would like to add that one is John Hagee's church who claims their church is non-denominational. The other one is Assembly of God.

Those two pastors are divorcees.

I was very new believer when I joined their churches.

I believe tongue speacking churches are one of the most disgraceful denomination.

Totton Linnet
July 25th, 2015, 06:57 AM
You are a divorcee

meshak
July 25th, 2015, 07:10 AM
Look at tongue speaking evangelists. they are shameless. And they have millions of followers.

There are tons of speaking in tongue mega churches in my neighborhood.

StanJ
July 25th, 2015, 05:20 PM
I would like to add that one is John Hagee's church who claims their church is non-denominational. The other one is Assembly of God.
Those two pastors are divorcees.
I was very new believer when I joined their churches.
I believe tongue speacking churches are one of the most disgraceful denomination.


It has been very well established that what YOU believe is of NO consequence, so don't waste the web space.

StanJ
July 25th, 2015, 05:21 PM
Look at tongue speaking evangelists. they are shameless. And they have millions of followers.

There are tons of speaking in tongue mega churches in my neighborhood.


They have more members than Baptists do.

freelight
July 25th, 2015, 07:01 PM
Freelight is defending glossalalia. Do I really need any further argument for why the practice is ridiculous?


My original post here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4393556&postcount=130) is fairly comprehensive concerning the subject, if you'd be properly informed, plus my own 'religious experience' of speaking in tongues, it being a 'language of the spirit', a language that transcends the mind. I'd go over the basics before presuming too much.

The issue is a right use and appropriation of such, within any given situation or context,....that's whats key, and was a concern for Paul which is why he gave instructions concerning their use.

The truth is more likely that you (not 'God') find the practice 'stupid' and 'annoying'. Perhaps we're super-imposing our own ego-centrities on 'God' ;)

Also, I'm not necessarily promoting or 'defending' the use of tongues, but sharing their meaning and value in the right context. This practice or any other in the arena of 'spiritual gifts' can surely be misused or abused. Our aim is to use all the tools and charismas of the Spirit to be of true service to others, which ultimately glorifies 'God'.




pj

Totton Linnet
July 26th, 2015, 05:34 AM
I would like to add that one is John Hagee's church who claims their church is non-denominational. The other one is Assembly of God.

Those two pastors are divorcees.

I was very new believer when I joined their churches.

I believe tongue speacking churches are one of the most disgraceful denomination.

To another enquirer you said you "served these churches faithfully" for several years

LIAR

They are Trinitarian, they believe in being saved...in fact there is very little that you agree with them about.

I drank what?
July 26th, 2015, 05:53 AM
...

meshak
July 26th, 2015, 05:59 AM
Speaking in tongue doctrine is abusing Paul's teachings.

What those tongue speakers are doing is nothing but harm by spreading their doctrine to the world.

It is disgraceful practice as Jesus' followers..

oatmeal
July 26th, 2015, 06:08 AM
Acts 2:4, Acts 10:46, I Corinthians 14:18

The twelve on the day of Pentecost did it.

The Gentiles of the household of Cornelius did it.

The Apostle Paul was thankful to God for it.

Speaking in tongues is good enough for the apostles and those they ministered to, it is good enough for me.

I Corinthians 14:5

Since God commands it, it is good enough for me.

meshak
July 26th, 2015, 06:14 AM
Speaking in tongues is good enough for the apostles and those they ministered to, it is good enough for me.

You have only Paul's word about speaking in tongue.

Besides, they were all speaking understandable language, not gibberish.

There were all kinds of miracles practiced by NT times. Speaking understandable foreign language was one of them.

Totton Linnet
July 26th, 2015, 06:19 AM
my wife speaks in tongues all the time, she speaks chinese to her chinese audiences and english to her english audiences.

she also doesn't waste her time on idiots who delude themselves into leading others astray concerning the topic of tongues...

if a person insists on speaking gibberish and trying to argue that brings them closer to God, leave them be, move on to people that deserve your time and effort

during the times of signs and miracles, speaking in tongues was one of their gifts. being able to speak different languages they were not taught or understood. we no longer have miracles nor the miraculous ability to speak tongues, but you can learn another language and help the lost, without miracles and without ignorance of what the scriptures say

These signs will follow those who believe...they shall speak with other tongues. Put that in yer pipe and smoke it.

oatmeal
July 26th, 2015, 06:20 AM
You have only Paul's word about speaking in tongue.

Besides, they were all speaking understandable language, not gibberish.

There were all kinds of miracles practiced by NT times. Speaking understandable foreign language was one of them.

Was Acts written by Paul?

NO, it was not.

Who is the author of scripture?

God is the sole author of scripture. II Timothy 3:16, II Peter 1:21

Including what Paul wrote and Peter wrote, both of whom spoke in tongues.

As did John, the apostle.

Why do you resist God, who is the Holy Spirit? Acts 7:51

meshak
July 26th, 2015, 06:37 AM
Was Acts written by Paul?

NO, it was not.

Who is the author of scripture?

God is the sole author of scripture. II Timothy 3:16, II Peter 1:21

Including what Paul wrote and Peter wrote, both of whom spoke in tongues.

As did John, the apostle.

Why do you resist God, who is the Holy Spirit? Acts 7:51

You can quote the scripture all you want to justify your practice. It is not rightly divided, meaning it does not harmonize with Jesus' teachings.

Christianity is all about Jesus' teachings. He taught us perfectly how to love God and one another.

If you don't think Jesus was perfect teacher of love, I cannot help you. It is your problem.

All denominations has gimmicky doctrines. Some have many and some are less. Speaking in tongue is just another one of them.

good day.

Interplanner
July 26th, 2015, 06:47 AM
These signs will follow those who believe...they shall speak with other tongues. Put that in yer pipe and smoke it.


That's a bit closer to what was intended, but the missing element would be that people from Judaism need to be shown that God's mission was to go to the nations.

So Totton, when your wife does that, are there?--are there followers of Judaism who do not think God is on a mission to the nations with the Gospel of Christ (they may think He is on a mission to the nations with the Law, both moral and ceremonial)? Because that is what Paul says it was for (I Cor 14), what Acts says it was for in 2 and 11.

I assume that she was not a Chinese speaker to begin with. But what I'm saying explains why there has been a place for Bible translation and no divine help came. As early as the Cyrillic brothers who evangelized eastern Europe from Greece to Moscow and back. They even had to form a language to commicate which is why Russian is so similar in appearance to Greek. The written language itself was the miracle, but is not what happened in Acts 2, 11 or what Paul meant in I Cor 14, when there were people from Judaism who needed to see it in action.

The issue is never treated completely until the circle is brought back to the Christian mission to the nations and whether followers of Judaism 'get it.'

Totton Linnet
July 26th, 2015, 07:02 AM
That's a bit closer to what was intended, but the missing element would be that people from Judaism need to be shown that God's mission was to go to the nations.

So Totton, when your wife does that, are there?--are there followers of Judaism who do not think God is on a mission to the nations with the Gospel of Christ (they may think He is on a mission to the nations with the Law, both moral and ceremonial)? Because that is what Paul says it was for (I Cor 14), what Acts says it was for in 2 and 11.

I assume that she was not a Chinese speaker to begin with. But what I'm saying explains why there has been a place for Bible translation and no divine help came. As early as the Cyrillic brothers who evangelized eastern Europe from Greece to Moscow and back. They even had to form a language to commicate which is why Russian is so similar in appearance to Greek. The written language itself was the miracle, but is not what happened in Acts 2, 11 or what Paul meant in I Cor 14, when there were people from Judaism who needed to see it in action.

The issue is never treated completely until the circle is brought back to the Christian mission to the nations and whether followers of Judaism 'get it.'

Jesus said of the Jews "an evil and adulterous generation seeketh a sign and no sign shall be given it"

These signs shall follow them that BELIEVE, so tongues are for believers not for unbelievers...so also Paul teaches.

Paul taught that tongues when coupled with the gift of interpretation was for edification...to profit withal.

The Jews seek for a sign [and none shall be given them] and Greeks seek after wisdom but we preach Christ crucified the power of God.

oatmeal
July 26th, 2015, 07:15 AM
You can quote the scripture all you want to justify your practice. It is not rightly divided, meaning it does not harmonize with Jesus' teachings.

Christianity is all about Jesus' teachings. He taught us perfectly how to love God and one another.

If you don't think Jesus was perfect teacher of love, I cannot help you. It is your problem.

All denominations has gimmicky doctrines. Some have many and some are less. Speaking in tongue is just another one of them.

good day.

Evidently, you have not read Mark 16:17, words that Jesus spoke.

There are those "Pentecostals" who have outrageously abused the manifestation of speaking in tongues.

For those who do not know that they do abuse it, their ungodly antics would tend to freak people out and conclude that speaking in tongues is not for them.

However, we must separate the baby from the bath water.

We do not throw out the scriptures because some have not lived up to all its teachings do we?

We do not say marriage is a stupid practice and annoys God because many get divorced.

We do not say that keeping God's commandments is wrong because some people mock God and completely reject His word.

We do not throw out Jesus' teachings just because he died a criminal's death.

We do not throw out the Psalms because David was a polygamist which violates God's one husband one wife commandment.

Speaking in tongues is prayer, we do not pray out loud in public, but we do in a meeting of believers, but we can pray to God within ourselves all we want to. I Corinthians 14:14-15

I Corinthians 12-14 gives great detailed instructions on the use of the manifestations of speaking in tongues, the interpretation of tongues and prophecy.

Most "Pentecostals" do not bother with learning those truths to their detriment for their ungodly practices while speaking in tongues mocks God and the manifestations that God enabled believers to do and profit by. I Corinthians 12:7-11

Interplanner
July 26th, 2015, 07:31 AM
Jesus said of the Jews "an evil and adulterous generation seeketh a sign and no sign shall be given it"

These signs shall follow them that BELIEVE, so tongues are for believers not for unbelievers...so also Paul teaches.

Paul taught that tongues when coupled with the gift of interpretation was for edification...to profit withal.

The Jews seek for a sign [and none shall be given them] and Greeks seek after wisdom but we preach Christ crucified the power of God.



He said it was a sign for unbelievers (14:22), and the quote from Isaiah and the events of Acts (Peter's doubts) means it is for those raised in Judaism.

The issue is not treated properly until it is related to unbelieving Judaism followers who need to see that God really was going to the nations with the message of Christ.

Whatever variation there was at Corinth does not matter; Paul still corrects them with the above treatment.

Totton Linnet
July 29th, 2015, 03:20 AM
He said it was a sign for unbelievers (14:22), and the quote from Isaiah and the events of Acts (Peter's doubts) means it is for those raised in Judaism.

The issue is not treated properly until it is related to unbelieving Judaism followers who need to see that God really was going to the nations with the message of Christ.

Whatever variation there was at Corinth does not matter; Paul still corrects them with the above treatment.

So if there are still any unbelievers, any unbelieving Jews....they still need a sign right?

Totton Linnet
July 29th, 2015, 03:27 AM
Look at tongue speaking evangelists. they are shameless. And they have millions of followers.

There are tons of speaking in tongue mega churches in my neighborhood.

That's because they are soulwinners...a sure sign that God is in it.

Totton Linnet
July 29th, 2015, 03:29 AM
I would like to add that one is John Hagee's church who claims their church is non-denominational. The other one is Assembly of God.

Those two pastors are divorcees.

I was very new believer when I joined their churches.

I believe tongue speacking churches are one of the most disgraceful denomination.

Shameless liar

There is not one line of Pentecostal doctrine you agree with.

You do not believe the Person of the Holy Spirit
You do not believe Christ is God.

Why do you tell such lies?

Psalmist
December 10th, 2015, 06:22 PM
Shameless liar

There is not one line of Pentecostal doctrine you agree with.

You do not believe the Person of the Holy Spirit
You do not believe Christ is God.

Why do you tell such lies?


T/L, this what I think about lies and the Holy Spirit

When they begin to speak against the Holy Spirit, I believe they are walking on dangerous ground, believer and non-believer alike, we read in --

Matthew 12:32 "Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come."

It matters not what I say, but what Jesus said.

oatmeal
December 10th, 2015, 07:26 PM
A single verse taken out of context in which St. Paul offers pretty much no explanation.

Except for I Corinthians 12-14

oatmeal
December 10th, 2015, 07:27 PM
Out of context. Read the whole passage.

Since it was good enough for the apostles, it is good enough for me!

RBBI
December 10th, 2015, 11:01 PM
As usual, the old saying that those that CAN'T, teach, is alive and well. The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord. The tongues of FIRE come upon the head to LIGHT THE CANDLE.

It was not an option, to those that think they are wiser than HaShem. It's part of Yeshua reversing the curses, including the one about confusing the languages. Tongues is the spirit of man praying while under the authority of the Holy Spirit, who prays through the man.

Rivers of living water come out of his belly, because the spirit is as a cistern, and eventually waters in cistern become stagnant and dead, if they are not moving.

As for the whole interpreter argument, there is a prayer language which EVERY believer is entitled to as part of the covenant, but there is ALSO a GIFT OF TONGUES AND INTERPRETATION. Not the same thing, nor does it work the same way.

It is the PUBLIC gift, that wins souls, because the interpretation given is usually for that body, or for an individual in the body, or even for a first time visitor as I saw it once. She was from the Ukraine, visiting, and a pastor who was also visiting that church, got the tongues and interpretation. She went up to him later and asked him if he had spent time in the Ukraine, because he was speaking her dialect, in the interpretation. THAT'S what shakes people up and wins souls.

No good man would have a child then never speak to it again. Is man more righteous than HaShem? Of course not. He's not dumb, He still speaks today.

But those that are blinded by Satan do Satan's works, making Him deaf, dumb, blind, and lame, just like they are. They are just like Adamah in the garden, running from the voice of HaShem, which is why they don't want Him to speak and uncover their sins. Peace

freelight
December 11th, 2015, 01:36 AM
As usual, the old saying that those that CAN'T, teach, is alive and well. The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord. The tongues of FIRE come upon the head to LIGHT THE CANDLE.

It was not an option, to those that think they are wiser than HaShem. It's part of Yeshua reversing the curses, including the one about confusing the languages. Tongues is the spirit of man praying while under the authority of the Holy Spirit, who prays through the man.

Rivers of living water come out of his belly, because the spirit is as a cistern, and eventually waters in cistern become stagnant and dead, if they are not moving.


Amen.

When heart, mind and spirit are in the current of God....naturally there is an overflow of creative expression (logos) rising from one's spirit to the great infinite Spirit.

My commentary here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4396675&postcount=174) holds :)

Crucible
December 11th, 2015, 02:03 AM
Nobody in the 1st World is speaking real tongues. This society is so far away from the original Christians who did such that it's not even amusing to see others do it.

It's rather frustrating, seeing modern gentry try to do what the poor and persecuted did in the first centuries, when God was powerfully and explicitly among them. Peter cast out demons with his shadow, now a priest often kills the possessed- these things simply aren't common among gentry today.

We all know they are lying to themselves and then lying to other people about it, making spectacles of their selves. And, that is, by definition, blasphemy.

Psalmist
December 11th, 2015, 10:11 AM
Nobody in the 1st World is speaking real tongues. This society is so far away from the original Christians who did such that it's not even amusing to see others do it.

It's rather frustrating, seeing modern gentry try to do what the poor and persecuted did in the first centuries, when God was powerfully and explicitly among them. Peter cast out demons with his shadow, now a priest often kills the possessed- these things simply aren't common among gentry today.

We all know they are lying to themselves and then lying to other people about it, making spectacles of their selves. And, that is, by definition, blasphemy.


The upper room experience.
Unknown tongues (language)

These things are not common today.
Something else may be being sought.

It has been said that if you say it long enough them it not happen.

Some say it ceased around Acts 8-9. I've not been given a chapter or verse on the ceasing matter that would bear record to it ceasing.

I'm going to do some further checking on the matter.

Totton Linnet
December 11th, 2015, 10:20 AM
Nobody in the 1st World is speaking real tongues. This society is so far away from the original Christians who did such that it's not even amusing to see others do it.

It's rather frustrating, seeing modern gentry try to do what the poor and persecuted did in the first centuries, when God was powerfully and explicitly among them. Peter cast out demons with his shadow, now a priest often kills the possessed- these things simply aren't common among gentry today.

We all know they are lying to themselves and then lying to other people about it, making spectacles of their selves. And, that is, by definition, blasphemy.

We are not afraid to be made spectacles.....you are of the same frame of mind as the 1st century scoffers. When they saw and heard the disciples they laughed and said they were drunk.

So WE are among those who do speak with tongues and YOU are among the mockers

Crucible
December 11th, 2015, 10:47 AM
We are not afraid to be made spectacles.....you are of the same frame of mind as the 1st century scoffers. When they saw and heard the disciples they laughed and said they were drunk.

So WE are among those who do speak with tongues and YOU are among the mockers

No, I'm just right.

A person who speaks real tongues wouldn't just go home and watch football. The early Christians were receiving miracles profound enough for them to take crucifixion with confidence, and tongues were among them.

People in the 1st World aren't experiencing that. Taking decorations off of Starbucks cups is a persecution to Christians now, you think God is really performing these things?

Totton Linnet
December 11th, 2015, 01:14 PM
What are you grumbling about? tongues? football? starbucks? what?

RBBI
December 11th, 2015, 01:34 PM
Nobody in the 1st World is speaking real tongues. This society is so far away from the original Christians who did such that it's not even amusing to see others do it.

It's rather frustrating, seeing modern gentry try to do what the poor and persecuted did in the first centuries, when God was powerfully and explicitly among them. Peter cast out demons with his shadow, now a priest often kills the possessed- these things simply aren't common among gentry today.

We all know they are lying to themselves and then lying to other people about it, making spectacles of their selves. And, that is, by definition, blasphemy.

Blasphemy is calling the works of the Spirit, the works of the devil. You seem to be cruising along the edge of that cliff. Stiff necked beasts, speaking about that which they know not. Peace

Crucible
December 11th, 2015, 01:37 PM
Blasphemy is calling the works of the Spirit, the works of the devil. You seem to cruising along the edge of that cliff. Peace

Rejecting the notion of people speaking in tongues is not 'blasphemy of the Spirit'. Speaking in tongues largely went out in the 1st centuries and was resurrected by modern, charismatic eccentricity.

If you aren't going through Stigmata or otherwise a profound miracle, don't tell me I'm essentially going to Hell for not believing that a bunch of oddballs are speaking in tongues. The early Christians were saturated by the Spirit, as Christ was just around. These miracles had them be crucified with confidence. Spare me the idea that this sort of profoundness is happening in all these churches.

RBBI
December 11th, 2015, 01:40 PM
The upper room experience.
Unknown tongues (language)

These things are not common today.
Something else may be being sought.

It has been said that if you say it long enough them it not happen.

Some say it ceased around Acts 8-9. I've not been given a chapter or verse on the ceasing matter that would bear record to it ceasing.

I'm going to do some further checking on the matter.

Check all you want. It didn't cease, it says the gift is to all those the Lord shall call, even to those that are afar off. You're called, aren't you???

As further proof it didn't, that would mean there that HaShem is a respecter of persons, having parts of covenant for the first century Christians, and less for us. He's not.

Ignorance, unbelief, fear, unforgiveness, and pride. These are what stop tongues from manifesting; not that it "ceased". Peace

RBBI
December 11th, 2015, 01:46 PM
Rejecting the notion of people speaking in tongues is not 'blasphemy of the Spirit'. Speaking in tongues largely went out in the 1st centuries and was resurrected by modern, charismatic eccentricity.

If you aren't going through Stigmata or otherwise a profound miracle, don't tell me I'm essentially going to Hell for not believing that a bunch of oddballs are speaking in tongues.

Odd that none of the first century Christians reported having stigmatas. Hmm. Wonder why that is. :devil:

I've had several profound miracles, but tongues is not technically what I would classify a miracle, since it's for EVERY believer.

And I didn't say you were going to hell. I said you were close to blasphemy, since tongues is the Spirit praying through an individual. Your saving grace is, you don't know it, and we're only held accountable for what we know, and that by the Spirit. Should you humble yourself to receive, you won't be able to beg for mercy fast enough. Peace

Psalmist
December 11th, 2015, 02:07 PM
Check all you want. It didn't cease, it says the gift is to all those the Lord shall call, even to those that are afar off. You're called, aren't you???

As further proof it didn't, that would mean there that HaShem is a respecter of persons, having parts of covenant for the first century Christians, and less for us. He's not.

Ignorance, unbelief, fear, unforgiveness, and pride. These are what stop tongues from manifesting; not that it "ceased". Peace

Hey you, RBB!, did I say it ceased? No. I believe it has not ceased, but it will at some point when that which is in part will become fully know, there are somethings that are mystery, tongues, tongues and the interpretation and will remain that way until the He thinks it is time for the mystery to be revealed.

I'm going to do some further checking on the matter of this has to do to see who else says that it ceased.

RBBI
December 11th, 2015, 02:20 PM
You have only Paul's word about speaking in tongue.

Besides, they were all speaking understandable language, not gibberish.

There were all kinds of miracles practiced by NT times. Speaking understandable foreign language was one of them.

Now see, this is one of the assumptions people make that have no clue as to what was really happening in Acts 2 because they themselves have never experienced it, yet they feel they qualify as teachers to those of us who have.

The language was not understandable with the human minds of those present. Scholars have said there probably was 18 different countries present that day since there were Jews there from all nations to obey the commandment to assemble in Jerusalem on Pentecost.

That means, for them to exclaim they all understood it in THEIR OWN language, NOT 18 languages were being spoken, but rather they all received the gift of interpretation by the Spirit, at the same time the others speaking, received tongues, and so BY THE SPIRIT, they all were able to SPIRITUALLY hear the translation of what was spoken in a heavenly (and thus unknown to them) SINGLE language. And so, it was a TWO PART miracle or sorts, both speaking AND hearing taking place.

As someone who has experienced both, you hear with your natural ears whatever syllables are being spoken, but you hear with the spiritual ear, the translation.

See, HaShem was tired of the priests (only they had the scrolls) keeping the truth to themselves and speaking whatever they preferred to, to the masses.

As a matter of fact, He's pretty tired of the same thing going on today, as the pastors give THEIR interpretation of what He means, oft times because their interpretation equates to self gain for them (vain glory spirit).

You know, things like, "God said to give me 8 million dollars or I'm going to die", or "God said if you don't tithe 100 dollars today you're going to miss your blessing." Whereas it's seriously unlikely God said any of it, particularly since they conveniently forget to mention that the tithe was OT and it was AGRICULTURAL. But you know how it is when you want that bigger building, bigger parking lot, more programs, ect., having also forgotten the oil is supposed to flow from the HEAD down to the FEET, not the other way around. But I digress....Peace

RBBI
December 11th, 2015, 02:21 PM
Hey you, RBB!, did I say it ceased? No. I believe it has not ceased, but it will at some point when that which is in part will become fully know, there are somethings that are mystery, tongues, tongues and the interpretation and will remain that way until the He thinks it is time for the mystery to be revealed.

I'm going to do some further checking on the matter of this has to do to see who else says that it ceased.

Ok, my apology if I misunderstood you.....carry on.....:)

False Prophet
December 11th, 2015, 09:05 PM
Speaking in tongues should be followed by an interpretation.

RBBI
December 12th, 2015, 02:04 PM
Once again, that is erroneous, and it's obvious you don't have it, or you would know how it works, so why attempt to teach what you do not know? Don't you realize you are held accountable for what you teach?

The GIFT OF TONGUES AND INTERPRETATION is when an interpretation follows. A prayer language is given to all who will humble themselves to receive it, it's a free gift and part of the covenant. No interpretation is needed because that is the PRIVATE gift, while the other one, is the PUBLIC gift.

How exactly do you think He accomplishes: you need not that any man should teach you, but the SPIRIT shall teach you and lead you into all truth? Your spirit is released to flow out of you, instead of being welled up inside you, and it is a sure sign that He is risen!

His body is not dead, it speaks, teaches, walks over high places, prays, heals, hears and works. This is why it says the Holy Ghost does the works. THESE ARE the works. Peace

Interplanner
December 12th, 2015, 10:16 PM
This entire question has to do with the mission to the nations by former members of Judaism. It was the sign to them that the mission was for real, had a compelling message in Christ, etc. That's why when the tongues events happen in Acts, it is the notice of this to members of Judaism that matters so much. And why Paul quote Isaiah about it in I cor 14.

There was some more self-absorbed experience going on at Corinth , and Paul didn't think much of it. It was subjective. He tried to get them back to the thing which it demonstrates to Jews about the mission of the Gospel to the nations. It 'undoes' what happened at Babel where the nations were closed off from each other by God due to a self-worshipping mindset. The Gospel comes and is 'broadcast' by God in all languages because it honors and glorifies Christ.

RBBI
December 13th, 2015, 05:45 AM
What the men said they heard was the Spirit exalting HaShem. This is how we are to test the spirits, because the spirit always exalts the one who sent it. In this case, HaShem. And as Cornelius proved, it didn't have a thing to do with the Jews only, the gifts are given to ALL men under the covenant. His Spirit being poured out on the gentiles, was in fact, HOW they knew that the gentiles had been included, which is stated.

HaShem stopped what was happening at Babel, because it was trying to ascend via works of flesh. This is why the Holy Ghost does the works today, as Yeshua came to reverse all the curses, including the one at Babel.

What Paul was trying to do, was bring order to a body that had received gifts and didn't yet understand order, particularly the women, who were always muzzled before. They now discovered via the Spirit and the speaking gifts, that they too could speak in assembly and had a purpose, and no doubt were over the top with their newfound status.

What they couldn't do was all speak at once, and they no doubt had the same confusion over what was their prayer language and what was the gift of tongues WITH interpretation, which is why Paul goes to such lengths to explain it.

There is not one covenant for first century Christians and one for us. There is not one covenant for first century Jews and another for gentiles. God is no respecter of persons. Peace

1Mind1Spirit
December 13th, 2015, 08:50 AM
What the men said they heard was the Spirit exalting HaShem. This is how we are to test the spirits, because the spirit always exalts the one who sent it. In this case, HaShem. And as Cornelius proved, it didn't have a thing to do with the Jews only, the gifts are given to ALL men under the covenant. His Spirit being poured out on the gentiles, was in fact, HOW they knew that the gentiles had been included, which is stated.

HaShem stopped what was happening at Babel, because it was trying to ascend via works of flesh. This is why the Holy Ghost does the works today, as Yeshua came to reverse all the curses, including the one at Babel.

What Paul was trying to do, was bring order to a body that had received gifts and didn't yet understand order, particularly the women, who were always muzzled before. They now discovered via the Spirit and the speaking gifts, that they too could speak in assembly and had a purpose, and no doubt were over the top with their newfound status.

What they couldn't do was all speak at once, and they no doubt had the same confusion over what was their prayer language and what was the gift of tongues WITH interpretation, which is why Paul goes to such lengths to explain it.

There is not one covenant for first century Christians and one for us. There is not one covenant for first century Jews and another for gentiles. God is no respecter of persons. Peace

My friend, tongues are not for all believers.

The glaring omission in your posts is, what is to be done when the whole congregation is assembled.

That being Prophecy, tongues, interpretation, and women keeping silent.

Now keep still one more moment and let make clear why part of your posts are true.

There should be one church in small towns, there should be one church in every numbered neighborhood in a big city.

I know of no such place where the whole congregation in a specific region assembles together, do you?


What passes for congregations are merely small separated segments of neighbors.


While these meetings are alright, for in them one person may lead, women may speak, tongue talking, interpretations , prophecy is done.

A steady diet of these meetings, while forsaking the assembly of the whole believing neighborhood, is exactly what we are not to be doing.


I'm gonna stop right here and let this sink in awhile.

If any man be spiritual let him acknowledge these things are the commandments of the Lord.


Even though the Corinthians were carnal and dividing into factions, the whole congregation were still assembling.


I'd say that that was a purdy big one, as Jesus told Paul, don't be afraid for I have much people in this city.

Interplanner
December 13th, 2015, 08:53 AM
who is HaShem?

Interplanner
December 13th, 2015, 08:55 AM
My friend, tongues are not for all believers.

The glaring omission in your posts is, what is to be done when the whole congregation is assembled.


Prophecy, tongues, interpretation, and women keeping silent.

Now keep still one more moment and let make clear why part of your posts are true.

There should be one church in small towns, there should be one church in every numbered neighborhood in a big city.

I know of no such place where the whole congregation in a specific region assembles together, do you?


What passes for congregations are merely small separated segments of neighbors.


While these meetings are alright, for in them one person may lead, women may speak, tongue talking, interpretations , prophecy is done.


However a steady diet of these meetings, while forsaking the assembly of the whole believing neighborhood, is exactly what we are not to be doing.


I'm gonna stop right here and let this sink in awhile.

If any man be spiritual let him acknowledge these things are the commandments of the Lord.


Even though the Corinthians were carnal and dividing into factions, the whole congregation were still assembling.


I'd say that that was a purdy big one, as Jesus told Paul, don't be afraid for I have much people in this city.



the only reason for the tongues of Acts was to show to followers of Judaism that the Messianic mission and message had started. The subjective thing going on at Corinth was a one-off and Paul did try to get them back to the view of the Isaiah passage that he quoted there, which is about the Messianic gospel going to the nations through people like him.

1Mind1Spirit
December 13th, 2015, 09:13 AM
the only reason for the tongues of Acts was to show to followers of Judaism that the Messianic mission and message had started. The subjective thing going on at Corinth was a one-off and Paul did try to get them back to the view of the Isaiah passage that he quoted there, which is about the Messianic gospel going to the nations through people like him.

Yes, tongues were for a sign.

However that was not the only reason for them.

I'd say the words spoken in them tongues, um hum, cough, the actual message was a very real reason.:)

patrick jane
December 13th, 2015, 09:32 AM
Yes, tongues were for a sign.

However that was not the only reason for them.

I'd say the words spoken in them tongues, um hum, cough, the actual message was a very real reason.:)

tongue thrashing

RBBI
December 13th, 2015, 12:53 PM
My friend, tongues are not for all believers.

The glaring omission in your posts is, what is to be done when the whole congregation is assembled.

That being Prophecy, tongues, interpretation, and women keeping silent.

Now keep still one more moment and let make clear why part of your posts are true.

There should be one church in small towns, there should be one church in every numbered neighborhood in a big city.

I know of no such place where the whole congregation in a specific region assembles together, do you?


What passes for congregations are merely small separated segments of neighbors.


While these meetings are alright, for in them one person may lead, women may speak, tongue talking, interpretations , prophecy is done.

A steady diet of these meetings, while forsaking the assembly of the whole believing neighborhood, is exactly what we are not to be doing.


I'm gonna stop right here and let this sink in awhile.

If any man be spiritual let him acknowledge these things are the commandments of the Lord.


Even though the Corinthians were carnal and dividing into factions, the whole congregation were still assembling.


I'd say that that was a purdy big one, as Jesus told Paul, don't be afraid for I have much people in this city.

I don't see any glaring omission, we were discussing the speaking gifts primarily. And yes, my friend, tongues are part of the covenant, and as such they are for whosoever is part of His body, which is SPIRIT. He is not dumb, He speaks.

Now I hope I'm understanding your point here, because it's a foreign concept to me. What passes for congregations ARE congregations as long as Yeshua is in the individuals, they are part of His body, a SPIRITUAL work, that has nothing to do with fleshly numbers in a single location.

What you have in all towns and cities is what you have the world over: two many-membered bodies, one Adam, one the Seed, the son of HaShem.

Remember we have a sure witness which was not tampered with by men because they didn't know what it revealed, ie. the Tabernacle of Moses. So let's compare the pattern to the spiritual, comparing spiritual things with spiritual things, as Hebrews 9 tells us it is the pattern of the heavenly, or spiritual things. Truly they shall have no excuse.

On the day of atonement a ram was to be taken for sacrifice. It was to be cut up into pieces at the joints (not a bone of His was broken), and then the skin was removed. It was then to be put on the altar, the HEAD which left the body first, also put on the altar first, and then the other pieces of the body positioned so that they did not touch, and the fire came up between the pieces.

What actually is happening when someone is baptized in the Holy Ghost which comes as TONGUES of fire, is a piece of Adam is beginning to be stripped of flesh, and "he" is added to HIS body via the baptism of fire, which is a covering.

That's what baptism IS, a covering. The fire was to be between the joints for this reason, because that which every JOINT is to supply is His love (His Spirit IS love), and no greater love has any man than this, that he lay down his life for his friend, and allow the Spirit to have the preeminence.

So my friend, by saying that the baptism of fire with the accompanying witness sign of the resurrection, ie. tongues, a heavenly language (we are seated in HEAVENLY PLACES with Him via this) is not for all believers, you are saying that not all need to lay their lives on the altar, be stripped of flesh, and be consumed by the fire of His Spirit. Our HaShem is a CONSUMING FIRE, and this is how He consumes the offering, ie. US.

As for women being silent it was for the reasons I said, and spiritually the pattern is that He doesn't want anyone to speak out of their own soulish flesh, but rather BY and THROUGH His Spirit. That being said, unfortunately there are "women" speaking all the time, and they don't all have natural wombs, and someone walking in the authority of HaShem could easily tell them to be silent as well and be scripturally correct by the Spirit and not the letter. :)

This is the pattern and it cannot be broken and is not subject to the will nor whims of men. We are all supposed to be walking from the outer court experience into the Holy of Holies experience, and you can't get there by bypassing the inner court experience.

As for assembling, it is a necessary step in the inner court in part realm of Pentecost. Tabernacles is another subject, for there you learn that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. Peace

1Mind1Spirit
December 13th, 2015, 03:26 PM
I don't see any glaring omission, we were discussing the speaking gifts primarily. And yes, my friend, tongues are part of the covenant, and as such they are for whosoever is part of His body, which is SPIRIT. He is not dumb, He speaks.

Now I hope I'm understanding your point here, because it's a foreign concept to me. What passes for congregations ARE congregations as long as Yeshua is in the individuals, they are part of His body, a SPIRITUAL work, that has nothing to do with fleshly numbers in a single location.

What you have in all towns and cities is what you have the world over: two many-membered bodies, one Adam, one the Seed, the son of HaShem.

Remember we have a sure witness which was not tampered with by men because they didn't know what it revealed, ie. the Tabernacle of Moses. So let's compare the pattern to the spiritual, comparing spiritual things with spiritual things, as Hebrews 9 tells us it is the pattern of the heavenly, or spiritual things. Truly they shall have no excuse.

On the day of atonement a ram was to be taken for sacrifice. It was to be cut up into pieces at the joints (not a bone of His was broken), and then the skin was removed. It was then to be put on the altar, the HEAD which left the body first, also put on the altar first, and then the other pieces of the body positioned so that they did not touch, and the fire came up between the pieces.

What actually is happening when someone is baptized in the Holy Ghost which comes as TONGUES of fire, is a piece of Adam is beginning to be stripped of flesh, and "he" is added to HIS body via the baptism of fire, which is a covering.

That's what baptism IS, a covering. The fire was to be between the joints for this reason, because that which every JOINT is to supply is His love (His Spirit IS love), and no greater love has any man than this, that he lay down his life for his friend, and allow the Spirit to have the preeminence.

So my friend, by saying that the baptism of fire with the accompanying witness sign of the resurrection, ie. tongues, a heavenly language (we are seated in HEAVENLY PLACES with Him via this) is not for all believers, you are saying that not all need to lay their lives on the altar, be stripped of flesh, and be consumed by the fire of His Spirit. Our HaShem is a CONSUMING FIRE, and this is how He consumes the offering, ie. US.

As for women being silent it was for the reasons I said, and spiritually the pattern is that He doesn't want anyone to speak out of their own soulish flesh, but rather BY and THROUGH His Spirit. That being said, unfortunately there are "women" speaking all the time, and they don't all have natural wombs, and someone walking in the authority of HaShem could easily tell them to be silent as well and be scripturally correct by the Spirit and not the letter. :)

This is the pattern and it cannot be broken and is not subject to the will nor whims of men. We are all supposed to be walking from the outer court experience into the Holy of Holies experience, and you can't get there by bypassing the inner court experience.

As for assembling, it is a necessary step in the inner court in part realm of Pentecost. Tabernacles is another subject, for there you learn that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. Peace



No, I'm not lettin' you off the hook like that.

You don't get to switch gears on me in mid stride.

The whole church being come together has rules to go by, for these customs and traditions done in the visible meeting represent what is done in the believer when his/her inner self is controlled by Christ.


An assembly following these commands edifies all the members, and unbelievers will fall on their face and declare God is in them.

Those who have experienced these things spiritually, should have no problem obeying them physically in a neighborhood assembly.

RBBI
December 13th, 2015, 08:14 PM
First of all, there is no "hook" I'm trying to get off of. I think we're having a misunderstanding of words, perhaps? I don't know what your "beef" is with what I said. I THOUGHT you were saying not everyone should have tongues, as a prayer language, period. THAT is what I was defending, not the gift of tongues and interpretation's operation within an assembly, which is a public gift. See? Peace

1Mind1Spirit
December 13th, 2015, 10:07 PM
First of all, there is no "hook" I'm trying to get off of. I think we're having a misunderstanding of words, perhaps? I don't know what your "beef" is with what I said. I THOUGHT you were saying not everyone should have tongues, as a prayer language, period. THAT is what I was defending, not the gift of tongues and interpretation's operation within an assembly, which is a public gift. See? Peace


I gotcha now.

I also thought you were being exclusionary.

That being said, let me throw out there how the inner man can experience the congregation.

Would it not be when Christ surrounds us with the cloud of witnesses?

Spirits of just men made perfect.


10For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings. 11For both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one Father; for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren, 12saying, "I WILL PROCLAIM YOUR NAME TO MY BRETHREN, IN THE MIDST OF THE CONGREGATION I WILL SING YOUR PRAISE."…

RBBI
December 14th, 2015, 12:10 PM
I gotcha now.

I also thought you were being exclusionary.

That being said, let me throw out there how the inner man can experience the congregation.

Would it not be when Christ surrounds us with the cloud of witnesses?

Spirits of just men made perfect.


10For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings. 11For both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one Father; for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren, 12saying, "I WILL PROCLAIM YOUR NAME TO MY BRETHREN, IN THE MIDST OF THE CONGREGATION I WILL SING YOUR PRAISE."…

I knew we had to be talking past one another somehow. Not exclusionary, just making everything according to the pattern, bro.

Amen to your last comment. Sort of why I said in Tabernacles you learn that to be absent from the BODY (not your body) is to be present with the Lord (and His cloud of witnesses). Only one can go in at a time into the Holy of Holies. Peace