ECT Speaking in tongues

[lifeisgood]

Hasn't Paul been dead what? About 2000 years?

Tell me

what is the length of this time of this

"The Dispensation of Grace."

Then no grace for you, Knott?

 

[lifeisgood]

It has ended.

So, no grace for you, Knott?

 

[Kott]

If you have been baptized with the Holy Spirit after you have been saved, then you know the difference.

The Holy Spirit always glorifies Christ Jesus, other spirits do not. Don't you remember John saying that we are to test the spirits? I mean, 'cmon I would assume you would know that.

Mark
Chapter 5
6 But when he saw Jesus afar off,
he ran and worshipped him,
7 And cried with a loud voice,
and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus,
thou Son of the most high God?
I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.
8 For he said unto him, Come out of the man,
thou unclean spirit.
9 And he asked him, What is thy name?
And he answered, saying, My name is Legion:
for we are many.
10 And he besought him much that he would
not send them away out of the country.

I mean, 'cmon I would assume you would know that.

 

[Kott]

Most everything you post on here is false
to some degree or another.

And your innuendos are wanting greatly in the balance.

 

[Danoh]

Mark
Chapter 5
6 But when he saw Jesus afar off,
he ran and worshipped him,
7 And cried with a loud voice,
and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus,
thou Son of the most high God?
I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.
8 For he said unto him, Come out of the man,
thou unclean spirit.
9 And he asked him, What is thy name?
And he answered, saying, My name is Legion:
for we are many.
10 And he besought him much that he would
not send them away out of the country.

One might say that guy had Legionaire's Disease :chuckle:

 

[steko]

Ok - you don't speak or pray in Pentecostal type tongues - incoherent sounds?




Jesus is not a "translation" of Yeshua. It is a transliteration. That means that if a group of people cannot sound out a word in their language they substitute the letter forming the closet sound. The reason the Greeks used IESOUS is because they could not pronounce the "yeh" or "sh" sounds and so substituted "ie" and "sous" sounds represented by the English letters, IESOUS. Latin is IESUS. Old English, as we find in the 1300, 1500 and 1600 translations used IESUS. The "I" slowly morphed into the harder French "J" sound which is how we got JESUS. It was not a conspiracy to make Jesus a white golden haired Son of God and forget His Jewish birth :crackup:

Secondly, the Hebrew name of Jesus is not "yahshuah". You have two big problems with that "name". First, the theophoric element of "YH" is never pronounced as "yah" at the beginning of a word or name. Which is why a name like Joshua is pronounced as YEHoshua. The "yah" sound is only used on the end of names like "Eliyahu" or "Yermeyahu" or as a stand alone Name - as shown in the OT as YAH.

Second, the "hey" at the end of "yeshuah" is the feminie verb, salvation. The Name of Yeshua is the masculine Name of Yeshua meaning God saves or He is salvation. Yeshua is the shortened form of Yehoshua [Joshua] used later in the OT. It appears in the OT around 30-40 times as "Jeshua" in most English Bibles.

The same thing goes for the YHWH. It is not Yahweh, even though it is accepted throughout most of the Christian community. It's just plain error and will never be corrected within the general populace because "scholarship" jumped on the "yahweh" wagon without doing the homework. It actually was recended back from the Greek who took it from the Samaritan IEBE meaning "beautiful" - their loan word for the YHWH so as not to say the Name. Yahweh is not a Hebrew word at all. We do not know the pronunciation of the YHWH other than what God told Moses - Hayah Asher Hayah - I AM THAT I AM.

:thumb: Excellent! I run into the 'Yashuah' argument frequently and reply likewise.

 

[Kott]

So, no grace for you, Knott?

No grace from you. Yes that is true.

 

[lifeisgood]

How can you test something out that you already believe is not applicable today?

Because 'I only believe in something when it happens to me?' :idunno:

 

[Kott]

Hopefully, you are praying over yourself as those were the best prayers you chose to pray from the Bible.

I do not pray for myself.

Jesus takes care of all that for me.

 

[TweetyBird]

That's like saying, "there's a verse I don't like in the bible, but because it's just one verse I don't like in the bible, I'll just ignore it.

But it's not in the Bible, that is the problem. Paul said IF he spoke in the tongues of angels - hyperbole - just like he said without love we be as sounding brass or tinkling cymbals . Do you sound like a brass or cymbals? Then do not take a term like "angelic tongues" and force it to be a real language when there is no confirmation anywhere in the Bible that there is actually an angelic tongue.

Admittedly it isn't revealed what we shall be, as John said. However, when people speak, sounds vibrate in eardrums, which people interpret as communication learned. Does God have eardrums?
Now, we know that the spirit of God communicates with our spirit, not using natural speech, and therefore it is logical to accept that our spirit can communicate with God's spirit, not through natural speech (Rom 8:26).

It's not logical to accept a bunch of opinion and conjecture not found in the Bible. Rom 8:26 says nothing about communicating with our spirits to God's Spirit in "natural speech". That is just more Pentecostal bizarre teaching.

 

[andyc]

I've been studying Mid-Acts in Scripture, and thus, from Mid-Acts (more or less) and for many a year now.

And the test of things that differ is only one and ever the same - Scripture with Scripture in light of the Word, rightly divided, or laid out aright.

Besides, given today's technology, any half-way decent illusionist could actually pull off such a thing; the requested test is not how the Believer is to test the things that differ.

Time to get back to Acts 17:11; where the assertions of one person or another...are concerned.

Mad is not a scripture rightly divided. Its scripture wrongly subtracted and added.

 

[TweetyBird]

How can you test something out that you already believe is not applicable today?

Excuses pile up don't they, from those who claim to speak in tongues?

 

[andyc]

But it's not in the Bible, that is the problem. Paul said IF he spoke in the tongues of angels - hyperbole - just like he said without love we be as sounding brass or tinkling cymbals . Do you sound like a brass or cymbals? Then do not take a term like "angelic tongues" and force it to be a real language when there is no confirmation anywhere in the Bible that there is actually an angelic tongue.

Nonsense. You completely ignored what I said.
Angels are spirits, ok?
And so spiritual communication is something that transcends human understanding. To communicate with God in the Spirit, is useless if love is not the motivating factor.
Tongues of men are known languages. Tongues of angels are simply another way of saying "unknown heavenly languages". Now because the subject is about tongues that no one understands, he equates it with angelic type of tongues. A spiritual language in other words

It's not logical to accept a bunch of opinion and conjecture not found in the Bible. Rom 8:26 says nothing about communicating with our spirits to God's Spirit in "natural speech". That is just more Pentecostal bizarre teaching.

You fail to understand that it is the spirit within desiring what the human brain cannot comprehend.

 

[TweetyBird]

However, that is that 'if' again, meaning, I, TweetBird, will not believe unless it happens to me. If it happens to anybody else, I, TweetyBird, reject it for today.

With you? Yes, because you use that little word 'if'; therefore, when I read what you said, this is what I heard: 'Unless it happens to me, I, TweetyBird, won't believe it. When it happens to somebody it is not for today 'cause it ain't happening to me.'

No, I never stated or implied that if it doesn't happen to me I won't believe it. I said, if God chooses to give the gift of tongues, as the Spirit wills, then I would love to see it. adding for clarification - to the the entire body of Christ, according to the NT testimony and example.

 

[andyc]

Excuses pile up don't they, from those who claim to speak in tongues?

There's no need to make excuses for what the bible says I can have, and I'm not going to run it by you for your worthless rejection of it.

Make an argument from scripture, or clear off.

 

[lifeisgood]

Faith has nothing to do with getting healed due to meds. The meds heal, you don't have to faith in them. That is just goofy thinking.

Meds do not heal. That is one of the reasons a person, e.g., who has high blood pressure, will have to take that medicine until the day he/she dies. If a med healed, then doctors would lose their jobs and hospitals would close.

Do you realize a doctor can never say to a cancer patient, e.g., 'you are healed'?
A doctor can only say to a cancer patient, 'you're in remission'.

That is what my doctor told me.

 

[TweetyBird]

Nonsense. You completely ignored what I said.
Angels are spirits, ok?
And so spiritual communication is something that transcends human understanding. To communicate with God in the Spirit, is useless if love is not the motivating factor.

When someone comes to a conclusion that is not based on Scripture, that is conjecture and opinion. That's all you got.

Tongues of men are known languages. Tongues of angels are simply another way of saying "unknown heavenly languages".

There is nothing in the whole of the Bible that speaks of "unknown heavenly languages".

Now because the subject is about tongues that no one understands, he equates it with angelic type of tongues. A spiritual language in other words

You keep piling up the conjecture. Where is a "spiritual language" referred in to the Bible?

You fail to understand that it is the spirit within desiring what the human brain cannot comprehend.

That sounds real feely touchy, but because it's not the Bible, I reject it.

 

[TweetyBird]

The way you responded to what someone else said, there was the 'implication' that you did not believe that God heals today.

So, can I say from the above that you believe that healing is for today also.

God has been miraculously healing people since Genesis. He has never stopped doing that.

 

[Danoh]

:thumb: Excellent! I run into the 'Yashuah' argument frequently and reply likewise.

Most excellent indeed :thumb:

 

[TweetyBird]

Just for those watching this thread who are intrigued about tongues, it is the Spirit who gives the utterance.
Like all gifts, they are not to be used for the amusement of those who are only ready to mock.
Similarly, when people asked Jesus for a sign, he rejected them because their hearts were full of unbelief.
There were places that Jesus went to where he couldn't do anything, because people were so full of unbelief.
We have the word of God, and people must be convinced that the gifts are for today, and then seek those gifts.
There is not one verse telling us that the gifts are only temporal, but people will believe they are because they don't want anything to do with them. Not on the basis of scripture, but because they fear what they do not understand.

If the nine gifts of the Spirit have not been in evidence since the first century, then it has nothing to do with what people believe about them, but what is factual. In other words, there is no evidence that these gifts have continued for the last couple of mill.