ECT WHY GLOSSA /TONGUES ARE NOT FOR TODAY !!

[oatmeal]

‘angel-speak’ ? Thats a new one for TOL

I Corinthians 13:1

Speaking in tongues is speaking in a language unknown to the speaker. The language spoken is either tongues of men or tongues of angels.

What an awesome way to "speak the wonderful works of God" Acts 2:11

Since God gave the utterance, that is perfect praise to God.

Speaking in tongues is perfect praise to God.

Likewise it is perfect prayer, for when we pray with the spirit, it again is words that God gives. He being all knowing and all wise, knows exactly what should be prayed for and how and when.....

I Corinthians 14:14-15

What God did for the benefit of the believers is incredible and powerful!

By speaking in tongues we edify our spirit. Jude 20 By speaking in tongues we get stronger, built up spiritually.

I Corinthians 14:18, no wonder Paul was such a powerful believer!

 

[kayaker]

‘angel-speak’ ? Thats a new one for TOL

Hey Puppet!

'Angel-speak' was most definitely intelligible, but not the charismatic notion of tongues. From what I gather, Romans 9:6, 7 for instance, angel speak can certainly be above the depth of cognitive perception of the Bible audience, although said speech (written of course) is intelligible. Paul didn't come flat-out and say specifically who he was referring to in Romans 9:6, 7. Thereby, Paul, via 'angel-speak', preserved the notion of Divine receptive aphasia found in Isaiah 6:9, 10, 11, 12 that Jesus referred to in Matthew 13:10 speaking exclusively to His disciples in Matthew 13:11 KJV, Matthew 13:12 KJV, Matthew 13:13 KJV, Matthew 13:14 KJV, Matthew 13:15 KJV, and most specifically in Matthew 13:16 KJV and Matthew 13:17 KJV.

At least on that one occasion in Romans 9:6, 7, Paul was speaking in 'angel-speak' preserving Divine receptive aphasia, thereby not preempting the Holy Spirit of truth. Undoubtedly there are other examples that I've not come across yet, although I do think 1Corinthians 5:1 would be another example of Paul's 'angel-speak'. I've never explored Paul's writings from this new perspective, but this notion begs the audience to provide evidence of his 'angel-speak' being Bible character conversations with angels was distinctly intelligible.

kayaker

 

[kayaker]

I Corinthians 13:1

Speaking in tongues is speaking in a language unknown to the speaker.

Agreed in the sense that was what happened in Acts 2. But, Acts 2 does not include the charismatic notion of unintelligible vocalizations. The majority of the audience of Acts 2 heard the disciples speak in their multiple languages. Do you think the disciples knew what they were saying, but it just came out in a different language? I propose the disciples were thinking in their own language, but spoke a language unfamiliar to them.

The language spoken is either tongues of men or tongues of angels.

Agreed, but that does not irrefutably include the charismatic notion of unintelligible vocalizations being either, respectfuly. The tongues of men leading up to the irrefutable multi-lingual translation miracle in Acts 2:8 KJV was clearly established in Genesis 10:5 KJV, Genesis 10:20 KJV, Genesis 10:31 KJV, and Genesis 10:32 KJV. Among the tongues of men, I include the somewhat obscure, to totally unintelligible speech of those afflicted with heritable speech impediments as found in Mark 7:32 KJV, Mark 7:33 KJV, Mark 7:34 KJV, Mark 7:35 KJV.

Lot clearly had an intelligible conversation with two angels in Genesis 19:1, 2. Likewise, John the Baptist’s father had an intelligible conversation with the angel Gabriel in Luke 1:11, 12, 13, 14 with JTB being “filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb” Luke 1:15 KJV. There is no record ‘angel-speak’ was ever unintelligible to my finding. Therefore, I can only conclude ‘angel-speak’ was coherent, intelligible communication, and not charismatic tongues. But, that does not exclude the notion the depth of the message of intelligible ‘angel-speak’ could be beyond perception of the Bible audience. And, I’ve offered Romans 9:6 KJV, Romans 9:7 KJV as an example of what I think was Paul’s ‘angel-speak.’ Who was Paul specifically talking about? Why did Paul beat around the bush? Why didn’t Paul just spit it out? Paul was preserving the prophesy of Isaiah 6:9, 10, 11, 12. Thereby, Paul did not preempt the Holy Spirit of Truth.

What an awesome way to "speak the wonderful works of God" Acts 2:11

Acts 2 was irrefutably a magnificent, multi-lingual translation miracle! Since the disciples were speaking in tongues in Acts 2:4 KJV, I conclude the audience heard the disciples speaking foreign languages. I do not gather the audience being directly impacted as though the audience was suddenly ‘gifted’ to understand a foreign language. The miracle directly impacted the disciples, and the people were beneficiaries of the gift bestowed upon the disciples, exclusively. However, please keep in mind there were also those present who heard nothing but babble I suppose, unintelligible speech, as those folk thought the disciples were drunk. Wonder who they were, and why they could not discern the disciples’ speech? (John 8:43 KJV, John 8:47 KJV). Those with Paul on the road to Damascus heard a voice (Acts 9:7 KJV), but I don’t think they discerned Jesus’ words.

Since God gave the utterance, that is perfect praise to God.

I think you're jumping the gun just a bit here, Oatmeal. The disciples speaking in tongues at Pentecost in Acts 2 were not fluent in the language they were speaking. Since there were no third-party translators in Acts 2, I can only conclude the languages the disciples were speaking were foreign languages. I do bring to this table there were those present who thought the disciples were drunk. Those folk obviously didn’t hear the disciples’ message in their own tongue (Acts 2:13 KJV). Since those folks didn’t hear the disciples in their language plainly, what do you suggest they heard that those mockers thought the disciples were drunk? It’s not unreasonable to assume the mockers were familiar with ‘drunk-speak’.

I hear this irrefutable multi-lingual translation miracle of Acts 2 exemplifying the glory of God, His magnificence. But, I do not hear the praise OF God, or praise TO God, although deserving, indeed! The disciples weren't speaking to God... they were speaking to a very multi-lingual group who were beneficiaries of this translation miracle. So, I simply cannot accept the miracle at Pentecost Acts 2 as though the disciples were literally praising God in a foreign language, or in the charismatic notion of tongue-speak. Praising God didn’t occur until the last verse, Acts 2:47 KJV, and there was no mention of tongues associated therewith.

Speaking in tongues is perfect praise to God.

There is no record to my finding that the disciples at Pentecost in early Acts 2 were praising God, respectfully. The disciples were communicating, without charismatic interpreters btw, directly to their extensive multi-lingual audience.

Likewise it is perfect prayer, for when we pray with the spirit, it again is words that God gives. He being all knowing and all wise, knows exactly what should be prayed for and how and when.....

You've not established the vocalizations at Pentecost Acts 2 were anything other than foreign languages, Oatmeal. I do maintain some of those accusing the disciples of drunkenness were not God’s intended audience at that moment. The disciples spoke and the audience clearly heard the message directly in their native tongue. You ever wonder what details of that message was, Oatmeal (Acts 2:11 KJV)? Maybe what Peter spoke the rest of Acts 2?

I Corinthians 14:14-15

1Corinthians 14

What God did for the benefit of the believers is incredible and powerful!

That which God did in Acts 2 was strictly, and irrefutably, a multi-lingual translation miracle, and utterly so (Acts 2:8 KJV). There was no mention of unintelligible speech other than by the mockers (Acts 2:13 KJV). Just as you and I, the mockers knew others testified they heard the disciples in their native tongue (Acts 2:8 KJV). The ones who didn’t hear plainly thought the disciples were drunk (John 8:43, 47, Acts 2:14, Romans 9:6 KJV, Romans 9:7 KJV). But, I cannot say there were not authentic Israelites who didn’t grasp the words of the disciples, and it appears as though Peter spoke to them plainly in the balance of Acts 2.

By speaking in tongues we edify our spirit. Jude 20 By speaking in tongues we get stronger, built up spiritually.

Jude 20 KJV “But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost.”​

I understand your rendering, Oatmeal. But, I do not equate “praying in the Holy Ghost” with charismatic tongue-speak during prayer. Paul made it quite clear in my mind that edifying the church preempted edifying one’s self in 1Corinthians 14:5 KJV, 1Corinthians 14:12 KJV. To my rendering, I hear Paul talking about speech impediments:

1Corinthians 14:8, 9, 10, 11, KJV “For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? 9) So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood (Mark 7:32, 35), how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air. 10) There are, it may be, so many kinds of voice (contrasted with ‘tongues’) in the world, and none of them is without signification (Isaiah 35:4, 5, 6) (11) Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice (contrasted with ‘tongue’), I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.”​

I hear Paul explaining distinction between tongues (as in languages), and voices. Languages can be interpreted. There is no similar interpretative quality among speech impediments except in milder cases, and then only by family members.

I Corinthians 14:18, no wonder Paul was such a powerful believer!

Agreed Paul was a powerful believer, even more! Nonetheless, Paul made the distinction between tongues (interpretable language), and unintelligible voices that have no interpretative quality (1Corinthians 14:9 KJV, 1Corinthians 14:10 KJV). Being Paul mentioned both “tongues” and “voices” in chapter 14 suggests distinction. I cannot gather unintelligible voices being anything other than speech of those with heritable communication afflictions as Jesus healed in Mark 7

Mark 7:32, 35, KJV “And they brought unto him one that was deaf, and had an impediment in his speech; and they beseech him to put his hand upon him. 35) And straightway his ears were opened, and the string of his tongue was loosed, and he spake plain.”​

kayaker

 

[Lazy afternoon]

controlling prayers that are not from or inspired by the Holy Spirit are usually witchcraft,
trying to control others or their surroundings through ones own carnal wishes and desires.

even prayers that want the other person to act or believe in another manner.

that is why we have the lords prayer
followed up by walking, hearing and responding in and by the Spirit

otherwise if you pray in your carnal mind you end up asking amiss.
and often do witchcraft which is a spirit of control, without realizing it.

Yes--

Isa 58:1 Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins.
Isa 58:2 Yet they seek me daily, and delight to know my ways, as a nation that did righteousness, and forsook not the ordinance of their God: they ask of me the ordinances of justice; they take delight in approaching to God.
Isa 58:3 Wherefore have we fasted, say they, and thou seest not? wherefore have we afflicted our soul, and thou takest no knowledge? Behold, in the day of your fast ye find pleasure, and exact all your labours.
Isa 58:4 Behold, ye fast for strife and debate, and to smite with the fist of wickedness: ye shall not fast as ye do this day, to make your voice to be heard on high.
Isa 58:5 Is it such a fast that I have chosen? a day for a man to afflict his soul? is it to bow down his head as a bulrush, and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him? wilt thou call this a fast, and an acceptable day to the LORD?
Isa 58:6 Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?
Isa 58:7 Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?
Isa 58:8 Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thine health shall spring forth speedily: and thy righteousness shall go before thee; the glory of the LORD shall be thy rereward.
Isa 58:9 Then shalt thou call, and the LORD shall answer; thou shalt cry, and he shall say, Here I am. If thou take away from the midst of thee the yoke, the putting forth of the finger, and speaking vanity;
Isa 58:10 And if thou draw out thy soul to the hungry, and satisfy the afflicted soul; then shall thy light rise in obscurity, and thy darkness be as the noonday:
Isa 58:11 And the LORD shall guide thee continually, and satisfy thy soul in drought, and make fat thy bones: and thou shalt be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters fail not.
Isa 58:12 And they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in.
Isa 58:13 If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:
Isa 58:14 Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.

LA

 

[jsjohnnt]

While there are a few issues (in my mind) with your response, the tone and commentary demanded attention and consideration. Excellent response. My question: who are you and what have you done with the real Kayaker. I demand an answer.

Post script: I included identification of the post in my response with "" [it did it again. There is actually verbiage between those quotations that identify "Kayaker" and his post. Houston, I have a problem) in my response, but, for some reason, it was not captured. Refer to Kayaker's post #623. Agree or not, the attitude of the commentary (yes, commentary has attitude) was excellent, the dialogue had the word "patience" written all over it. Hats off to the chef. I think this is marks a change for Kayaker . . . . . . . . . . or maybe I have misread Kayaker, in the past. Not important. The commentary was appreciated; that is what I know.

 

[kayaker]

While there are a few issues (in my mind) with your response, the tone and commentary demanded attention and consideration. Excellent response. My question: who are you and what have you done with the real Kayaker. I demand an answer.

Post script: I included identification of the post in my response with "" [it did it again. There is actually verbiage between those quotations that identify "Kayaker" and his post. Houston, I have a problem) in my response, but, for some reason, it was not captured. Refer to Kayaker's post #623. Agree or not, the attitude of the commentary (yes, commentary has attitude) was excellent, the dialogue had the word "patience" written all over it. Hats off to the chef. I think this is marks a change for Kayaker . . . . . . . . . . or maybe I have misread Kayaker, in the past. Not important. The commentary was appreciated; that is what I know.

I am truly honored with what I believe to be your heartfelt response JSJ.

At the risk of sounding presumptuous Houston, try responding first by clicking the "QUOTE" button at the bottom right corner of the specific post you wish to respond to, as opposed to clicking 'reply... etc' at the bottom of the screen. That brings the specific post under one single quote. Typically, I'll add "[/QUOTE]" chopping the post, and type a reply to that chopped section. (Or, you can click highlight the poster's section of text and click the icon on the tool bar that looks like a square 'thought bubble' that automatically adds the fore and aft quote notations). Then, at the beginning of the remainder to the chopped post, add "[Q U O T E]"... scroll down to where you want to chop again to respond, and add "[/Q U O T E]" (without spaces... this software is reading my point as a literal quotation) and so forth. the "/" designates the end of the quote section you are about to reply to. I typically click the "Preview Post" button at the bottom of the reply screen to capture a glance at my response before I click the "Submit Reply" button. The "Preview Post" can be clicked again after modifications, to see what happened, and might give you a better feel for the software. Often I copy/paste a post to Word, and copy/paste back into the reply.

As far as my cyber demeanor... at the risk of sounding presumptuous, I'm passionately animated at times, both in a positive and negative manner. Please consider your request:

My question: who are you and what have you done with the real Kayaker. I demand an answer.

At first glance, I consider your words rather bold and invasive. For instance, are you suggesting I'm somehow a fake of some sort, not being the 'real Kayaker'? If you've gathered a negative impression recently, you are correct, but that's only a glimpse. If you'll take note, Jesus called His detractors "Hypocrites!" seven times in Matthew 23:13, 14, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29. Jesus was not a pacifist, and neither am I, respectfully. I have more in-depth, intense, and intimate conversations in one year than most folk encounter in a lifetime. The experience of 'responsibility' is no more keen than when fellow humans suffer from one's mistakes, as one tries to make a positive difference in the lives of others. Only One was perfect, JSJ, and we are blessed that He was.

I jump on my war horse when I encounter a certain spiritual arrogance, JSJ. I have all the patience in the world with those harboring humility. I asked you this question:

Do you subscribe to the notion charismatic tongue-speak can be translated into native tongue?

I asked you this question for a specific reason, JSJ. Oatmeal would likely respond, no. On the other hand, Cross Reference would likely respond, yes, provided that which was spoken was 'prophecy' allegedly deserving interpretation. I've belonged to a church years ago likely quite similar to CR's. I actually appreciate CR more than expressed on TOL.

So, you seem to have no difficulty capturing my vivid negative demeanor, respectfully. By the same token, are you able to capture the arrogance of charismatics, by and large? Ask charismatics if folks who don't speak in tongues have a snowball's chance to make it to heaven? Ask a Catholic if Protestants have a snowball's chance, and flip that coin. Ask the Church of Christ if one's sins can be washed away without being water baptized in water perceived as the literal blood of Jesus... similar with LDS... Catholics... That notion is (water) baptismal spiritual regeneration, in case you're not familiar, respectfully. For charismatics, it's Holy Ghost baptismal spiritual regeneration, evidenced by speaking in tongues... And, in the days of Jesus, it was circumcision, and being born blue-blooded (Nicodemus) provided one wasn't afflicted (John 8:15 KJV) with heritable disorders like those Jesus healed.

Paul graciously welcomed those afflicted outcasts into his inbred Corinthian church (1Corinthians 5:1 KJV), JSJ. Paul gave the garbled voices of those so afflicted, significance (1Corinthians 14:10 KJV). Those born so afflicted were scorned and rebuked in the synagogues (John 8:15 KJV), and blamed for the afflictions they were born with (John 9:2 KJV)... the great unwashed. And, I often hear that same attitude among those denominations and churches above, along with others, thinking they have the keys to the kingdom, although member exceptions are noted.

Then there are the charismatic faith healers rebuking the faith of those they cannot heal, speaking of my utter disdain and disgust... and, I'm being VERY polite! They mock the utter magnificence of those Biblical miracles that would be front page news on EVERY professional scientific journal around the world!

Take a look at a couple of brief YouTube vids of folk who were able to hear for the first time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsOo3jzkhYA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM_5PaLzLLI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6DHhM4PgVA

So, maybe that's just a glimpse of what was going on as the afflicted masses sought Jesus out, JSJ. Have you ever known of a charismatic faith healer who could heal deafness... with reproducible results? Jesus did, JSJ. Modern medicine falls far short, but the charismatics make money, and/or gain and exalted self-esteem, making a mockery out of the utter magnificence of Jesus' healing miracles. Any wonder why I politely call them, "Hypocrites!"? If Jesus walked the earth this day, He wouldn't be a part-time physician at the local Urgent Care. There is no title in the medical community that accommodates Jesus' skill set! And, I look around and see the likes of faith healers that can't conjure a wart.

I don't know about you, JSJ... but, I don't think I belong here, anymore. I'm a Matthew 8:20 KJV follower, and I mourn for His return (Matthew 24:30 KJV). Thank you for your kind words, JSJ!

kayaker

 

[rougueone]

Change of heart. I deleted my response.

 

[iamaberean]

Hi to all , and here is the MAIN reasons that so-called TONGUES are not for today !!

#1 ,It was a Prophecy to be fulfilled at Pentecost , a Jewish Feast Day !

#2 , It was a Promise given to Israel in Joel 2:28 !

#3 , It was to pass away , by Acts 19:6 !!

#4 , 1 Cor 13:8-13 , as they were a WITNESS to fellow Jews at Jerusalem and to those not Present at Pentecost , like in Acts 19:6 !!

Anyone who says that God SPOKE to them with NEW REVELATION is then ABOVE Scripture as the Canon is CLOSED and is LYING !!

DAN P

Men may lie but God's word is true and his word said that 'ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost".
Many people think the gift is 'tongues' but scripture says it is the evidence of receiving the gift.

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. Then answered Peter,
Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
Act 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Don't call anyone a liar just because you haven't had the experience.

 

[DAN P]

Men may lie but God's word is true and his word said that 'ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost".
Many people think the gift is 'tongues' but scripture says it is the evidence of receiving the gift.

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. Then answered Peter,
Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
Act 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Don't call anyone a liar just because you haven't had the experience.

Hi so I AM WRONG , you say /

Will you explain why Israel was set aside and not saved as a Nation ?

If Israel was not set aside , then why was Acts 2:17 ALL in the Future Tense ?

I grew up in a Pentecostal EKKLESIA and saw them up close and it is all a FAKE !!

Just watch Bennie Hen !!

dan p

 

[Psalmist]

Then the Holy Spirit might be fake?

I believe that when and if it necessary The Lord provide what is needed for the moment of need, if tongues and the interpretation are needed it will be provided, but there has to be a speaker and and a hearer for that to happen.

If you say it doesn't happen and is not for today them you fighting against Scripture and God's truth, and to dictate what is for now and what is not for now, I believe God sets the standard.

Next time just tell The Lord to His face, "Lord You know that __ whatever ___ is not for us, so change the Scriptures to what we believe is and isn't" -- there are plenty of people wanting to set God straight on a few Scriptural issues.

 

[oatmeal]

Hi to all , and here is the MAIN reasons that so-called TONGUES are not for today !!

#1 ,It was a Prophecy to be fulfilled at Pentecost , a Jewish Feast Day !

#2 , It was a Promise given to Israel in Joel 2:28 !

#3 , It was to pass away , by Acts 19:6 !!

#4 , 1 Cor 13:8-13 , as they were a WITNESS to fellow Jews at Jerusalem and to those not Present at Pentecost , like in Acts 19:6 !!

Anyone who says that God SPOKE to them with NEW REVELATION is then ABOVE Scripture as the Canon is CLOSED and is LYING !!

DAN P

If you had the Biblical education to have read and understood Acts 10 and 11, you would make wiser conclusions than that.

I Corinthians 14:5 is still the commandment of God

 

[DAN P]

If you had the Biblical education to have read and understood Acts 10 and 11, you would make wiser conclusions than that.

I Corinthians 14:5 is still the commandment of God

Hi , and with your WISE education , explain Acts 10:45 , the Holy Spirit fell also on Gentiles ?


Explain verse 47 as to WHY they still needed to be water Baptized ?

Explain why they were to be Baptized in the Name of thr Lord , instead of the name of the Father , Son and Holy Spirit of Matt 28 :19??

Where did Cornelius than be , a Jewish Hope ??

dan p

 

[oatmeal]

Hi , and with your WISE education , explain Acts 10:45 , the Holy Spirit fell also on Gentiles ?


Explain verse 47 as to WHY they still needed to be water Baptized ?

Explain why they were to be Baptized in the Name of thr Lord , instead of the name of the Father , Son and Holy Spirit of Matt 28 :19??

Where did Cornelius than be , a Jewish Hope ??

dan p

Hi to all , and here is the MAIN reasons that so-called TONGUES are not for today !!

#1 ,It was a Prophecy to be fulfilled at Pentecost , a Jewish Feast Day !

#2 , It was a Promise given to Israel in Joel 2:28 !

#3 , It was to pass away , by Acts 19:6 !!

#4 , 1 Cor 13:8-13 , as they were a WITNESS to fellow Jews at Jerusalem and to those not Present at Pentecost , like in Acts 19:6 !!

Anyone who says that God SPOKE to them with NEW REVELATION is then ABOVE Scripture as the Canon is CLOSED and is LYING !!

DAN P

You said that the promise was to Israel

How is it that the Gentiles received it?

Acts 11:17-18

Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

So why would you say that the promise was to the Judeans (only?) when it is clear that Gentiles received it as well?

 

[Interplanner]

The only reason for tongues was to show the new era of God at work among the nations. We have the one official example of it recurring so that Peter (no less) was persuaded: Acts 11:15 etc., which is the retelling that connects it to Pentecost. I don't know if anyone doubts that God is at work among the nations these days. Or that the ceremonial law is not to be imposed on believers.

Just reread Acts 9-11 with its own commentary on why the later incident of tongues happened; it was merely to clear up the inclusion of the Gentiles and validate it. It was 1st generation Jewish people who needed to hear this. This is corroborated by Paul in I Cor 14.

 

[oatmeal]

The only reason for tongues was to show the new era of God at work among the nations. We have the one official example of it recurring so that Peter (no less) was persuaded: Acts 11:15 etc., which is the retelling that connects it to Pentecost. I don't know if anyone doubts that God is at work among the nations these days. Or that the ceremonial law is not to be imposed on believers.

Just reread Acts 9-11 with its own commentary on why the later incident of tongues happened; it was merely to clear up the inclusion of the Gentiles and validate it. It was 1st generation Jewish people who needed to hear this. This is corroborated by Paul in I Cor 14.

How interesting a conclusion!

The only reason for tongues was to show the new era of God at work among the nations.

Well, having some actual knowledge on the subject, I am compelled to share some with you.

Acts 2:11 Speaking in tongues is speaking the wonderful works of God

Acts 10:46 Speaking in tongues is magnifying God

I Corinthians 14:4 Speaking in tongues is for the spiritual edification of the one speaking in tongues. To edify is to build up, strengthen

I Corinthians 14:2 Speaking in tongues is speaking to God, speaking what? mysteries or divine secrets

I Corinthians 14:16-17 Speaking in tongues is to give thanks well to God

that is a few of the reasons that God tells us from scripture, why God designed and set up the manifestation of speaking in tongues.

I want those results in my life, so I speak in tongues.

Paul understood and saw the benefits of speaking in tongues in his life therefore he stated in I Corinthians 14:18 "I thank my God that I speak in tongues more than you all"

Why would anyone not want those things in their life?

Why would God deny anyone that? He doesn't, but it takes an understanding of what scripture teaches about speaking in tongues to learn the whats and hows and whens... of speaking in tongues

 

[Interplanner]

To have actual knowledge, you would have had to have been with Peter. Between you and me, let's not let anyone know you were there, OK?

btw, why did you skip the one historic reason I cor 14 gives? v20+. It's not for our amusement or pleasure. It was to speak to the hardest generation of Judaism there ever was. It was to make clear the mission that God wanted Gentiles to believe, Acts 9-11. The inclusion of Gentiles was so hard for Peter (!) to accept that he had to have his own world-stopping experience, the 2nd Pentecost. Even after he had been in Pentecost and seen people from every known language hear it!

The issue is inextricable from the mission to the Gentiles and was meant to prove that God wanted to bring them in. Is there any doubt of that these days?

 

[Aimiel]

Those who are Spirit-filled have 'actual' knowledge.

 

[Interplanner]

No, this has a historical side to it. it has to do what happened then in a situation like then, which are non-existent today.

Tongues were for an unbelieving Jew to realize that God was serious about including Gentiles. That was the sign to them--the Gentiles would hear the message in their language. There has to be the doubting Jewish person present who is convinced by it that what the OT said about the Gospel going to the Gentiles is true.

The speaker is not aware of speaking in another language. It gets changed into the recievers language in the act. That's why we have what Peter said in his normal language at Pentecost, but have the people from all over the world hearing in theirs. It was the opposite of the confusion that happened at Babel where all the languages suddenly were active as God's curse and no one could keep working.

God undid Babel at Pentecost for the sake of His Son, to honor him.

 

[Bright Raven]

I see nothing in scripture that says that tongues has passed away. If you do please cite Book, Chapter and Verse.

 

[Interplanner]

After you absorb my previous post. But yes I cor 13:8 said so, because it had a singular purpose to unbelieving Jews, 14:20+. Whatever else was going at Corinth was supposed to stop because it was childish and non-constructive. 5 vs 10K.

Apparently something was going on that had nothing to do with the proof to Jews and no real value, and risked people saying Christians were out of their minds (insane) 14:23. Great. Just what we need.