notuptome wrote
Of course it would not but I have not done that. You keep adding your personal biases to my statements.
Prophesying in the Bible involves sharing revelations (I Corinthians 14:30.) If you say that prophesying now only states what the Bible states, then you are adding a doctrine that doesn't come from the Bible. You are also redefining prophesying.
If you think prophesying has ceased, then it doesn't make sense to argue that it's still possible to prophesy what's in the Bible.
If you have complete knowledge and complete prophecy, it should not be less in any way than what is in the Bible. If Elisha could know what foreign kings said in their bedrooms, then you should know such things. If Samuel could prophesy where Saul's father's lost donkeys were, you should be able to find all lost donkeys. If I loose my keys and you ahve perfect knowledge, you should be able to tell me that. If Agabus could prophesy a coming famine, you should be able to tell me that. If Paul could know through the Spirit where he was to preach the Gospel next, you should know the same about yourself and others. where am I supposed to move after I'm finished living here? Do you know that sort of stuff? If you don't, your knowledge is not complete, and you dont' even know the kind of stuff that first century believers could know through these revelatory gifts. Knowledge being complete is supposed to make it complete, not lacking in different ways.
The two witnesses will be Jewish and they will not appear until the church is gone.
Where does the Bible say they will be Jewish? If they are, fine, but what does that prove. Do you think Jewish believers can still have the gift of prophecy today? If the two witnesses are yet to come, and they will prophesy, then it doesn't make sense to say that prophesy has ceased. If you says prophecy ceases and restarts, then there is no reason to think that prophecy hasn't restarted as a gift now in these last days. The blood of prophets will be found in Babylon agter all.
You asked me about desiring certain gifts. I answered about gifts I desired and then you wrote,
It's not about you. It's about Christ. Humility before honor.
That's just really tacky. If you want to accuse me of a lack of humility for talking about myself, then you hsouldn't ask me questions about myself.
What I see in your posts is that you do not care to think deeply about this doctrinal issue. You just want to have a position. Then you offer responses with no substance, pithy little statements, sometimes smart-alec statements, that don't show that you've thought through the issue.
And you've dodged the issue of whether you even see the problem of I Corinthians 13:11 and your interpretation. You are putting your own understanding of scripture at such a high level that you make the apostles' understanding like that of a child. Do you disagree with this statement or not? I suppose you could choose to answer my question and really consider what the passage has to say, for real, or just make some pithy non-answer response, or ignore it all together.
Tongues of angels is obviously hyperbole as there is no instance of angels speaking in any special language known only to them.
Many of the other things in the passage aren't impossible. They are 'extremes' and not truly hyperbole. One could give all his possessions away or give up his body to be burned. Plenty of people have suffered various deaths for the gospel, including burning at the stake, for not denouncing their faith.
Would you apply the same reasoning to the ascension. I suppose a skeptic could argue that the ascension passage is hyperbole since no other passage of the Bible shows anyone ascending to heaven. Well, the point is, Acts 1 shows Jesus ascending, and that's in the Bible, so you can't say there is no scripture about the ascension. And I Corinthians 13 suggests that there may be tongues of angels.
Why would angels in those other passage speak in angelic languages to people? They are messengers, and if they want to convey a message, they aren't going to do it in a foreign language. We don't read about angels speaking in Chinese in the Bible either. The people in the Bible didn't know Chinese, so why would the angels speak it? the fact that angels didn't speak Chinese doesn't mean that Chinese doesn't exist.
Again prophecy has ended. Any prophecy today is speaking forth what has been given by God. There is no adding to the scriptures.
That last sentence doesn't support your argument. I could list lots of examples of prophecies and revelations that the Bible says something about that aren't quoted in the Bible. We don't know what Saul prophesied, either write after he met Samuel, or when the Spirit of God came on him and he prophesied while David escaped. These prophecies aren't added to scritpure, but they were prophecies.
Follow along here the church is not the same today as it was then. They were in the period between the OT and the NT so there existed a specific need for the establishment of the authority of the speakers. Not the same today as we have the completed revelation of God and we have the Holy Spirit actively doing what He was commissioned to do.
The Bible doesn't teach this theory of yours, that tongues or prophecy were only to establish the authority of certain speakers. We also see that people who weren't apostles who didnt' write scripture like Stephen and Philip did miracles. There were apparently miracle workers in Corinth and we don't know their names.
It kind of reminds me of someone saying the reason they used wine instead of cola for communion back then was because cola hadn't been invented yet, and arguing for the use of cola in church. It's just making up some excuse with your mind, and then basing a doctrine on it.
Shaky foundation. It was by all accounts in the ears of hearers in Acts 2.
This could be a thread of it's own. Your interpretation is unlikely because the passage says,
"because everyone heard them speak in his own language" (NKJV)
It says everyone heard them speak in his own language. It doesn't say they heard their own language, but the disciples weren't speaking it. It doesn't say they heard their own language, but the disciples' mouths were saying something different.
All the books of the NT were written after Christ ascended. It was by the Holy Spirit that men were moved to pen down the words we have today. Even the first hand accounts of the gospels were written by Holy Spirit inspiration.
Are you agreeing, then, that your use of Hebrews 1 to argue for the end of revelation after Christ came was a misuse of the verse?
I'm attempting to get you to ask yourself why you gather. If there were no tongues in your services would the crowds still come.
I've been to many churches, including one now, where speaking in tongues in the church service almost never occurs if at all. I don't know that any would oppose it if someone present spoke in tongues and another interpreted. I just haven't seen it on Sunday morning at this particular church. I don't see why you'd associate speaking in tongues with churches having larger crowds. I could see how interpretation of tongues or prophecies might that are encouraging and accurate could draw crowds, though.
Would you gather if there were no music only the presentation of Gods word? What are the most sincere and basic elements of corporate worship?
The word most often translated 'worship' refers to prostration, bowing down with your head to the ground. Is no coincidence that the Bible never teaches that the church is to gather to 'worship'? Presenting our bodies as a living sacrifice is an act of 'worship' in some translations, 'service' in others, but that doesn't relate directly to corporate worship.
I appreciate Bible study, Bible teaching. If we never sang at all, that wouldn't be good because the Bible says to speak to yourselves in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.
I don't get why
you are asking
me these questions. If I say I appreciate certain things the Bible commands us to do in church, why would that imply that I don't appreciate the other things. You are the one who has shown that he has a problem with some of the things the Bible commands believers to do in church.
Let me ask you, if a church gather together, and all prophesied revelations (I Corinthians 14:29-30) in an oderly manner, such that the secrets of the hearts of unbelievers' who ventured into the gathering were exposed and they fell down on their faces declaring that God is truly among you....and if someone speaks in tongues and another inteprets, would you attend such a gathering? Would you be pleased with such a church gathering? Do you think Paul would have?
