Speaking in tongues

Jackson123 · Apr 16, 2014

In my opinion, speak in tongue is one of the give among other like give of healing etc, but just like the bible warn us, we have to examine if it genuine or counterfeit. This video bellow start at minute 14.36th, talking about counterfeit tongue. Kenneth Copland pretend to speak in tongue, but if you listen carefully, it say come take the mark of the beast in disguise English.

I believe not every tongue is counterfeit, If one make counterfeit mean it is valuable. Only expensive good counterfeited. No body counterfeit rock. Mean the give of tongue is important.
http://youtu.be/JedCVhZsD9o

Stephen63 · Apr 16, 2014

phil112 said:

1 Corinthians 14:13-15 (KJV) [SUP]13 [/SUP]Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret. [SUP]14 [/SUP]For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. [SUP]15 [/SUP]What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

Stephen63 · Apr 16, 2014

Angela53510 said:

Mark 1:8 (KJV) [SUP]8 [/SUP]I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
[HR][/HR]Luke 3:16 (KJV) [SUP]16 [/SUP]John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
[HR][/HR]John 1:33 (KJV) [SUP]33 [/SUP]And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
[HR][/HR]Acts 1:5 (KJV) [SUP]5 [/SUP]For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
[HR][/HR]Acts 11:16 (KJV) [SUP]16 [/SUP]Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

ji · Apr 16, 2014

posthuman said:

depends on context,....

"For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God[FONT=arial, sans-serif]: [/FONT][FONT=arial, sans-serif]for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh." - is that unchristian?[/FONT]

If someone is speaking to God,it doesn't matter who the person is,impostors are there everywhere.Is it very hard to spot them?
they will show their true color one way or the other.
A genuine tongue speaker edifies his/her soul first,and not cheat..

And if that person is misunderstood and labelled as a fraud,then the prob is not with that person but with the people who accuse.Its applicable to everyone..

ji · Apr 16, 2014

posthuman said:

what conundrum?
did those at pentecost speak in a language no one understood, or in a completely unknown tongue that no one on earth could interpret?
not at all:
Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
(Acts 2:6)

likewise in Acts 10:46 when the Holy Spirit fell on the gentiles for the first time, as a sign to the world:
For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God
it was understood by people present what they were saying - else how would anyone know they were extolling God?

That is a wrong thinking,...

There can be speaking of tongues that people might not understand.What you say is not biblical..

Stephen63 · Apr 16, 2014

SeaBass said:

[SUB]
I suggest you read Acts 2.[/SUB]

posthuman · Apr 16, 2014

ji said:

did Satan not speak to Christ in the wilderness? "context" isn't the only thing it depends on. i think what's said is imortant too, don't you?

you cant simply take "speaking in tongues" - especially if you don't understand what's said - as evidence or a litmus test that the true Spirit of God is in a person.

posthuman · Apr 16, 2014

ji said:

quoting Acts isn't Biblical? what then?
where is the prophet in the scriptures that prophesied to the people in a language they couldn't comprehend? i remember that at Babel, tongues were confused.
tongues without interpretation is nothing but confusion to anyone that hears it. if you hear nothing but confused sound coming from a stranger, should you assume they are anointed by God? and even if you do, without further seeking out the truth, what good is it? you haven't learned anything but confusion. this is why Paul taught that unless there is an interpreter, anyone speaking in tongues should keep quiet when we gather together.

posthuman · Apr 16, 2014

ji said:

what i mean to say is, i bet neither one of us speak Icelandic. that doesn't mean everyone speaking Icelandic is speaking to God. i don't read Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek. i could have the tablets that Moses carried down Mt. Sinai themselves, or an ancient sign giving rules for a public bath, or a prayer to Baal in my hands, or complete nonsense scratches on a bit of wall but unless someone could translate them to English for me, i wouldn't know what i had at all.

posthuman · Apr 16, 2014

here is an example that might help someone understand; if you can't stand heavy metal just skip this post.

[video=youtube_share;X721pJS28YM]http://youtu.be/X721pJS28YM[/video]

the lyrics to this song are Psalm 146 in the NIV, word for word. now if i hadn't told us that, most people could not understand anything but violent noise. but to some, knowing, and reading as they listen, and for others, who are accustomed to this kind of music, they hear and understand the Word of God.

Kerry · Apr 17, 2014

Mark 16

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

SeaBass · Apr 17, 2014

Stephen63 said:

In Acts 2 Peter quotes Joel 2:28 "And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh;...."

Joel prophesied of the baptism with the Holy Spirit here. The phrase "all flesh" does not mean every single man (or animals for they have flesh also) universally will be baptized with the HS . The phrase "all flesh" as used by Joel was how man-kind was divided up into Jew and non-Jew. The only two places in the NT that baptism with the HS takes place is in Acts 2 with the apostles (Jews) and Cornelius (Gentiles) in Acts 10. Therefore all flesh (Jew and Gentile) were baptized with the HS and the Lord fullfilled this prophecy of Joel. Christ fulfilled (fulfilled meaning to bring to an end) all the OT prophecies, including this one of Joel's. If not, [Mt 5:17,18], Jesus was not the Christ and every jot and tittle of the OT is still in place. So the one baptism of Eph 4:5 is the human administered water baptism of the great commission, Mt 28:19,20; Mk 16:15,16.

The_highwayman · Apr 17, 2014

SeaBass said:

So you follow what the Bible says, to be clear we are not goign to discuss tongues here, but the Baptism of the Holy Ghost you state ended with Joel.

1 Cor 6.19 says:
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is IN you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own

Acts 1.8
But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come UPON you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Acts 2.4a
And they were all FILLED with the Holy Ghost

These verses are just a few that use all 3 of words in bold red and underlined. I am not going to list every verse that list these words are used with the Holy Ghost and the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. Surely a person that follows their Bible, such as you , should know without question that the words IN, UPON & FILLED mean very different things.

The demonic ignorance of the church today is the lack of understanding that the Holy Ghost works IN the believer for sanctification, conviction, comforter, teacher and the Holy Ghost works UPON the believer to deliver the anointing needed to be a witness and do the work of the ministry.

In short, the Holy Ghost works IN and UPON the believer. The work IN the believer starts at conversion. The work UPON the believer is started when the person is Baptized into the Holy Ghost & Anointed with power, just as Jesus was. The Bible proves this without any doubt, mystery, confusion or question.

Lets Talk about FILLED for a moment.
Acts 2.4a
And they were all FILLED with the Holy Ghost

Acts 4.31
And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all FILLED with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.

For those that say the Baptism of the Holy Ghost is not a separate event from salvation /receiving the work of the Holy Ghost IN you or only needed for the Apostles, or that Pentecost was not a separate event, then why did Peter & John get filled again?

It was evident that Peter & John received were FILLED the Holy Ghost and power in Acts 2.4...If you follow the Bible and the story of Acts 3 and 4, you will notice that Peter and John again are the central characters and in Acts 4.31 the Holy Ghost FILLED everyone, including Peter & John again.

So for those that follow the Bible it is evident that the Holy Ghost works IN and UPON the believer. It also evident that there is a Baptism of the Holy Ghost that FILLS a believer and an enduement of power UPON the believer to empower their anointing for being a witness.

The demonic lie that it is only for the Apostles is also debunked because there were than the 12 Apostles in the upper room and more than 120 and the original 12 Apostles who were Baptized in the Holy Ghost and endued with power in the church in Acts 4.

Doctrine will pass away, but the word of God shall stand forever...

peacefulbeliever · Apr 17, 2014

SeaBass said:

"all flesh" - pertains to "all" who repent and are baptized shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38) which equals being "filled with the holy Spirit" which equals being "baptized with holy Spirit".

For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the holy Spirit not many days hence which equals "the promise of the Father".

The one baptism is the baptism that can actually change a man from the inside out; the one baptism given by our Lord Jesus Christ; the one baptism that creates the new man - baptism with the holy Spirit - water administered by man only cleanses/washes the outside. . . .

KohenMatt · Apr 17, 2014

I've never spoken in tongues.

But I'm just as much saved and just as much spirit-filled as anyone else in God's Kingdom.

LT · Apr 17, 2014

If a man rejects the baptism of the Holy Spirit, then he rejects the sanctifying work of the Spirit of Christ.
Rejecting tongues is one thing,
but to reject the Spirit is to deny the power of God in our lives.

Lets keep the conversation about tongues, and stop stepping into topics that tempt those who are weak in faith to blaspheme.

If water is the only baptism, then we are reborn as sons still of the natural world, just as we were when born of the 1st Adam.
If Spirit is the baptism, then we are reborn in spirit, and like the second Adam, we take on immorality, and may inherit that which is immortal.

SeaBass · Apr 17, 2014

presidente said:

In Acts 1:1-5 Jesus was with and speaking to his apostles and it was the apostles to whom Jesus promised baptism with the HS and it Acts 2 it was just the apostles that received this baptism. The 120 in Acts 1 was of a DIFFERENT PLACE and TIME from Acts 1:1-5. The 120 are not in Acts 1:1-5 that Jesus was speaking to, just the apostles. Also, the plural pronouns "they" and "them" in Acts 2:1-4 refer back to the nearest plural antecedant "apostles" in Acts 1:26.

"The promise" Peter speaks of is not baptism with the HS, but refers to the Abrahamic promise (see Gal 3:29) that is for all those that are baptized becoming spiritual Jews/Christians, Rom 2:28,29

phil112 · Apr 17, 2014

Kerry said:

And the next verse is: "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"
A man that thought that meant today died a few days ago of snakebite. Do you know tongues talkers that handle snakes and lay their hands on sick people and heal them?
Jesus also said: "Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give", but He wasn't talking to you and I.
If you will read Acts 5:12-16, you will find Christ's commands were fulfilled then. That which is perfect is come. There is no need for the signs God gave us at the beginning of the church. Tongues is unnecessary in a world that everyone can communicate with everyone.

LT · Apr 17, 2014

phil112 said:

It would be nice if the Bible said that, but it doesn't, so we should keep our minds open about God's ways,
and keep our discernment on high alert when people claim gifts.

The Bible doesn't teach Cessationism, but does allow for it. Let's not base our doctrine solely on our experiences, but on the Word.

SeaBass · Apr 17, 2014

presidente said:

How could the apostles carry out the great commission if they could not speak in the native tongue of the hearers?

The tongues in 1 Cor 14 are known earthly languages.

(The word "unknown" is in italics meaning it was added by translators and not in the original texts).

In verse 8,9 Paul uses the example of a trumpet..".if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air"

The trumpet must sound a sound that can be UNDERSTOOD as earthly languages are understood. If the trumpet sounded "gibberish" no one could understand and chaos would result.

Verse 10 Paul speaks of " many kinds of voices in the world", he is speaking of various earthly languages, not many kinds of "unitelligible utterances".

Verse 11 "Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me."

Two people must understand each other for if one is speaking or they are barbarians to one another...."Paul says that if one speaks in a “tongue,” and others do not understand the language, the speaker would sound like a “barbarian” (v. 11). This term signifies a one who speaks a “foreign tongue” (F.W. Danker, et al., Greek-English of the New Testament, Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000, p. 166; see also Acts 28:2). This is another indication that human languages are in view.

Verse 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."

The expression “strange tongues” (v. 21), is taken from Isaiah 28:11, where the reference is to the language of the Assyrians (a nation that would invade Israel). This use by Paul further demonstrates the nature of “tongues” in the Corinthian context.

(Parts in blue by Wayne Jackson: https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/626-can-christians-speak-in-tongues-today)

Speaking in tongues

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

ji

Guest

ji

Guest

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Kerry

Guest

Banned

The_highwayman

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

LT

Guest

Banned

phil112

Guest

LT

Guest

Banned