Why Don’t We See Miracles Like the Apostles Did?

[presidente]

2. The Original OP says ‘like the apostles did’. Can God make miracles of today? Certainly yes but not the gift of miracles like the apostles did.

So what are you going to do if you stand before God one day, and He asks you why you said He couldn't do such things anymore? Nowhere does the Bible teach that God cannot do that, or even that He will not do that.

That is a very presumptuous thing to post.

These are some of the problems with cessationism. It leads people to write statements like that, and it also leads to disobedience to scripture.

 

[fredoheaven]

So what are you going to do if you stand before God one day, and He asks you why you said He couldn't do such things anymore? Nowhere does the Bible teach that God cannot do that, or even that He will not do that.

That is a very presumptuous thing to post.

These are some of the problems with cessationism. It leads people to write statements like that, and it also leads to disobedience to scripture.

We are going to some sort of scenario with an “if” situation. Of course that is not going to work with me, because I base my belief on what the bible says. Unfortunately, I can’t obey something where the Bible does not say I need to obey? Does the Bible say, the gift of miracles will continue? There is a problem with non- cessation, which leads to abuse and misuse of the scriptures.

In Acts 2.43 and 5.12 it is made clear that all the miracles were performed 'by the hands of the apostles'. This was exclusively their sign. Also, in Hebrews 2.3-4 the healing gifts are firmly linked to the apostles. The point is when people say that cessationism (the ceasing of sign-gifts) cannot be proved from Scripture, they forget that the book of Acts says specifically that healings and other wonders were exclusive to the apostles, who have now passed away.

 

[presidente]

Does the Bible say, the gift of miracles will continue?

The Bible teaches, in I Corinthians 12, that the Spirit gives the gift of working of miracles to members of the body of Christ as He wills. It never teaches or hints at this gift being removed. You have no authority to say that the Spirit will not give the gift or that He cannot give the gift.

In Acts 2.43 and 5.12 it is made clear that all the miracles were performed 'by the hands of the apostles'.

Sure, and if you will read the rest of Acts, you will see that Philip and Stephen also did such things. If you read the Old Testament, you can read of the miracles Moses and Elisha did.

This was exclusively their sign.

Where do you get that? A misinterpretation of a verse from II Corinthians? Wherever you get it, your interpretation contradicts the passages about Stephen and Philip doing signs, the ones the disciples forbade to cast out demons in Jesus' name, and I Corinthians 12.

Also, in Hebrews 2.3-4 the healing gifts are firmly linked to the apostles.

Sure, and also 'them that heard him.' But these are not limited exclusively to the apostles. Why do cessationists like to read 'only' into passages where it is not written?

The point is when people say that cessationism (the ceasing of sign-gifts) cannot be proved from Scripture, they forget that the book of Acts says specifically that healings and other wonders were exclusive to the apostles,

No it does not. You refer to verses about the apostles doing signs.

I can use the same line of reasoning to argue that people do not eat fish or honey. I can show a verse that shows our Lord eating fish and honey after His resurrection. I could argue, therefore, that no one else has ever eaten fish or honey since then. That's the same sort of arguing you are making.

 

[presidente]

Does the Bible say, the gift of miracles will continue?

The Bible teaches, in I Corinthians 12, that the Spirit gives the gift of working of miracles to members of the body of Christ as He wills. It never teaches or hints at this gift being removed. You have no authority to say that the Spirit will not give the gift or that He cannot give the gift.

In Acts 2.43 and 5.12 it is made clear that all the miracles were performed 'by the hands of the apostles'.

Sure, and if you will read the rest of Acts, you will see that Philip and Stephen also did such things. If you read the Old Testament, you can read of the miracles Moses and Elisha did.

This was exclusively their sign.

Where do you get that? A misinterpretation of a verse from II Corinthians? Wherever you get it, your interpretation contradicts the passages about Stephen and Philip doing signs, the ones the disciples forbade to cast out demons in Jesus' name, and I Corinthians 12.

Also, in Hebrews 2.3-4 the healing gifts are firmly linked to the apostles.

Sure, and also 'them that heard him.' But these are not limited exclusively to the apostles. Why do cessationists like to read 'only' into passages where it is not written?

The point is when people say that cessationism (the ceasing of sign-gifts) cannot be proved from Scripture, they forget that the book of Acts says specifically that healings and other wonders were exclusive to the apostles,

No it does not. You refer to verses about the apostles doing signs. That doesn't mean only the apostles did signs. I can show you verses where the apostles prayed. Does that mean that only the apostles prayed?

If I argued that only the apostles prayed, you could show me verses about other people praying. I can also show you verses about other people doing miracles. But I will let you look up the stories about the apostles rebuking those who cast out demons in Jesus name, and the signs that Stephen and Philip performed by yourself.

I can use the same line of reasoning to argue that people do not eat fish or honey. I can show a verse that shows our Lord eating fish and honey after His resurrection. I could argue, therefore, that no one else has ever eaten fish or honey since then. That's the same sort of arguing you are making.

 

[MattTooFor]

We are going to some sort of scenario with an “if” situation. Of course that is not going to work with me, because I base my belief on what the bible says. Unfortunately, I can’t obey something where the Bible does not say I need to obey? Does the Bible say, the gift of miracles will continue? There is a problem with non- cessation, which leads to abuse and misuse of the scriptures.

In Acts 2.43 and 5.12 it is made clear that all the miracles were performed 'by the hands of the apostles'. This was exclusively their sign. Also, in Hebrews 2.3-4 the healing gifts are firmly linked to the apostles. The point is when people say that cessationism (the ceasing of sign-gifts) cannot be proved from Scripture, they forget that the book of Acts says specifically that healings and other wonders were exclusive to the apostles, who have now passed away.

I don't think a full team of NASA rocket scientists could decipher what in the world is being said here. My point stands...that some folks in the congregation were given the ability to understand the "tongues" and therefore, a rigid, hyper-literal interpretation which says that absolutely "no one understands"...leads to a false conclusion. And I haven't asked to know "how the gift works". Why would I, for heaven's sake? I just know it works.

I'd like to chime in here just to say...I think my wording was a little rough on my last post and want to apologize for that. This DOES become a little personal for me...and it's a bit exasperating to see people doggedly defending something that in my rather vast experience, doesn't exist.

And I also realize this line of discussion is a bit off topic for this thread so...I hope this tangent hasn't rained on anyone's parade! Anyway...

I was born into a Christian family 60 years ago, have been to a thousand churches on two continents, I have at least five cable channels on my TV which are dedicated to religious broadcasting by which to observe most of the big, popular Charismatic/Pentecostal churches in the world...and I am a very heavy user of "YouTube"...which I have used in search of legit Charismatic/Pentecostal phenomena. BUT...it is not to be found and not to be seen.

And the other thing is...I know languages - I grew up in Germany till the age of fifteen (my father was a pastor of the non-Charismatic variety) so I speak German. I speak Spanish, having studied it 3 years in high school and now doing business on a daily basis with Latinos here in Northern California (Spanish is a very simple language, by the way) and I have three years of ancient Greek studies under my belt and so...

...in the hundreds of times I have observed so-called "tongues-speaking", not once was it even close to an actual language. Not...even...close. You know, you can recognize when someone is speaking an actual language even if you don't understand the language...and that is particularly true in my case. In fact, I have to believe most laypersons even apart from extensive education in languages, would have a very similar ability to recognize whether or not an actual language is being spoken.

When you observe someone doing this "tongues" thing, invariably you're just hearing very simple, repetitive sounds such as "hubbala, hubbala, hubbala". No disrespect intended. I'm just testifying to what I have encountered. This kind of thing is not even CLOSE to being any kind of actual language.

And so when it comes to 1Cor.14 and Acts 2...the question is, again, why was there ZERO controversy or debate among the Christian fellowship groups of those days...as to whether these apostolic healing phenomena and "tongues" phenomena even EXISTED?? There was ZERO controversy among believers in those days, in stark contrast to today. Why would that be?

Answer: Because there was an abundance and a saturation of these phenomena among the believers. Legit "tongues" was so common among believers, Paul seems to suggest that almost every member of the Corinth group had the gift.

I don't doubt that "tongues" were used even when 'foreigners' were not present...as a means, apparently, for God to get divine information into the ears of believers. But it was also used as a confirming miracle when foreigners would hear the Gospel in their own language and thus be brought to a saving knowledge. There was no 'second kind' of tongues. Just different uses for the same phenomenon.

I say that because when we come to 1Cor.14...Paul is obviously proceeding on the assumption...that everyone had already been previously familiarized with the definitions and descriptions of "tongues"...from their own experiences with the gift and from what they had heard about the Day of Pentecost events.

 

[presidente]

I don't think a full team of NASA rocket scientists could decipher what in the world is being said here.

I can read it and understand it. I've got a PhD, but I'm not a rocket scientists. My sentences were long there. Anyway, I was saying that you can't conclude from the text that interpreters of tongues actually know the languages. If they did, they would be the ones who would be able to go evangelize the world in foreign languages. Interpreters of tongues may have gotten a message, which was the interpretation. This is consistent with the experiences of many who interpret tongues today. It comes like a prophecy.

My point stands...that some folks in the congregation were given the ability to understand the "tongues" and therefore,

They were able to interpret what was said. The passage does not give us enough detail to know that the interpreter of tongues knew what each word meant like a native speaker of the language would.

a

rigid, hyper-literal interpretation which says that absolutely "no one understands"...leads to a false conclusion.

This is a straw man argument. This idea of an interpretation so rigid that it does not allow for interpretation of tongues is your idea, not mine, and not an idea promoted by anyone else on the forum. The text mentions interpretation of tongues. It does not say anything about people who understand their own languages in tongues.

And 'tongues' doesn't mean 'other people understand what you say.' It means 'languages' (or those red things in your mouths.)

Fair enough. But there are still those who are understanding the "tongues" in this statement. That's what "yet with all that" indicates. God is saying 'I went to the trouble of conveying the Gospel to you in unmistakably miraculous fashion and "yet with all that" you will still not hear me.

In the original context, in the immediate fulfillment, it had to do with a foreign army that spoke a foreign language speaking to them and marching them off into captivity. I Corinthians 14 does not say the people in the church were 'preaching the Gospel' to anyone in tongues. Again, circular reasoning and eisegesis on your part.

And the idea of unbelievers coming in when they speak in tongues is just a hypothetical. It could happen. Paul doesn't imply that it usually did. Paul wrote 'If there come into your assembly...' It could happen, but church gatherings like this were for the edification of believers, not evangelistic meetings.

So again, a hyper-literal interpretation of "no one understands" leads to a false conclusion.
I hadn't asked you to provide a study on the word "tongue". I was inviting you to discuss the fact that it is quite clear Paul proceeds with chapter 14 on the assumption that EVERYONE ALREADY HAS A DEFINITION for the "gift of tongues". Your tangent into this word study is bizarre, quite frankly.

It would be nice if you would take some time to think about what you read to try to grasp the point. That is true of my posts, but much more important when reading the scriptures. Verses 21 through 25 in I Corinthians 14 would be a good place to do this.

The gift of divers tongues is an ability to speak in languages. It is not an ability to make people to show up at a particular location who happen to know those languages.

Prez, come on. Who would be thinking they had sat down with an actual physical copy of the Book of Acts?? All the believers knew and had heard about...the events of the Day of Pentecost.

I notice you base a lot of beliefs on assumptions. You have no reason of knowing whether most believers before Luke wrote his book, way out in Gentile lands, knew of the events of Acts 2. Paul doesn't mention it in any of his sermons in Acts. He might have told them about this. You don't know.

From the Day of Pentecost events...and also from simply observing the unmistakable and spectacularly miraculous features of "tongues"...in stark contrast to the modern-day where there is NO miraculous aspect.

Reality is not limited by your lack of experience.

Maybe the Corinthian Christianss were familiar with the events in Acts 2. Maybe some were and some weren't. They were likely familiar with speaking in tongues from seeing it in church. We can see how speaking in tongues functioned in I Corinthians 14. Paul wrote 'no man understandeth him'. He did not write that there were people present who understood the language as their own native language.

An interpretation received the same way a prophecy is received can be delivered without actually understanding the language.

Again, indecipherable. What in the world? The "even so they will not listen to me" of verse 21 is referring to those who have left the faith and/or rejected the faith. In other words, they are unsaved and hell-bound.

That would be true of unbelievers if they continue in unbelief. Probably not of the uninstructed/unlearned. Paul says speaking in tongues is a sign to them that believe not. He does not say it is a sign to believers who struggle with unbelief in some area.

According to your (false) doctrines, if I reject modern-day 'gibberish-speak', I am toast. Run from your own doctrines all you want.

That's your straw man, not mine. Do you want to be toast for some reason?

 

[BeyondET]

I'd like to chime in here just to say...I think my wording was a little rough on my last post and want to apologize for that. This DOES become a little personal for me...and it's a bit exasperating to see people doggedly defending something that in my rather vast experience, doesn't exist.

And I also realize this line of discussion is a bit off topic for this thread so...I hope this tangent hasn't rained on anyone's parade! Anyway...

I was born into a Christian family 60 years ago, have been to a thousand churches on two continents, I have at least five cable channels on my TV which are dedicated to religious broadcasting by which to observe most of the big, popular Charismatic/Pentecostal churches in the world...and I am a very heavy user of "YouTube"...which I have used in search of legit Charismatic/Pentecostal phenomena. BUT...it is not to be found and not to be seen.

And the other thing is...I know languages - I grew up in Germany till the age of fifteen (my father was a pastor of the non-Charismatic variety) so I speak German. I speak Spanish, having studied it 3 years in high school and now doing business on a daily basis with Latinos here in Northern California (Spanish is a very simple language, by the way) and I have three years of ancient Greek studies under my belt and so...

...in the hundreds of times I have observed so-called "tongues-speaking", not once was it even close to an actual language. Not...even...close. You know, you can recognize when someone is speaking an actual language even if you don't understand the language...and that is particularly true in my case. In fact, I have to believe most laypersons even apart from extensive education in languages, would have a very similar ability to recognize whether or not an actual language is being spoken.

When you observe someone doing this "tongues" thing, invariably you're just hearing very simple, repetitive sounds such as "hubbala, hubbala, hubbala". No disrespect intended. I'm just testifying to what I have encountered. This kind of thing is not even CLOSE to being any kind of actual language.

And so when it comes to 1Cor.14 and Acts 2...the question is, again, why was there ZERO controversy or debate among the Christian fellowship groups of those days...as to whether these apostolic healing phenomena and "tongues" phenomena even EXISTED?? There was ZERO controversy among believers in those days, in stark contrast to today. Why would that be?

Answer: Because there was an abundance and a saturation of these phenomena among the believers. Legit "tongues" was so common among believers, Paul seems to suggest that almost every member of the Corinth group had the gift.

I don't doubt that "tongues" were used even when 'foreigners' were not present...as a means, apparently, for God to get divine information into the ears of believers. But it was also used as a confirming miracle when foreigners would hear the Gospel in their own language and thus be brought to a saving knowledge. There was no 'second kind' of tongues. Just different uses for the same phenomenon.

I say that because when we come to 1Cor.14...Paul is obviously proceeding on the assumption...that everyone had already been previously familiarized with the definitions and descriptions of "tongues"...from their own experiences with the gift and from what they had heard about the Day of Pentecost events.

I do agree that some so called tongues like the whobla whobla whobla stuff is way out there.

But it doesn't matter if you know every human language ever produced doesn't mean when people speak in tongue it will be something you can recognize from your experience.

 

[trofimus]

I do agree that some so called tongues like the whobla whobla whobla stuff is way out there.

But it doesn't matter if you know every human language ever produced doesn't mean when people speak in tongue it will be something you can recognize from your experience.

Why 99.9999999999 of charismatics have "unrecognizable" kind of a language? Seems very suspicious to me.

 

[presidente]

I'd like to chime in here just to say...I think my wording was a little rough on my last post and want to apologize for that. This DOES become a little personal for me...and it's a bit exasperating to see people doggedly defending something that in my rather vast experience, doesn't exist.

I appreciate the apology. I know I can come off a bit blunt at times, so I apologize if I've done that. I do find some of your positions a bit frustrating, like assuming to know exactly what was spoken in tongues in Acts 2. I'm inclined to think it was prayer, since that seems to be the general gist of the content of speaking in tongues in I Corinthians 14.

I would also say a lifetime of experience is not enough to say such a thing does not exist. It reminds me of atheists insisting that God does not exist anywhere in the universe or outside of the universe, when they haven't even traversed this tiny speck of the universe, and wouldn't be able to see God anyway.

I haven't heard speaking in tongues in a language I know. I know and have met people with such experiences, but I haven't experienced that. I have seen the supernatural in the gift of prophecy, the word of knowledge, and to some extent with healing. I believe in a lot more things than I have witnessed with my own eyes, based on my faith in what is written in the Bible?

I was born into a Christian family 60 years ago, have been to a thousand churches on two continents, I have at least five cable channels on my TV which are dedicated to religious broadcasting by which to observe most of the big, popular Charismatic/Pentecostal churches in the world...and I am a very heavy user of "YouTube"...which I have used in search of legit Charismatic/Pentecostal phenomena. BUT...it is not to be found and not to be seen.

I try not to spend a lot of time watching some of those channels. It seems like a little niche of prosperity preachers have taken over much of it.

And the other thing is...I know languages - I grew up in Germany till the age of fifteen (my father was a pastor of the non-Charismatic variety) so I speak German. I speak Spanish, having studied it 3 years in high school and now doing business on a daily basis with Latinos here in Northern California (Spanish is a very simple language, by the way) and I have three years of ancient Greek studies under my belt and so...

...in the hundreds of times I have observed so-called "tongues-speaking", not once was it even close to an actual language. Not...even...close. You know, you can recognize when someone is speaking an actual language even if you don't understand the language...and that is particularly true in my case.

My bachelor's degree is in linguistics. My masters and PhD are in other fields. As an undergrad, I studied six languages, (counting Old English as a separate language, excluding modern English, my native language. I learned Indonesian after that, really learned it, didn't just study it. I studied about phonology in the intro class, took a course in morphology, and I studied historical linguistics.

I have heard speaking in tongues that, to my ears, sounds like real languages. I've noticed phonetic sounds that did not sound like the sounds of the dominant language in the area I was in (e.g. English). I've been in a house meeting in Indonesia and I heard someone speaking in tongues. I did not know if it was 'speaking in tongues' or someone just praying in a local language I did not know. I have at least a semi-trained ear with all of my language studies.

I have also seen a meeting where people were told to speak in tongues and the whole group seemed to be saying 'ba ba ba' or 'bada bada bada'. That was really weird to me. It seemed the way the speaker was trying to get people to speak in tongues could easily generate a learned behavior, but he was also a guest speaker, and I don' t know what they normally did.

I would not say all alleged speaking in tongues is real.

You mentioned Germany. I know a German preacher who knows two German speakers who do not know English who speak in tongues in English. One is Swiss. One of them speaks in King James English.

Btw, maybe this wasn't the wisest thing to do, but I once played a clip of speaking in tongues to my former Arabic professor who also knew Persian and asked him if he knew what language it was. He said he didn't know, maybe Kurdish. He had a PhD in a language field, and it sounded like a language to him.

In fact, I have to believe most laypersons even apart from extensive education in languages, would have a very similar ability to recognize whether or not an actual language is being spoken.

I would not agree. One problem is that if there are 'tongues of angels' they are unfalsifiable, since angelic speech may convey meaning with features that human languages do not use to convey speech. But there are also issues like repetition. If someone is saying 'Holy, holy, holy' in a foreign language, it may sound like repetitive gibberish. Certain languages in southern Africa have clicks and whistles and don't sound like languages to many people.

And so when it comes to 1Cor.14 and Acts 2...the question is, again, why was there ZERO controversy or debate among the Christian fellowship groups of those days...as to whether these apostolic healing phenomena and "tongues" phenomena even EXISTED?? There was ZERO controversy among believers in those days, in stark contrast to today. Why would that be?

I don't see how this proves your point. There had not been centuries where church liturgical practices had left little room for the operation of certain gifts of the Spirit, and where some of the gifts were rare. Enlightenment philosophy had not taken hold. None of the early church grew up under the influence of modernism, watching Scooby Doo episodes as children. Liberal unbelieving scholars had not come on the scene, claiming miracles never really happened. The early Christians did not live in a culture where the supernatural was rejected. Spiritual gifts did not conflict with the dominant world view in the same way they conflict with the world view of many Christians today. And of course, cessationism had not been invented yet.

My question is why don't you believe in these gifts? The Corinthians were apparently right about accepting the existence of spiritual gifts.

I don't necessarily agree with you that there was no one who rejected such ideas. Paul wanted to instruct them not to be ignorant and told them of the gifts. There was the potential of an uninstructed person hearing speaking in tongues and saying 'ye are mad.'

I don't doubt that "tongues" were used even when 'foreigners' were not present...as a means, apparently, for God to get divine information into the ears of believers. But it was also used as a confirming miracle when foreigners would hear the Gospel in their own language and thus be brought to a saving knowledge.

The first sentence... I think we have hit on an area of agreement. But Acts 2 shows Jews who spoke foreign languages being amazed when they heard about the wondrous works of God in tongues, but believing after they heard regular preaching of the Gospel. Paul says tongues are a sign for unbeleivers, and illustrates how an unbeliever might respond to speaking in tongues with unbelief. There is nothing here about people going into the church meeting and hearing the Gospel in their own language in Corinth. In fact, Paul's argument here may be a way of giving prophecy an extra point in competition with speaking in tongues, since prophecy is good for evangelism, but tongues is not, at least in his example.

There was no 'second kind' of tongues. Just different uses for the same phenomenon.

And speaking in tongues is the ability to speak a language, not the ability to make the language be a language foreigners who are present understand.

 

[BeyondET]

Why 99.9999999999 of charismatics have "unrecognizable" kind of a language? Seems very suspicious to me.

Indeed even in that many can be misleading, but what I'm getting to is that you can't go by what knowledge of human language is known to know a spirit tongue takes a spiritual translator and not all people have that gift. If I say conflontchaness do you know what that means or is it recognizable?

 

[stonesoffire]

My personal opinion of the baptism of Holy Spirit is the empowering of the new creation man of God. I see a difference of understanding this between those who deny this, and those who have received.

We are now Spirit, we have a soul and a body. Before our new birth, we were soul, we had a darkened spirit, and body. Why would we not speak new languages? Why would they not even be angelic if so desired by Holy Spirit to give? Angels are spirit beings too.

So we have a new language of Spirit, our bodies are quickened by the Word which is what? Spirit that brings life! And our works are righteous, and even miraculous. The Genesis of what is to come! Scripture says the foretaste, the down payment, the pledge of God Himself saying this is what I'm doing for humanity.

Jesus spoke of seeing the Kingdom, and then entering the Kingdom. This walk of Spirit men and women is then out of heaven, no longer of this earthly realm, but being connected to the realms of heaven itself.

It is for all who want a continual refreshing of the experience we received with our new birth. And it's exciting....even on those days that are repetitious because we can connect to Father through Holy Spirit at any time. But, this is a learning process.

 

[MattTooFor]

My bachelor's degree is in linguistics. My masters and PhD are in other fields. As an undergrad, I studied six languages, (counting Old English as a separate language, excluding modern English, my native language. I learned Indonesian after that, really learned it, didn't just study it. I studied about phonology in the intro class, took a course in morphology, and I studied historical linguistics.

Let me clarify -- my intention was not to get into 'credentials'. This is an 'anonymous' discussion board after all. We don't really know anything about each other's personal lives. And any arguments need to stand on their own merits and not on anything else.

So...I didn't want there to be any misimpression when I was talking about German and Spanish. I can't help where I grew up - that's not an 'accomplishment'...and taking high school Spanish lessons is hardly extraordinary, lol. And millions of people in America undertake 'religious studies'. But like it or not, I have had a very wide exposure to languages. Just happens to be the case.

So when one casts a net as wide as I have...and runs into ZERO "tongues" (other than the "hubbala hubbala hubbala" variety) and ZERO apostolic-style miracles (raising from the dead, healing from profound life-long paralysis and blindness)...that counts for something, contrary to your assertion. That needs to be answered for. And it needs to be answered for particularly by anyone who aspires to be a Christian leader of any kind.

People are being sent on "wild goose chases"...trying to hunt down things that don't exist...except if its "24 years ago and 16,000 miles away and 4th hand". After a while, I see it as irresponsible to send people off on these snipe hunts. Do you know how many disillusioned spiritually-injured Charismatic-wannabes I've run into in my time? About a million.

In my experience, Charismatics can NOT get themselves to stop passing along hearsay. That is NOT how the "signs and wonders" miracles are supposed to work. I am supposed to see it with MY eyeballs. Not yours. But you guys...can...not...get...yourselves...to stop with the 2nd hand, 3rd hand, 10th hand hearsay.

That's all the Charismatics have...is hearsay. Not a single one of them has said to me:"Hey, I have the gift of healing. Follow me to church for a number of Sundays and sooner or later I'm going to heal the lame or blind and raise the dead!"

That has never happened and never will happen because no one has the "gift of healing" in these times. And please (for anyone reading this post) don't treat modern-day Christians to the typical Charismatic smack-down "well, we just have inferior faith these days - God is displeased with 21st century Christians". You guys keep the self-loathing to yourselves - thanks!

Not to mention, most recipients of miracles in the NT were blindsided by the miracle. They had NO faith. Didn't even know Christianity existed!

 

[plainguy]

Let me clarify -- my intention was not to get into 'credentials'.

YoU waNnt crAdenShals ? I'lE giv yUo craDenshAls

 

[presidente]

Let me clarify -- my intention was not to get into 'credentials'. This is an 'anonymous' discussion board after all. We don't really know anything about each other's personal lives. And any arguments need to stand on their own merits and not on anything else.

I agree with your point. But on the other hand, making comments about language when you have some training in linguistics or exposure to other languages is a valid point to make.

Your position is that Biblical speaking in tongues does not occur today, right? That's how I interpret your comments. Your position is also that God does not perform miracles through individuals, right?

My position is that the Spirit gives these gifts as He wills. Maybe they don't occur so frequently in the circles you frequent that you actually encountered such a thing. Or maybe you skeptically dismissed the evidence available to you. If these gifts are rarer than you'd like them to be, at least around you, then that doesn't mean they don't exist.

We are both Christians, and we should go with what the Bible says, instead of our own experiences. You haven't seen certain spiritual gifts, so you don't believe they occur on earth today. I see the scripture says they are given 'as the Spirit wills' so I believe what the scripture says. You are basing your doctrine on your interpretation of experience....or lack thereof, which makes even less sense. I am basing mine on scripture.

I have seen some of the I Corinthians 14 gifts. I've never seen anyone raise the dead. My wife may have actually done that before I met her when a man got hit by a bus. He didn't have a death certificate, but he did not appear to be breathing before she prayed for him and commanded his spirit to come back into his body in Jesus name, while the Muslims looked at her. I didn't see it myself, but I am one degree of separation, so to speak, from someone who did. And I know my wife well enough to know that she wouldn't just make something like that up.

I've also witnessed that a girl was healed of severely crossed eyes. I've known other people who were healed, but I can't see internal organs or pain, and I'm not a medical doctor (though I played one on TV).

So when one casts a net as wide as I have...and runs into ZERO "tongues" (other than the "hubbala hubbala hubbala" variety)

And I have heard speaking in tongues, which, to my somewhat trained ears, sound like they could possibly be real languages. I have known two people who spoke in tongues and other people understood. I know or have met two people who have heard speaking in tongues in English, and I know of other cases.

Your argument doesn't hold water. If you haven't experienced speaking in tongues, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. When English evolutionists heard of the duckbilled platypus, a lot of them dismissed it as a myth until one was sent to them to study. It did not fit with their preconceived ideas based on the theory of evolution. The fact that none of them had seen a duckbilled platypus did not prove that such creatures did not exist.

and ZERO apostolic-style miracles (raising from the dead, healing from profound life-long paralysis and blindness)

If someone gets healed, do you just move the goalpost, and say that healing wasn't spectacular enough to be apostolic in nature. Jesus even healed a woman of some kind of internal bleeding. The woman actually touched the hem of his garment and power came out of Him, and He sensed it. Is that spectacular? Is that an apostolic level healing? There were probably plenty of minor ailments healed, also. Jesus healed Peter's mother of a fever. Is that up to the level to be a apostolic level healing?

People are being sent on "wild goose chases"...trying to hunt down things that don't exist...

Things that don't exist? Your reasoning is similar to an atheists. You assert things you can't know. You certainly can't know there are no miracles being done through individuals from the Bible, because the Bible does not teach that such things have been removed from the earth.

If you are going to claim that all the cases in the world of miracles are false, you should go track them down. Some will probably be rumors. Others will pan out. I haven't read Craig Keener's 'Miracles' yet. He's known more for his works on the Bible. You could start with a book like that and read what evidence is readily available in book form for a low price before claiming their is no evidence. If you really wanted to back up your assertion, of proving that these miracles do not exist, you could research the thousands of claims that they do exist.

I found a video of a lecture being given by the former Time correspondent in Beijing, a journalist, who wrote a book in Jesus and China. I forget the title. It appeared to be a lecture on a college campus. He said that, at least from talking to the Chinese, they believed that people were being healed through the ministry of Christians in China. He was able to interview a number of persecuted Christians who escaped to Hong Kong.

e was also able to 'triangulate' one story by interviewing different people from different perspectives. It had to do with a policeman who persecuted Christians. Later, he got a form of cancer doctors could not cure and was healed through the ministry of Christians. He was healed, became a Christian himself, and fled to Hong Kong due to persecution. The author/journalist was able to interview different people about this story.

except if its "24 years ago and 16,000 miles away and 4th hand".

Your criticisms sound like the same sort of things atheists might say about the miracles in the Bible.

I am supposed to see it with MY eyeballs. Not yours. But you guys...can...not...get...yourselves...to stop with the 2nd hand, 3rd hand, 10th hand hearsay.

Why do you need to see miracles with your own eyes? You aren't an unbeliever who is only going to believe the Gospel if he sees miracles, are you? Why isn't the Bible good enough? Why can't you just say, "the Bible says the Spirit gives gifts of healing and the working of miracles as He wills. Okay, I believe that."? Why do you have to see the miracles with your own eyeballs to believe that God does such things?

That's all the Charismatics have...is hearsay. Not a single one of them has said to me:"Hey, I have the gift of healing. Follow me to church for a number of Sundays and sooner or later I'm going to heal the lame or blind and raise the dead!"

I don't know that the apostles would have said such things. There are also factors like having faith and the will of God. The apostles had done miracles before, but on one occasion, they prayed that God would stretch forth His hand to heal and to do signs and wonders. They were dependent on God for such things. But there are people who go out with people and pray for the sick on the street and at other places and share the Gospel, who will train others to do the same thing. On YouTube, Torben Sondergaard and Pete Cabrera have videos about this sort of thing. Neither one of them believe they have to be dependent on the faith of the person being ministered to. Torben Sondergaard talks to the type of people who will engage with him on the street, which tend to be young people, so he'll deal with things like sports injuries and various forms of pain that young people hanging out at the mall or on the street might experience.

 

[MattTooFor]

I agree with your point. But on the other hand, making comments about language when you have some training in linguistics or exposure to other languages is a valid point to make.

Nah. I've been on various discussion boards long enough to believe credentials claims and other extraneous claims are not a good idea. Just my view.

Maybe they don't occur so frequently

That's not a biblical claim. In fact, it's counter-biblical: Paul indicated "tongues" were hugely prevalent.

we should go with what the Bible says

Well, the Bible says "having tasted of the powers of the age to come". Charismatic/Pentecostal doctrines contradict that directly in claiming all miraculous powers are equally part and parcel to ALL ages. The Bible says that there are "powers" of a future age (the age of God and His kingdom) that are only "tasted" or sampled in this age.

I have seen some of the I Corinthians 14 gifts.

There you go again with the hearsay. You guys just. don't. get. the problem with hearsay - lol! If there are still these gifts in existence...then you need to do what the early saints did...and instead of telling me what to believe...you need to show me what to believe!

That's what those guys did - they would tell an unsaved friend "come to our fellowship - you will see miracles".

Your argument doesn't hold water.

Sure it does. Through a reasonable accumulation of evidence, I have reached a reasonably certain 'working conclusion' that these gifts are not currently ongoing. It's like proving there are no unicorns. I'm not going to wait until I've searched every nook and cranny of Planet earth before i arrive at a reasonably certain conclusion there are no unicorns.

And I see my reasoning process based on Scripture: If I know 1) that "tongues" were hugely prevalent and seemingly the most common gift and 2) the gift enabled people to cross language boundaries (1Cor.14:21) and speak in foreign languages so as to "tell of the mighty and wondrous works of God" but 3) that this huge prevalence is now non-existent in the modern-day ("I've experienced 3 incidents in 30 years" does not count) and there are NO huge numbers of tongues-speakeing missionaries who have fanned out across the world...well...2+2=4.

And again, when you try to claim a 'raising from the dead' for a guy who got hit by a bus...and then think that in passing that along as hearsay, that this is 'crediting'...sorry to say, that is like the thousandth confirmation for me as to the 'wishful thinking' mindset of so many Charismatics.

A story like that is not evidence and the fact you think it's evidence...what can I say - we're not on the same page, brother...to put it mildly.

Your reasoning is similar to an atheists.

No, it's nothing like atheists. We're never going to be able to make God pop out of the clouds with the sound of thunder (until the day of His return, of course). Contrastingly, that was EXACTLY the purpose for these miraculous, confirming signs:

To blow people's minds and thus bring them to salvation. Right there in 1Cor.14, we see that very thing...the very thing that modern-day Pentecostals fail to do: "...he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you" They didn't tell the guy who fell on his face: "Hey buddy, you need to take our word for it - there are miracles going on!"

Why do you need to see miracles with your own eyes?

I have no "need" to see anything. It's just that it's not happening. Back in the days of Corinth, "tongues" were so prevalent that Paul seems to indicate almost every member at Corinth had the gift. I should have seen thousands upon thousands of miracles by now. Ain't happenin'.

 

[DiscipleDave]

Why Don’t We See Miracles Like the Apostles Did?

Are we not Spirit filled like they were or is it from lack of faith, prayer, or fasting?

I believe we experience some miracles but nothing like they did.

Jesus did very few miracles in His hometown. Why? Because they did not believe. People today do not believe prophets exist anymore, therefore if a True Prophet shows up, he/she will not be doing very many miracles. NOT because that prophet can't, but because people don't believe in prophets.

Want to know the secret to have all your prayers answered. Then believe and DO what Scriptures teach.

1Jn 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. And this is his commandment, That we should 1) believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ (FAITH), AND 2) love one another (WORKS), as he gave us commandment. And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

Now the believing part of those verses this generation has down pact, and has no trouble accepting, but it is the latter part, that this generation refuses to believe or DO, and that is to LOVE ONE ANOTHER. Because they FAIL at that miserably, their prayers are NOT answered, and miracles are NOT done through them.

Also another reason the Holy Ghost hands are tied and can't reveal him/herself as the Spirit would like to is because of this verse.

Act_5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

Who, according to the Inspired Holy Word of God is the Holy Ghost given to? To that that OBEY Jesus Christ, and what does Jesus Christ COMMAND Christians to DO? Love One Another. Hence the reason the Holy Ghost is not given to many people in this generation. This generation wakes up and thinks "What can I do for ME today" And does not think "What can I do for others today?" Is it any wonder why miracles are not happening like they did back then?

But here is Good News. Now that you are Saved by Grace through Faith in Jesus Christ, and not because of anything that you have done, NOW is time to stop obeying satan, start obeying Jesus Christ, and start living a life for Jesus Christ and NOT yourself. Then see if the Holy Ghost is not given to you with the gifts thereof. But how many are willing to sacrifice their life for Jesus? How many people from this generation is willing to die for Him, will to get rid of that sin that so easily besets them? Maybe one out of two hundred thousand will find that narrow and difficult path that leads to life everlasting, but in order to find that path, you must first give up your life, as Jesus gave up His for you. Those who continue to live life for themselves will never find the path that leads to life everlasting. It is not easy to give up your life to live ONLY for Him. But if you Truly Love Him, you will be willing to do anything for Him, If you Truly LOVED Him, you would stop obeying His enemy. Your Master is to whom you obey, if you obey Jesus, He is your Master and Lord, if you obey satan, he is your master.

^i^

††† In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ †††

DiscipleDave

^i^

 

[shittim]

Thank you Disciple Dave! We at our church are seeing His power manifest in those who believe, yet it is a small group, most in our church know "about" G-d without knowing Him personally.

 

[presidente]

That's not a biblical claim. In fact, it's counter-biblical: Paul indicated "tongues" were hugely prevalent.

In Corinth it seems likely. But we don't know how common miracles were per se. I am talking about what was going on in between the miracles, or outpourings of miracles, that occur in the Bible. There was some level of a stream of signs and wonders, so to speak, following Paul as he ministered from Jerusalem to Illyricum in Acts 15, bringing the Gospel into new areas.

Well, the Bible says "having tasted of the powers of the age to come". Charismatic/Pentecostal doctrines contradict that directly in claiming all miraculous powers are equally part and parcel to ALL ages. The Bible says that there are "powers" of a future age (the age of God and His kingdom) that are only "tasted" or sampled in this age.

I don't see how you have a point at all. If the author of Hebrews indicates that it is possible to taste the powers of the age to come in this age, why would Pentecostals and Charismatics be wrong to believe that it is possible to taste the powers of the age to come in this age? The verse argues against your point of view.

If there are still these gifts in existence...then you need to do what the early saints did...and instead of telling me what to believe...you need to show me what to believe!

So unless you see with your own eyes, you won't believe I Corinthians 12 still applies? Something about this reminds me of the story of Thomas. Do you want me to take a miracle out of my pocket and email it to you through the Internet?

That's what those guys did - they would tell an unsaved friend "come to our fellowship - you will see miracles".

Maybe they did. I'm sure that has happened in modern times as well. Miracles and some of the other gifts do seem to come in outpourings in certain places at certain times, with sprinkles here and there.

I've seen a lot more obviously supernatural stuff along the lines of prophecy and words of knowledge. I can't think of a miracle that wasn't a healing, maybe one, that I've been a witness to.

Sure it does. Through a reasonable accumulation of evidence, I have reached a reasonably certain 'working conclusion' that these gifts are not currently ongoing. It's like proving there are no unicorns. I'm not going to wait until I've searched every nook and cranny of Planet earth before i arrive at a reasonably certain conclusion there are no unicorns.

You wouldn't search every nook and cranny to reach a reasonably 'certain' conclusion that there are no duckbilled platypuses using that reasoning, either, but there are some.

And I see my reasoning process based on Scripture: If I know 1) that "tongues" were hugely prevalent and seemingly the most common gift and 2) the gift enabled people to cross language boundaries (1Cor.14:21) and speak in foreign languages so as to "tell of the mighty and wondrous works of God" but

The problem is you envision a gift that you can't support by scripture. I Corinthians 14:21, in the original context is NOT about people hearing languages they understand. It is about people hearing languages they do NOT understand. Hebrews did not (typically) understand Assyrian or Aramaic. They understood Judeans, and it is clear from one passage that Hebrews did not typically understand Aramaic, because one of the officials wanted the representative of the Babylonians who was threatening them to speak in Aramaic so the people would not understand.

Speaking in tongues is not the ability to speak in the language of the people around you. It is the ability to speak whatever language the Spirit gives utterance to speak. People being present who understand is another issue. In the Acts 2 scenario, they were there. There is no evidence of this ever happening again in the Biblical text. In I Corinthians 14, speakers of the language are not present, and speaking in tongues has to be interpreted by a supernatural gift.

And again, when you try to claim a 'raising from the dead' for a guy who got hit by a bus...and then think that in passing that along as hearsay, that this is 'crediting'...sorry to say, that is like the thousandth confirmation for me as to the 'wishful thinking' mindset of so many Charismatics.

Are you calling my wife a liar?

A story like that is not evidence and the fact you think it's evidence...what can I say - we're not on the same page, brother...to put it mildly. No, it's nothing like atheists. We're never going to be able to make God pop out of the clouds with the sound of thunder (until the day of His return, of course). Contrastingly, that was EXACTLY the purpose for these miraculous, confirming signs:

To blow people's minds and thus bring them to salvation.

Why would you have to see them then? Are you a Christian already?

That's usually what was going on when we read about 'signs and wonders.' There was also a gift of the working of miracles for the benefit of the body of Christ.

Right there in 1Cor.14, we see that very thing...the very thing that modern-day Pentecostals fail to do: "...he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you" They didn't tell the guy who fell on his face: "Hey buddy, you need to take our word for it - there are miracles going on!"

The main problem here is you are basing doctrine, not on scripture, but on your lack of experience. The Bible teaches that the Spirit gifts individuals to do miracles, and never teaches that he stopped, so your conclusions contradict scripture. Your reasoning process is also unscientific, especially since you believe that miracles occurred at some time in the past. This isn't unicorns. This is more along the lines of asking whether a certain species that clearly existed is extinct or not. Your method is also poor from a historical or legal perspective.

I don't know if any of these people literally prostrated, which was probably a much more common position to assume back then than it is today, at least in the west. But there are people who have come to faith partly through prophecies and revelatory gifts. Plenty of people prophesy secrets of other men's hearts. I've seen this quit a bit. The one doing the prophesying prophesies details about the other individual that he could not possibly know.

Reality is bigger than what what you see, hear, and smell. There are a lot of other people out there seeing, hearing, and smelling to. You aren't omniscient. The limit of your experiences is not the limit of reality. Here's a quote from Hamlet by Shakespeare that is relevant,

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. "

 

[MattTooFor]

I don't see how you have a point at all. If the author of Hebrews indicates that it is possible to taste the powers of the age to come in this age, why would Pentecostals and Charismatics be wrong to believe that it is possible to taste the powers of the age to come in this age?

Re-read my comment: "Charismatic/Pentecostal doctrines contradict [Hebrews 6:5] directly in claiming all miraculous powers are equally part and parcel to ALL ages."

You wouldn't search every nook and cranny to reach a reasonably 'certain' conclusion that there are no duckbilled platypuses

That's right - because I've seen one at a zoo, lol. You're making my point, aren't you?.

The problem is you envision a gift that you can't support by scripture.

Well no, I can support it by scripture...from Acts 2, where they spoke in foreign languages, proclaiming the mighty deeds of God. By the way, the Holy Spirit "gives utterance"...and it would obviously be utterance that was appropriate to the occasion. The occasion of the Day of Pentecost was evangelism...ergo, the Holy Spirit "gave utterance" which was appropriate for evangelism. Not to mention "all scripture is profitable...for instruction in righteousness".

Your idea that the Holy Spirit possibly might not give utterance that was appropriate to evangelism...is unbiblical on at least two counts.

Are you calling my wife a liar?

Well...as I said, you are engaging in classic Pentecostal-style "wishful thinking". And again, you are unable to grasp the concept of "hearsay". It is irresponsible of you to demand I accept hearsay...or else I'm insulting your loved ones. That is, again, absolutely classic modern-day Pentecostal behavior and arm-twisting tactics...which I'm sure you've used in the past because you just used it on me!

No, in stark contrast, the early believers, instead of trying to hit someone over the head with a 2x4...were able to simply say "hey, come to our Bible study tonight - we will blow your mind with miracles".

Why would you have to see them then? Are you a Christian already?

According to your skewed interpretation of 1Cor. 14:21...no, I am not a believer. To "reject" pseudo-tongues is to reject God.

The main problem here is you are basing doctrine, not on scripture, but on your lack of experience.

But you have to understand, I now know from your "bus" story what you categorize as an "experience". The same stuff I've seen from Charismatics my whole life.

And I am basing my beliefs on Scripture. 1Cor.13: 8-10 says these gifts would cease...I look around and see that they have ceased...and there are only few of these "bus" stories...which I discount. I have developed a "working conclusion" regarding tongues and apostolic miracles...as I have with all other of my beliefs.

Your reasoning process is also unscientific, especially since you believe that miracles occurred at some time in the past. This isn't unicorns. This is more along the lines of asking whether a certain species that clearly existed is extinct or not. Your method is also poor from a historical or legal perspective.

Good grief, the condescending, lecturing tone. Come on, prez. And I don't know how you've gotten this mixed up but...the subject of "tongues" has nothing to do with "science" or "legal matters". Oy vey.

 

[presidente]

Re-read my comment: "Charismatic/Pentecostal doctrines contradict [Hebrews 6:5] directly in claiming all miraculous powers are equally part and parcel to ALL ages."

That's a total straw man argument. Can you show me one quote from any Charismatic anywhere to that effect? Even if you could, it is not representative of Charismatic thought. Can you quote a Charismatic or Pentecostal who ever said the age now is equally miraculous to the age to come?

If you read a cessation of miracles into I Corinthians 13 as one of the things that would cease, you believe these things have ceased. So why would they be present in the age to come if they have ceased? And if they were to start up again, what is your justification for that, and why couldn't they have already started up again in our time?

That's right - because I've seen one at a zoo, lol. You're making my point, aren't you?.

The hypothetical example referred to the previous post about evolutionist scientists in the 1800's who did not believe the duck billed platypus existed because they hadn't seen one.

Well no, I can support it by scripture...from Acts 2, where they spoke in foreign languages, proclaiming the mighty deeds of God. By the way, the Holy Spirit "gives utterance"...and it would obviously be utterance that was appropriate to the occasion. The occasion of the Day of Pentecost was evangelism...ergo, the Holy Spirit "gave utterance" which was appropriate for evangelism.

The utterance was appropriate to get the attention of certain listeners, who then heard the Gospel preached. In I Corinthians 14, 'no man understandeth' the one who speaks in tongues and the utterance has to be interpreted so that others can be edified.

Not to mention "all scripture is profitable...for instruction in righteousness".

If you really believed that, why do you insist on relying solely on Acts 2, and the ideas you read into Acts 2, for your beliefs about speaking in tongues and just brush the details in I Corinthians 14 under the rug. Btw, why don't you comment on the detailed problems with your interpretation of verses 21 and 23. These verses are NOT about someone understanding speaking in tongues and believing.

Your idea that the Holy Spirit possibly might not give utterance that was appropriate to evangelism...is unbiblical on at least two counts.

I have continually referred to specific scriptures to support this. Again 'no man understandeth him' in I Corinthians 14 and verses 21-23. Verse 23 is about God speaking through men of OTHER tongues.

Well...as I said, you are engaging in classic Pentecostal-style "wishful thinking". And again, you are unable to grasp the concept of "hearsay". It is irresponsible of you to demand I accept hearsay...or else I'm insulting your loved ones.

I was just givin' you a hard time a bit on that one. My sense of humor again.

That is, again, absolutely classic modern-day Pentecostal behavior and arm-twisting tactics...which I'm sure you've used in the past because you just used it on me!

Arm twisting?

Anyway, the problem is you discount evidence that doesn't fit your viewpoint. You even do it with the Bible. How does Acts by-pass your definition of hearsay. You can read Acts and see where Luke joins Paul, some time after the split with Barnabas I believe. He starts saying 'we', including himself in the narrative. Chances are, he wasn't with Paul for his conversion.

But Luke was a historian who gathered testimony from others and compiled a historical narrative. Why don't you discount that as hearsay. We aren't in a court of law where testimony has to be first hand except in specific cases, are we? Historians typically do not operate according to those standards. But you wouldn't first hand testimony either. I have mentioned first-hand testimony of witnessing healing, also.

Again, a really big issue here is that you are dismissing what the Bible teaches based on the fact you haven't seen it yourself. I Corinthians 12 says that Spirit gives divers tongues as He wills. You argue that He doesn't.

According to your skewed interpretation of 1Cor. 14:21...no, I am not a believer. To "reject" pseudo-tongues is to reject God.

That's your own skewed straw man interpretation. But I can't stop you from labeling yourself however you want.

But you have to understand, I now know from your "bus" story what you categorize as an "experience". The same stuff I've seen from Charismatics my whole life.

I'm not sure what you mean. The bus story wasn't my experience, but my wife's. If it happened to me, I couldn't say for sure I'd seen a resurrection first hand, but I could say maybe I had.

And I am basing my beliefs on Scripture. 1Cor.13: 8-10 says these gifts would cease.

Hold on a minute, here. Maybe I'm getting posters mixed up, but that's the first I recall your bringing that passage up, or any prooftext to support a cessationist viewpoint. But we were talking about miracles for several pages, and that passage says nothing about gifts of miracles or healing ceasing, or there being no more pastors or evangelists. Where could you get such ideas out of the passage? Let's discuss the specifics of verses in I Corinthians. You seem reluctant to do that in chapter 14 as well.

We can see from reading that passage, that when the perfect comes, Paul's understanding when he was writing scripture, will seem like a child's in comparison to his understanding when the perfect comes. Paul was asleep in Christ when the New Testament was written, so how do you get an idea from this passage that these gifts have ceased? Paul wrote at the beginning of the book, 'So that ye come behind in no spiritual gift, waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.'

Good grief, the condescending, lecturing tone. Come on, prez. And I don't know how you've gotten this mixed up but...the subject of "tongues" has nothing to do with "science" or "legal matters". Oy vey.

Rejecting testimony of others and only going by what your eyes have seen does have something to do with science, history, and legal approaches to evidence.