Evan, if you know any thing about Jews you will know that every Prophet had to validate that what he spoke came from GOD by doing some kind miraculous sign, either himself, or by another Prophet in his presence.
Where do you get this from? The Deuteronomy test for a prophet was whether his predictions came to past. Look up 'sign' in the Old Testament. In many cases, a sign was a fulfilled prophecy. The prophet that prophesied to Eli gave him a sign, that his sons Hophni and Phineas would die in one day. There are a number of signs of this sort, of the type that fit with the test of a prophet.
The Jews said of John, the he did 'no miracle'. Miracles can be signs, but there is also the fulfilled prophecy sign. Which would did the Jews seek for Jesus to give? He'd already just done a miracle, feeding the five thousand. They asked for a sign. He gave them the sign of Jonah, which was a prediction that He would rise from the dead. When the Jews wanted a sign that he had the authority to cleanse the temple, what sign did He give? He said they would destroy 'this temple' and in three days He would raise it up, another prophecy of the resurrection.
If we look in the Old Testament, it would seem a lot of Israelites went after the false prophets, rather the true ones during certain periods of time, anyway.
1 Corinthians 14:21-22 (NASB)
21 In the Law it is written, "BY MEN OF STRANGE TONGUES AND BY THE LIPS OF STRANGERS I WILL SPEAK TO THIS PEOPLE, AND EVEN SO THEY WILL NOT LISTEN TO ME," says the Lord.
22 So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe.
Paul's conclusion based on the verse is that it is a sign to 'unbelievers.' He does not say unbelieving Jews.
The original prophecy, fulilled in the short-term in the captivity, was to the nation of Israel, more specifically to the northern kingdom. Paul interprets it to speak of a larger principle. Even Gentiles who reject speaking in tongues are following a pattern that we see with Israelites who rejected God even though He communicated to them through men of other tongues and other lips.
When the Assyrians marched the Israelites naked into captivity, maybe with a rod to poke at them to keep them in line or a whip, or however they did it, this was a message the Israelites were supposed to hear.
There are other scriptures that had a more immediate fulfillment or application. 'Out of Egypt have I called my Son applies to Ephraim, which was the leading tribe of the northern kingdom, but applies prophetically to Christ.
You also seem to think that whenever speaking in tongues occurs, that it has to be functioning as a sign to unbelievers. Paul says
If an unbeliever or uninstructed person comes into the assembly in his example (a part I see you generally don't quote when making your arguments.) Nowadays, a lot of people think of a church service as the place for evangelism. Back then, the apostles preached in synagogues and public places. Church meetings are for the edification of the saints. It is legitimate to speak in tongues with no unbelievers present at all, in church, if it is interpreted for the edification of the saints.
Tongues are for a sign to unbelievers,
but tongues are not only for a sign to unbelievers. Divers tongues are among the gifts given to the church to 'profit withall'. That is also a purpose of the gift. Tongues and interpretation together edify the local assembly. That is also a legitimate purpose of the gift. No unbeliever has to be present for this to take place.
Even if someone took this rigid, unjustifiable view of yours, it would not prove that tongues have no place, since there are plenty of unbelieving Jews. My guess is you would be opposed to speaking in tongues among Messianic Jews, even if they had managed to bring some unbelieving Jews into their meeting.
That is why Peter's dream was necessary before sending him to the house of the Gentile Cornelius. In fact it is logical that several of them that came with Peter, remained at the doorway at first. Therefore the unbelieving Jews were the Christ following Jews who did not Believe that GOD would saved the Cornelius and his family to the same degree that He saved them.
Heremeutical yoga. You are stretching the text, here. The verse you quote about unbelievers that you would want to make applies to unbelieving Jews says,
"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"
Is this true of the Jewish brethren who went with Peter to whom Peter said they had 'received the Holy Ghost the same as we'. Would you say they hadn't heard God? What about Jesus teaching that 'My sheep hear my voice.' Why would these people be following Jesus if they would not hear God?
Acts 10:45-47 (GWT)
45 All the believers who were circumcised and who had come with Peter were amazed that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured on people who were not Jewish.
46 They heard these non-Jewish people speaking in other languages and praising God. Then Peter said,
47 “No one can refuse to baptize these people with water. They have received the Holy Spirit in the same way that we did.”
[/quote]
Therefore that means that at the house of Cornelius there also had to be the Mighty Wind, the Tongues of Fire,
Why do you use this loosey dynamic equivalence translation when discussing matters of doctrine? Formal equivalence is better if you are going to make points off the turn of phrase in the text.
The KJV of Acts 10:45 says, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?"
I remembered that 'the same as we.' In either case, the passage makes just as much sense if there were no fire or wind. Neither is mentioned in the passage.
