Now you know the gift of tongues (language), as discussed in the Scriptures, is the ability to speak a foreign language by the power of the Holy Spirit. A language not previously known by the speaker. This particular gift has ceased. This does not include the gibberish spoken in Pentecostal/Charismatic churches today. The sole called gibberish being assigned to some kind of "angelic" language or heavenly language is not Biblical. In 1 Cor. 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. , though many use this verse as some sort of proof text, Paul was not saying he could do these things. The reader was to acknowledge a form of sarcasm here:
I find 'sarcasm' as an explanation for why Paul mentioned tongues of angels in I Corinthians 13 to be the second stupidest interpretation of scripture I've read all week. Well, maybe the third, but it is up there. I've heard hyperbole, but sarcasm? If you can explain away scripture by calling it sarcasm, what's to stop someone from doing that with 'thou shalt not commit adultery' or some other passage?
Basically, you want me to rule out the idea of someone speaking in tongues of angels because you say so. The idea of tongues of angels shows up in intertestamental literature... the Testament of Job or something like that. Also, your argument doesn't hold water if we look at the flow of argument in the passage. There are parallel arguments there, examples of things that are possible...extreme but possible.. giving one's body to be burned, giving away all possessions. There are people who have done such things. If moving mountains in the gospel is meant as literal or as a metaphor, however it is meant, it is possible. Why would Paul list speaking in tongues of angels in a list of other things that are possible?
For your information, historically, Pentecostals have interpreted 'tongues' to mean 'languages.' Early in the Charismatic movement, Charismatics still do. I know there are some individuals who see it as some kind of spiritual code language among the various groups of Charismatics. I have no way of knowing, but I'd imagine it would be in the minority.
If you research a bit of history, Agnes Ozman wrote of spoking in tongues and individuals identifying it at Bohemian (which we would call Czech today.) If you read the Azusa Street revival newsletter, The Apostolic Faith, there are numerous testimonies of people hearing languages they knew 'in tongues' including a Canadian first nations language, Armenian, etc. There were testimonies from people at the Azusa Street Revival of hearing known human languages spoken 'in tongues' in the meeting, including at least one testimony of the interpretation of tongue aligning with the interpretation, if I recall correctly. (That may have been in another meeting outside of the mission.)
He did not suggest this idea in I Corinthians. There is no word 'all' in the verse.
Paul suggested it might be possible.
4) He did not have ALL knowledge.[/quote]
It might be true in the way the word translated 'all' is used in Greek.
5) His faith was not such he could move mountains.
[/quote]
These items were for contrast only. Paul was saying "IF" I could do all these things and had not love, then it would all be for nothing.[/QUOTE]
Jesus spoke about the one who does not doubt in his heart but believes can speak to this mountain and tell it to be cast into the sea and it would be done. If that was some kind of idiom and He meant it that way, it's true. If he meant it literally, that's true. Either way, you should not say Paul did not have faith to move mountains.
Why do you stop quoting there? What about the rest of the passage:
3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
Would it be possible for Paul to give everything away to feed the poor? What about to give himself to be burned? I seem to recall reading that Francis of Assisi gave all his possessions away, including his clothes at one point in time, and John Huss did not recant and was burned at the stake.[/QUOTE]
Okay, I will admit the use of the "sarcasm" was a poor choice on my part but since you are being technical in the rest of your argument, let me be equally technical in a way that matters.
Let's examine the sentence construction and dig down into the grammar for a few minutes.
! Cor. 13:1, Starts out with the Greek word
ἐάν, a conditional particle. Usually translated in the English with the word "IF". (In some translations, they chose the word "though"). This first verse, led by the conditional particle
ἐάν sets up a series of verses, 1-3, each starting with the same conditional particle as in verse 1. This conditional particle sets an "uncertain" mood for the rest of the sentence.
Therefore, we have three
third class conditional sentences in a row. The third class condition, sets these statements as far from the mood of possibility as one can in the Greek grammar. (Unless the writer uses a combination such as
οὗ οὐκ, a double negative, which means: "by no means"). The writer expects the reader to see the things mentioned in an implausible way. That is, the things mentioned are not to be considered probable by the one writing and are to be understood as exaggerations for the purpose of the argument, such as we have in these three verses.
So Paul is basically saying, at the beginning of these three verses, "If these things are possible", however, I am not saying I can do these things but if I could.
One would be wise not to hang any doctrine or concepts on any third class conditional sentence.