Churches that Don't Allow Tongues and Prophecy in Meetings disobey Bible

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,093
1,756
113
of the circumcision...pleeze presidente.
Old Covenant jews. okay?
are you planning to undo all of Biblical history?
or do i have you confused with brian:confused:
Maybe you have me confused with Brian. I was just pointing out it is likely that Mary spoke in tongues, and she wasn't circumcised. The men were circumcised. I doubt they would have called a Jewish woman 'uncircumcised' though, or referred to one specifically as 'circumcised.'
 

zone

Senior Member
Jun 13, 2010
27,214
164
63
When Peter said in Acts 2:17 that this event called Pentecost was to signify that God would pour out His Spirit on all flesh it stands to reason that there were people there who had not become Jews.
Acts 1
1In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. 3He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.

4And while stayinga with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; 5for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized withb the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

The Ascension
6So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. 8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

Acts 2
1When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. 2And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and resteda on each one of them. 4And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

5Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. 7And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? 9Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, 11both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.” 12And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” 13But others mocking said, “They are filled with new wine.”

......


Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven.

every nation under heaven?
did that include Guatemala and Canada?

or did it mean the known world at the time - primarily pertaining to ISRAEL - within the Roman Empire.
look at a map and see what Rome controlled.

Peter said Pentecost was what Israel's prophet Joel had prophesied - FOR ISRAEL.

Acts 2
16But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel:

17 “‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares,
that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh,
and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
and your young men shall see visions,
and your old men shall dream dreams;
18 even on my male servantsc and female servants
in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.

all flesh means just what it says in Joel: not just the Teachers of the Law, not just the men of Israel, not just the rich or the young:

sons and your daughters
young men
old men
male servants
female servants

that's the promise to ISRAEL.
in Jerusalem.

if there were uncircumcised in there, it would be no different from the gentiles which were always among the mixed multitude.
the promise was to israel - the jews.

all flesh is the same as every nation under heaven - it's an all inclusive statement about ISRAEL.

the gentiles were always to be included AS A PEOPLE GROUP - NATIONS (the promise to Abraham) - plural, but the gospel went to them LATER....very shortly after. but it went Israel. FIRST.

this is who the speakers were:


Acts 1
1In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. 3He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.

4And while stayinga with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; 5for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized withb the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

The Ascension
6So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. 8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

1When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place.


this is who the crowd was:

5Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. 7And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? 9Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, 11both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.” 12And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” 13But others mocking said, “They are filled with new wine.”
 
Last edited:

brmicke

Senior Member
Sep 6, 2012
276
6
18
From what I've read from you earlier, it seems like you are saying that speaking in tongues is speaking the works of God in a way (that unbelieving) people can't understand, rather than speaking in different languages. Do I have that right? I was trying to point out the problem with that.
Sorry - I didn't understand that you meant to point out the problem with that statement.

Anyway -- Your understanding of what I think is accurate but I have added the two words in Red letters to your post to clarify what I mean.

Yes you do have that right - It is my opinion that speaking in tongues is speaking the works of God, Acts 2:11. But then in 1 Cor 14:2 the Apostle Paul tells us the speaking in tongues is speaking mysteries in the Holy Spirit.

There are various levels of Christian understanding. Some works of God are basic, at least as far as Christians are concerned. But there are mysteries of God that will cause each of us to have trouble accepting them. These mysteries of God are not to be expressed to unlearned believers because they cannot bear them at their current level of faith. To understand this refer to Jesus statement in John 16:12.

Joh 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
(KJV)

The unbelievers who were present at the Pentecost event thought that those who spoke in tongues (who spoke of the works of God) were drunk and they mocked them Acts 2:13.

So tongues is seen to be something that believers understand and unbelievers do not understand.

Now the unbelieving Priests of Isaiah chapter 28 had been given the position of being Priests of God's people. They had erred however as Isaiah 28:7 shows.

Isa 28:7 But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment.

Isaiah's commission was to shut the spiritual eye's of those who were unbelieving --

Isa 6:9 ¶ And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.

Isa 6:10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

So this is what Isaiah did in the case of the disobedient priests. He spoke to them concerning a mystery of God that they could not understand and caused them to backslide as was the intended purpose of Isaiah's message to the drunken priests as is recorded in Isaiah 28:13.

Isa 28:13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

Now if you will notice Isaiah's commission from Isaiah 6:9-10 is the same as Jesus explanation to His disciples when they asked Him why He spoke in parables.

Mt 13:12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
Mt 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Mt 13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
Mt 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

So it can be concluded that Isaiah's commission was to speak in parables or tongues.


Brian
 
Last edited:

brmicke

Senior Member
Sep 6, 2012
276
6
18
I understand Zone that you think that only Jews were present and that they were the ones speaking in Tongues on Pentecost. Is this a correct statement of what you think?

If so we disagree on that point. As I have mentioned in a previous post - Peter could not truthfully say that this event was an illustration of God pouring out His Spirit on all flesh unless some of the Speakers were non-Jews.

Brian
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,093
1,756
113
If so we disagree on that point. As I have mentioned in a previous post - Peter could not truthfully say that this event was an illustration of God pouring out His Spirit on all flesh unless some of the Speakers were non-Jews.
The prophecy was for 'the last days' and Peter said the promise of the Spirit was 'unto you and unto your children, as many as the Lord our God shall call.' Several chapters later, the Spirit was poured out on the Gentiles. Peter made a point that it was through him that the Gentiles were reached while discussing the event in Acts 15.
 

brmicke

Senior Member
Sep 6, 2012
276
6
18
I understand Zone that you feel that the phrase "all flesh" pertains only to Jews. Would you then include Jewish proselytes in the phrase "all flesh"? I don't think they were all Jewish speakers, but for a minute I will look at this from the perspective of the opinion that I think you hold.

Even if all the speakers were all Jewish this would have included the people from other nations who had been circumcised and joined the Jewish religion.

Could not these Jewish proselytes be speaking of the "works of God" in their native tongues. Could not the native tongues of the Jewish converts also be the native tongues of the Parthians medes etc. who heard the messages concerning the works of God?

Brian
 

zone

Senior Member
Jun 13, 2010
27,214
164
63
I understand Zone that you think that only Jews were present and that they were the ones speaking in Tongues on Pentecost. Is this a correct statement of what you think?

If so we disagree on that point. As I have mentioned in a previous post - Peter could not truthfully say that this event was an illustration of God pouring out His Spirit on all flesh unless some of the Speakers were non-Jews.

Brian
uh....could Peter have truthfully said that Joel said: all flesh if people from African pagan tribes weren't there?
so what if there were uncircumcised proselytes in the CROWD?
Acts already told us there were.
it doesn't even say if the proselytes WERE uncircumcised...it just says proselytes.

what does that have to do with anything. there always were - God-fearers.

your thesis that THOSE were the primary intended recipients or targets (or whatever) of the miracle of Pentecost makes no sense at all.

Peter goes on to preach the sermon!

Acts 2:22
14But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them: “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words. 15For these people are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day.b 16But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel...

...22“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— 23this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men....

...29“Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day....

....36Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”....

...37Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” 40And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” 41So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

....

what's the problem?
how can you say the disciples were gentiles?:confused: not knowing.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,093
1,756
113
Even if all the speakers were all Jewish this would have included the people from other nations who had been circumcised and joined the Jewish religion.

Could not these Jewish proselytes be speaking of the "works of God" in their native tongues. Could not the native tongues of the Jewish converts also be the native tongues of the Parthians medes etc. who heard the messages concerning the works of God?
Jews who lived in Parthia likely picked up some language they speak in Parthia. Speaking Hebrew is learned, not genetic. Lots of Jews who live outside of Israel now only know Hebrew they learned in Hebrew school but speak English or Spanish or Russian or whatever other language.

According to Edersheim, there were Greek-speaking synagogues where they read the Septuigint translation of the Torah.
 

brmicke

Senior Member
Sep 6, 2012
276
6
18
39For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”
....
what's the problem?
how can you say the disciples were gentiles?:confused: not knowing.
As you have posted in Acts 2:39 - the promise as described by Peter was at the event of Pentecost was to all that the Lord shall call. Not only to the Jews.

I know that you both think that the gentiles were excluded from speaking in tongues on Pentecost, we simply disagree.

I still maintain that speaking in tongues is not speaking in foreign languages or babbling, but is speaking about the works or mysteries of God in whatever language a person naturally speaks.

Ac 2:39 for to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all those afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call.'
(YLT)

Respectfully - Brian
 

brmicke

Senior Member
Sep 6, 2012
276
6
18
Zone feel that I can scripturally say that some of Jesus followers (disciples) were gentiles because He healed a gentile in Matt 15:25.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,093
1,756
113
Sorry - I didn't understand that you meant to point out the problem with that statement.

Anyway -- Your understanding of what I think is accurate but I have added the two words in Red letters to your post to clarify what I mean.
The profile I use is easy on the eyes, but it filters out color. I can read bold, though.

Yes you do have that right - It is my opinion that speaking in tongues is speaking the works of God, Acts 2:11.
I disagree with the word 'is' in your statement of your opinion. In Acts 2, when the disciples were speaking in other languages as the Spirit gave them utterances, they spoke of the wonderful works of God. The passage does not say that speaking in other languages is the same thing as speaking the works of God. If they were telling parables, why would people think they were drunk? If they were speaking in languages people did not know, the people might accuse them of being drunk. If they were speaking in other languages in an ecstatic-looking manner, the onlookers might have been even more likely to make this accusation.

But then in 1 Cor 14:2 the Apostle Paul tells us the speaking in tongues is speaking mysteries in the Holy Spirit.
No it doesn't. Again, you read in the word 'is'. Paul said that if any man does speaks in a language , he speaks mysteries with his spirit. He does not say that tongues IS speaking mysteries with his spirit.

There are various levels of Christian understanding. Some works of God are basic, at least as far as Christians are concerned. But there are mysteries of God that will cause each of us to have trouble accepting them. These mysteries of God are not to be expressed to unlearned believers because they cannot bear them at their current level of faith. To understand this refer to Jesus statement in John 16:12.
I agree with the principle here. It just still doesn't make sense to read a passage about people speaking in other languages as the Spirit gives them utterance, and other people who spoke those languages hearing and understanding, and then say that speaking in other languages really just means to speak mysteries.


So tongues is seen to be something that believers understand and unbelievers do not understand.
Writing to believers, Paul wrote 'no man understandeth him' and even the speaker was to 'pray that he may interpret. Not only does the unbeliever say 'ye are mad' but so does the uninstructed.

Isa 6:9 ¶ And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.

Isa 6:10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.
Speaking in tongues goes with the general theme, but it is speaking in tongues, that is speaking in languages. Reading 'languages' as a code word for something else is irrational. It makes as much sense as going through the ten commandments and reinterpreting 'adultery' to mean 'eat fish on Friday', or as saying, 'Thou shalt not kill' really means 'Do not buy Apple products.'

There is a theme in Isaiah repeated in the New Testament of God speaking to people in ways they do not understand, having Jesus do so, etc. God empowering people to speak in languages other people don't understand fits with that theme. But that doesn't mean that languages no longer means languages.

I'm curious. Have you ever met anyone who agreed with you on this? Have you come across anyone you have not influenced who arrived at this independently? Do you consider yourself the only one spiritually wise enough to get it? Honestly, your interpretation is so irrational and illogical that I find it unlikely that someone else would have arrived at it independently.
 

brmicke

Senior Member
Sep 6, 2012
276
6
18
I disagree with the word 'is' in your statement of your opinion. In Acts 2, when the disciples were speaking in other languages as the Spirit gave them utterances, they spoke of the wonderful works of God. The passage does not say that speaking in other languages is the same thing as speaking the works of God.
If I understand you, you are saying that the gift of speaking languages or tongues is not defined as speaking the works of God.

Instead -

1. You think that the ability to speak in another language was the gift,
2. the ability to understand and discuss the "works of God" was not the gift.

Using your opinion (if I have understood and stated it correctly) and inserting your opinion into 1 Cor 14:2 it would read like this -

If, for the purpose of this illustration, I insert the words "another language" into 1 Cor 14:2. -

1Co 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh "another language".

With your understanding of tongues inserted into the verse. The verse does make sense and it is understandable. It would seem that the Holy Spirit enabled the person to speak the other language.

I have pasted 1 Cor 14:2 below and also the transliterated Greek words themselves. The Greek word that is translated as the word "mystery" in 1 Cor 14:2 is the word "<musterion>".

1Co 14:2 For <gar> he that speaketh <laleo> in an unknown tongue <glossa> speaketh <laleo> not <ou> unto men, <anthropos> but <alla> unto God: <theos> for <gar> no man <oudeis> understandeth <akouo> him; howbeit <de> in the spirit <pneuma> he speaketh <laleo> mysteries. <musterion>

Here is the definition of the greek word that is translated as the word "mystery" in 1 Cor 14:2.

3466. musterion,
from a derivative of muo (to shut the mouth); a secret or "mystery" (through the idea of silence imposed by initiation into religious rites):--mystery.

As you can see when I inserted the words "another language" into 1 Cor 14:2 to illustrate the point, the verse read in a coherent and understandable manner. But when I did this I changed the meaning of the verse.

After I inserted the words "another language" into 1 Cor 14:2 the verse was no longer speaking of a "secret" being transmitted by the Holy Spirit, it was simply speaking of the person being given the ability to speak another language by the Holy Spirit.

When the wording was changed it seemed reasonable to conclude that speaking in tongues was speaking in another language by the Holy Spirit. But the "secret" aspect of what Paul was saying in 1 Cor 14:2 was entirely lost when the concept of "another language" was inserted into the verse.

In my opinion the meaning of 1 Cor 14:2 along with the aspect of a "secret" of mystery is more accurately illustrated by what Jesus said was the purpose of "parables" in the following verses.

Mr 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

Respectfully - Brian
 
Last edited:

brmicke

Senior Member
Sep 6, 2012
276
6
18
Writing to believers, Paul wrote 'no man understandeth him' and even the speaker was to 'pray that he may interpret. Not only does the unbeliever say 'ye are mad' but so does the uninstructed.
So to try and address this part of this portion of your post. I have just a quick comment before going to work.

I will paste the verse in question below for reference sake - but also to show you that the people who translated this thought it important enough to insert an additional definition, further defining the word that was translated as "understandeth".

I am referring to the end of the verse where either the people who printed this KJV version of the bible or the translators of the version themselves thought it necessary to include the additional word definition of "heareth", or simply in my opinion "pays attention".

KJV 1Co 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. {understandeth: Gr. heareth}
Ac 2:4; 10:46; 22:9

So with this in mind it can be seen that the verse could be saying that no one "hears" or listens to a person speaking in tongues or languages.

Now keep in mind that the original translation of the verse states that no one understands a message in languages or tongues.

This rendering of the verse is clearly untrue because we can plainly see in Acts 2:11 that some people did understand the messages in tongues or languages. If this were not the case how could they understand and write in the verse that the people were speaking about the works of God.

So it becomes very clear that translating this verse using the phrase "no one understandeth", is scripturally invalid because the hearers in Acts 2:11 did understand that the speakers were talking about the "works" of God.

That leaves the interpretation added on by the translators, or those who printed this version of the KJV translation, wherein they add the additional definition of "heareth" or pay attention.

Brian
 

zone

Senior Member
Jun 13, 2010
27,214
164
63
As you have posted in Acts 2:39 - the promise as described by Peter was at the event of Pentecost was to all that the Lord shall call. Not only to the Jews.

I know that you both think that the gentiles were excluded from speaking in tongues on Pentecost, we simply disagree.

I still maintain that speaking in tongues is not speaking in foreign languages or babbling, but is speaking about the works or mysteries of God in whatever language a person naturally speaks.

Ac 2:39 for to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all those afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call.'
(YLT)

Respectfully - Brian

if the gentile was a proselyte then he was no longer a gentile.

the proselytes included in the Jews who came in from 12 nations were no longer considered gentiles.
they were circumcised; baptized (washed)...:confused:

the God-fearers would be like - the centurions and others...ya?

....

WAY OVER HERE in Acts 10 after Israel received the promise...THEN the uncircumcised were called.
do you think uncircumcised were mingling with the jews at the Holy Feast?

maybe (doubt it)....they most certainly were not the Disciples Jesus called.

i've never even heard such a claim made.

Peter had to receive a vision and a commandment, and hear it 3 times!
if he hadn't had this vision, there's no way he would have gone to Cornelius.
he even says so.

Acts 10:28
And he said to them, You know that it is an unlawful thing for a man, a Jew to keep company with or to come near to one of another nation. But God has shown me not to call any man common or unclean.

and if there were gentile (uncircumcised gentiles) among the disciples - why is Peter saying stuff like this?:

Acts 11:11-12 And behold, immediately three men stood at the house in which I was, sent from Caesarea to me. And the Spirit told me to go with them, not discriminating.

and:

Acts 11:1 And the apostles and brothers who were in Judea heard that the nations had also received the Word of God.

so this is new for israel - way after Pentecost:

Acts 11:2-3 And when Peter had come up to Jerusalem, those of the circumcision contended with him, saying, You went in to uncircumcised men and ate with them.

what does he say?:

Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

Acts 11:17 If God gave to them the same gift as to us, they having believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to be able to prevent God?

:)

i hardly think all this would be recorded this way if there were gentile (not of the circumcision) disciples at Pentecost.

Acts 11:18 When they heard these things, they were silent :) and glorified God, saying, Then God has also granted repentance to life to the nations.

k.....ttyl
 

brmicke

Senior Member
Sep 6, 2012
276
6
18
if the gentile was a proselyte then he was no longer a gentile.
the proselytes included in the Jews who came in from 12 nations were no longer considered gentiles.
they were circumcised; baptized (washed)...:confused:

That is what I have been saying. Maybe I stated it incorrectly at some point but I think that the proselytes spoke in their native languages about the works of God, and the hearers understood because the language that the proselytes spoke in was the native language of the hearers as well.

Brian
 
Last edited:

zone

Senior Member
Jun 13, 2010
27,214
164
63
That is what I have been saying. Maybe I stated it incorrectly at some point but I think that the proselytes spoke in their native languages about the works of God, and the hearers understood because the language that the proselytes spoke in was the native language of the hearers as well.

Brian
okay. but it was the disciples from the upper room who spoke.
they were real jews - not proselytes.
the hearers heard in their own languages. we know there were proselytes among the hearers.
but it doesn't say they were uncircumcised.
k....over
 

brmicke

Senior Member
Sep 6, 2012
276
6
18
okay. but it was the disciples from the upper room who spoke.
they were real jews - not proselytes.
the hearers heard in their own languages. we know there were proselytes among the hearers.
but it doesn't say they were uncircumcised.
k....over
As you mentioned previously - were not the proselytes of the gate there at the feast, and weren't they uncircumcised.

Respectfully - Brian
 

brmicke

Senior Member
Sep 6, 2012
276
6
18
okay. but it was the disciples from the upper room who spoke.
they were real jews - not proselytes.
the hearers heard in their own languages. we know there were proselytes among the hearers.
but it doesn't say they were uncircumcised.
k....over
I wasn't quick enough to include this in my previous reply -

A gate proselyte[SUP][5][/SUP] is a "resident alien" who lives in the Land of Israel and follows some of the customs. They are not required to be circumcised nor to comply with the whole of the Torah. They are bound only to conform to the seven precepts of Noah, the Noahide Laws: do not worship idols, do not blaspheme God's name, do not murder, do not commit immoral sexual acts, do not steal, do not tear the limb from a living animal, and do not fail to establish courts of justice to be assured of a place in the world to come.

Proselyte - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Respectfully - Brian
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,093
1,756
113
As you have posted in Acts 2:39 - the promise as described by Peter was at the event of Pentecost was to all that the Lord shall call. Not only to the Jews.
See Acts 10 and 11.

I know that you both think that the gentiles were excluded from speaking in tongues on Pentecost, we simply disagree.
It was a matter of who was present-- Jews and proselytes. If they were proselytes, they would have been circumcised. If they hadn't had it done yet, they would be God-fearers.

I still maintain that speaking in tongues is not speaking in foreign languages
That that is what it means. You even wrote that glossa was a word that meant languages.

What would you do if someone applied the same reasoning to other verses. "I don't believe adultery means adultery. It means don't commit adultery on the 18th. It's the 19th, so I'm not violating the verse." Or "Honor your father and mother really means honor your manager and assistant manager financially." Don't the words on the page have something to do with the meaning of the passage?
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,093
1,756
113
I wasn't quick enough to include this in my previous reply -

A gate proselyte[SUP][5][/SUP] is a "resident alien" who lives in the Land of Israel and follows some of the customs. They are not required to be circumcised nor to comply with the whole of the Torah. They are bound only to conform to the seven precepts of Noah, the Noahide Laws: do not worship idols, do not blaspheme God's name, do not murder, do not commit immoral sexual acts, do not steal, do not tear the limb from a living animal, and do not fail to establish courts of justice to be assured of a place in the world to come.

Proselyte - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Respectfully - Brian
I think the Seven Noachide Laws issue was hammered out a generation later than the period we are looking at, at least from the quotes from the Mishna, assuming it was the son of the same Gamaliel. My guess is your terminology there came out later. Maybe the gate proselyte was called that because he hadn't come in through the 'gate' of cricumcision, and wasn't a true full proselyte.

Peter was concerned about going into the home of an uncircumcised God-fearer and had to have a vision to prepare his heart for it. Some of the more religious Judaeans would not go into the home of the uncircumcised.