Yes God does all the work, nothing is accredited to the flesh, after what we do is walking by sight, Like speaking words that God who is not served by human hands puts on the tongue of a creature and God interprets into another language. Peter was not accredited as a sign gift just because he experienced Christ working in Him.
That last sentence is 'word salad' so it's hard to get what you mean. Are you a non-native speaker of English. It's okay if you are. It's just hard to get your point with your wording sometimes. Maybe you just aren't editing. I do that sometimes to.
Anyway, one apostle once said, "The Lord Jesus heals you." But the Bible also says that Paul healed people. I don't think God gets as hung up on the terminology as some people do. I do know that there have been evangelists involved in healing ministry have been insistant on using wording about Jesus healing people, instead of them. That's fine if that helps keep them from getting proud and helps direct attent to the Lord and not to themselves.
But be that as it may, the Bible has given us lots of good examples to follow. Paul said, "Follow me as I follow Christ." Paul was a miracle-worker. So it is okay for Christians to be miracle-workers, or prophets, or speakers in tongues or interpreters. It doesn't mean we are walking by sight instead of walking by faith. Since Jesus has worked so many miracles, it is a bad thing to imply that those who believe in or exercise these gifts are somehow lacking in faith.
Galatians 3:5
He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
That doesn't fit with the idea that believing, performing, or even earnestly desiring the working of miracles is somehow contrary to walking by faith. You've got to stop with the weird dichotomies that contradict scripture, and trying to justify yourself with pseudo-spiritual explanations.
The same with those who were given the hearing of faith as God interpreted into a language they could understand so they could understand Him ,not Peter..
The idea that the 'miracle' was in the ear, rather than the mouth, has been debated since the fourth century. Most of us read the text in a straightforward way and believe it was in the mouth. Why?
Because the text says "they heard them speak with tongues".
It does NOT say
"They saw their mouths moving, but heard some tongue that wasn't really coming out of their mouths like a dubbed Chinese Kung Fu movie."
" God is no longer bringing any new prophecy in any manner, to include a tongue."
See that's the problem. The Bible doesn't teach that. Jude said to 'contend for the faith once delivered to the saints.' This doctrine you are teaching was not an apostolic teaching. Paul said that that which is in part WILL be done away. But this was in an epistle that, in the first chapter as Paul was preparing to address the issues related to these gifts, Paul wrote, 'so that ye come behind in no spiritual gift, waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.'
And he also would write later about the resurrection at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, and 'then cometh the end.' The word translated 'end' is the Greek 'telos'.
There is no new doctrine added to the faith. But the Spirit does continue to speak. That is why second century Christians believed in the gift of prophecy. We read about apostles and prophets in the Didache. Justin Martyr argued with the unbelieving Jew Trypho that the church had prophets, rather than his people. Hermas mentions prophesying occuring in churches of his day. Ireneaus, in 'Against Heresies' around the late second or early third century wrote of people who had foreknowledge, prophesied, healed, raised the dead, and cast out devils.
Ireneaus, in another work, said that not believing in the gift of prophecy was one of the characteristics of the heresies.
Why would men desire more that He has revealed puzzles myself? ?
That would puzzle me too. But something else that bothers me is why people would not believe what He has revealed, for example, about spiritual gifts. We are in the last days, aren't we? Jesus hasn't returned yet, so why would prophesying as a gift have ceased yet?
Maybe if you consider everyone who disagrees with your interpretation of I Corinthians 13 or any other scripture to be damned, you could hold to your interpretation of I Corinthians 13. Otherwise, it doesn't hold water.
By that kind of idea he is still bringing new prophecy Islam it is has the foundation in respect to a false prophet call Mohamed. He failed the test to not add or subtract from that which is written.
Muslims who are considered 'orthodox' don't believe that prophecy is an ongoing thing, so you hold to a belief in common with Muslims.
God put His words In Peters mouth (not of Peter's will ) and the Holy Spirit interpreted it to those who did not speak the language ,not of Peter as a gift of tongues .
Since they all spoke in tongues, Peter did, too. We don't know if Peter spoke one of the 16 or so languages that were listed that were understood or not. It doesn't make sense to think that he preached in tongues or that the preaching was miraculously interpreted in the people's minds. The text doesn't state or hint at that idea.
Attributing the work of God to men brings chaos and confusion. In the end of the matter it is called blasphemy.
I think you are a bit too brazen with saying God sent a strong delusion to Muhammad. If you believe he was deceived, then why say God sent a strong delusion it rather than blaming it on Satan. Do you really believe the 'strong delusion' is specificall about Islam. And how do you know that the book attributed to him is the original after Uthman had other variants burned? For me personally, I am careful about saying God did this or God did that. Paul implies that being a false witness of God is bad thing.
It is still strange to me that people will be against people prophesying this day and age-- saying God said this or that-- but will liberally say God did this or that.