Baptism and holy spirit

[notuptome]

When a person speaks in tongues, he does not know what he is saying. He does not know what language he is speaking. It is a language of men or of angels.


No.


Of course. But nobody operated the manifestation of speaking in tongues before the Pentecost after Christ's ascension.


All you are doing is stating false accusations. Everything I have stated is biblical. I have given scripture to back up everything I've said. On the other hand, you have misquoted Paul several times, claiming he said things he did not.


Please come up with something specific, Roger. Because you do not believe in speaking in tongues, nor do you understand what it is, your primary defense is to insult and belittle me, accuse me of proof-texting, and you make false statements as to what Paul wrote, claiming he said things he did not say.

Angel tongues is hyperbole not literal. Tongues are languages not ecstatic utterances. Pagans not Christians spoke in ecstatic utterances.

You are reading into the scriptures that which you want to see not what is actually written. You reject the OT basis for the NT references.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[notuptome]

That is true, unless you accept Mark 16:17 as authentic. Many people believe Mark should end at Mark 16:8.


That's right. The gift of the Holy Spirit we have today was not available before the day of Pentecost (John 7:39).


Actually, he spoke in parables that many people did not understand.


Indeed He does. And assuming you believe what Paul wrote is scripture, God would like all Christians to speak in tongues.


I agree that Waggles is wrong in this area.

Why would you say that God wants all Christians to speak in tongues? God also said that tongues would cease. 1 Cor 13:8

We both have some reservations regarding the long ending of Mark. Of course if you want to play with vipers and drink poison you certainly can find proof in these verses.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[shrume]

Angel tongues is hyperbole not literal.

I disagree.

Tongues are languages not ecstatic utterances.

Yes, tongues are languages. I do not know what "ecstatic utterances" are.

Pagans not Christians spoke in ecstatic utterances.

What does that have to do with speaking in tongues?

You are reading into the scriptures that which you want to see not what is actually written.

Another baseless accusation. You're the one who misquoted Paul, attributing things to him that he did not say.

You reject the OT basis for the NT references.

Also false.

When Israel was captured by the Assyrians, who spoke to them in a language they did not understand, it should have been a sign to the Israelites that they had abandoned God. Speaking in tongues should be a sign to unbelievers (not just unbelieving Jews) that something supernatural is taking place. Both are signs, but both are not signs of God's judgment, as you believe.

The Bible clearly states that God (through Paul) would like all Christians to speak in tongues. This you continually ignore.

 

[Cee]

Why would you say that God wants all Christians to speak in tongues? God also said that tongues would cease. 1 Cor 13:8

We both have some reservations regarding the long ending of Mark. Of course if you want to play with vipers and drink poison you certainly can find proof in these verses.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Paul said tongues and knowledge would cease when the perfect had come: love. But, a few verses later Paul also says he wishes all would speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. 1 Co 14:5 Let's not leave that out either.

Tongues need an interpreter because they AREN'T a known language. If they were a known language, there would be no need for an interpreter, that's just common sense.

 

[shrume]

Why would you say that God wants all Christians to speak in tongues?

1 Cor 14:
5) I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

I do not know how to make it any plainer, Roger.

God also said that tongues would cease. 1 Cor 13:8

And they will.

We both have some reservations regarding the long ending of Mark. Of course if you want to play with vipers and drink poison you certainly can find proof in these verses.

I do not believe the long ending of Mark is authentic. But Mark 16:9ff are not needed to learn about tongues.

 

[notuptome]

Paul said tongues and knowledge would cease when the perfect had come: love. But, a few verses later Paul also says he wishes all would speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. 1 Co 14:5 Let's not leave that out either.

Tongues need an interpreter because they AREN'T a known language. If they were a known language, there would be no need for an interpreter, that's just common sense.

The perfect would be the completed NT.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Cee]

The perfect would be the completed NT.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

This is incorrect. 1 Co 12-14 are all talking about LOVE. Paul even concludes with, but I show you a more excellent way: love. To say it's anything besides love is extreme esiegesis.

 

[notuptome]

I disagree.


Yes, tongues are languages. I do not know what "ecstatic utterances" are.


What does that have to do with speaking in tongues?


Another baseless accusation. You're the one who misquoted Paul, attributing things to him that he did not say.


Also false.

When Israel was captured by the Assyrians, who spoke to them in a language they did not understand, it should have been a sign to the Israelites that they had abandoned God. Speaking in tongues should be a sign to unbelievers (not just unbelieving Jews) that something supernatural is taking place. Both are signs, but both are not signs of God's judgment, as you believe.

The Bible clearly states that God (through Paul) would like all Christians to speak in tongues. This you continually ignore.

Disagree all you want but it is clear form the text and the absence of any scripture supporting an angelic tongue that it was hyperbole.

Israel was always warned that her apostacy would result in captivity. One of the warning signs was the presence of languages they did not comprehend. Scripture states over and over again that signs are for Jews and knowledge is for Gentiles.

Clearly Nimrod was judged along with all the nations by having their languages confused.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[shrume]

The perfect would be the completed NT.

That is the claim of cessationists.

 

[notuptome]

That is the claim of cessationists.

And orthodox biblical students.

Pentecostalism is not seen as orthodox.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Nehemiah6]

There are many, if not most, Christians who do not speak in tongues. Doesn't mean they can't, or that God does not want them to.

God does not want all Christians to be speaking in tongues. Indeed, after the Apostolic Age you do not read about Christian speaking in tongues until the heretical Montanists appear.

If God had intended to have every believer speak in tongues, we would have see in Acts chapter 2 that all 3,000 + Jews who were saved spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost (after Peter preached the Gospel). This would have been just as significant as the record of the apostles and exsiting disciples speaking in tongues on that day. BUT THERE IS NO SUCH RECORD.

 

[shrume]

God does not want all Christians to be speaking in tongues.

You guys are killing me...

1 Cor 14:
5) I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

There is NO scripture saying when tongues will cease except for 1 Cor 13:8, which cessationists have decided is when we got the completed Bible. I do not believe that is the correct understanding. Knowledge has not ceased, nor has prophesy, nor has tongues. Those things will cease when they are no longer necessary, at the return of Christ.

Indeed, after the Apostolic Age you do not read about Christian speaking in tongues until the heretical Montanists appear.

It's true that there is very little history of Christians speaking in tongues after the first century. It does not mean that God changed His mind about the manifestations of the Holy Spirit. Who would be the one primarily responsible for wanting to squelch it? (hint: not God..)

If God had intended to have every believer speak in tongues, we would have see in Acts chapter 2 that all 3,000 + Jews who were saved spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost (after Peter preached the Gospel). This would have been just as significant as the record of the apostles and exsiting disciples speaking in tongues on that day. BUT THERE IS NO SUCH RECORD.

That's an argument from absence. "The Bible does not specifically state it, so it's not true."

 

[shrume]

Disagree all you want but it is clear form the text and the absence of any scripture supporting an angelic tongue that it was hyperbole.

I disagree. It simply states "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels...". You do not believe in speaking in tongues, so you declare it to be hyperbole.

Israel was always warned that her apostacy would result in captivity. One of the warning signs was the presence of languages they did not comprehend. Scripture states over and over again that signs are for Jews and knowledge is for Gentiles.

Clearly Nimrod was judged along with all the nations by having their languages confused.

God confusing the languages at Babel has absolutely NOTHING to do with the manifestation of speaking in tongues.

 

[shrume]

And orthodox biblical students.

Pentecostalism is not seen as orthodox.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

There are several things I do not agree with pertaining to orthodoxy.

And while I do believe in the manifestations, I am not a Pentecostal.

 

[notuptome]

I disagree. It simply states "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels...". You do not believe in speaking in tongues, so you declare it to be hyperbole.


God confusing the languages at Babel has absolutely NOTHING to do with the manifestation of speaking in tongues.

There is no biblical support for angelic languages so it must be hyperbole. It was quite common for Jewish teachers to use hyperbole when teaching to provoke thought on a given subject.

Babel has everything to do with tongues. It is the first reference to languages in the bible. The ministry of the Holy Spirit is not a manifestation. Manifestation is better associated with psychological difficulties.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[shrume]

There is no biblical support for angelic languages so it must be hyperbole. It was quite common for Jewish teachers to use hyperbole when teaching to provoke thought on a given subject.

The Bible states "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels...". You do not believe in speaking in tongues, so you take it as hyperbole. I see no reason to take it as hyperbole.

Babel has everything to do with tongues.

Nothing whatsoever.

It is the first reference to languages in the bible.

Irrelevant.

The ministry of the Holy Spirit is not a manifestation.

Right. The manifestations of the gift of the Holy Spirit are manifestations. Speaking in tongues is one of those manifestations.

Manifestation is better associated with psychological difficulties.

You come up with the strangest comments, Roger...

1 Cor 12:
7) But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

How should that be understood? That the psychological difficulties of the Spirit are given to everyone??

Gotta run for now. Have a great evening.

 

[CS1]

There is no biblical support for angelic languages so it must be hyperbole. It was quite common for Jewish teachers to use hyperbole when teaching to provoke thought on a given subject.

Babel has everything to do with tongues. It is the first reference to languages in the bible. The ministry of the Holy Spirit is not a manifestation. Manifestation is better associated with psychological difficulties.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

There is no biblical support for angelic languages so it must be hyperbole. It was quite common for Jewish teachers to use hyperbole when teaching to provoke thought on a given subject.

Babel has everything to do with tongues. It is the first reference to languages in the bible. The ministry of the Holy Spirit is not a manifestation. Manifestation is better associated with psychological difficulties.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

the context is not about angelic languages . the verses says the tongues of men and angels; why is one only foucing of angelic languages when the very verse does not do that contextually?

Angel tongues is hyperbole not literal. Tongues are languages not ecstatic utterances. Pagans not Christians spoke in ecstatic utterances.

You are reading into the scriptures that which you want to see not what is actually written. You reject the OT basis for the NT references.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

no it is not. You have interjected a false narrative. Grammatically an hyperbole used in this context would weaken the end message which the verse itself is incomplete as it is used in this post example “ "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels...".

you cannot properly exegesis this verse when it is not all the verse says nor the context of the chapter. To this “ "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels...". is hyperbole and not have before and after verses to correctly make that claim is a bias.



1cor 13:1 says “ If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. LOVE is the context , and to say the tongues of men and angels is hyperbole after having the full context shown in the WHOLE CHAPTER of 13 . which is LOVE, and LOVE should be the motivation in which all the Gifts of the Holy Spirit are used which is the context of chapters 12, 13, and 14 on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit.

 

[CS1]

Angel tongues is hyperbole not literal. Tongues are languages not ecstatic utterances. Pagans not Christians spoke in ecstatic utterances.

You are reading into the scriptures that which you want to see not what is actually written. You reject the OT basis for the NT references.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

it is not pagan that is your opinon you have NO biblical proof of your claim. The tongues spoken in the church is not pagan. The roots of it are nmot pagan they are Biblical . again you try to use pagan teachings to discredit a biblical work of the Holy Spirit . again show me where in the Bible one example in the NEW Testamant of pagan tongues .

 

[Ralph-]

...a Christian can also operate the manifestation of gifts of healings (it's the only manifestation that's called a gift)

Here's a list of things specifically referred to as gifts:

"6Since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, each of us is to exercise them accordingly: if prophecy, according to the proportion of his faith; 7if service, in his serving; or he who teaches, in his teaching; 8or he who exhorts, in his exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness. "-Romans 12:6-8


All of these are gifts. And since prophecy is a gift then we know tongues is too (see 1 Corinthians 14:1-5).

 

[Ralph-]

And assuming you believe what Paul wrote is scripture, God would like all Christians to speak in tongues.

Just as Paul wished that all had the gift of celibacy like he did but acknowledged that not all would.

"7Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am (celibate). However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that. "-1 Corinthians 7:7

So we see even celibacy is a gift, and a gift that a man may or may not have, but which Paul wishes all men had.