Baptism and holy spirit

[CS1]

Let me spell this out for you so you have a chance to understand what I am saying. I said you need a modern English translation of what is being said in 1 Cor 13:12. You do not seem to know that the phrase translated for now we see through a glass darkly is old English for a mirror. Not a window but a mirror. Paul wrote under Holy Spirit inspiration but he did not write in English.

OT is related to the veil of the temple which was rent in twain. NT makes the holy of holies accessible to the believer where it was closed off to them in the OT. This goes directly to the that which is in part being done away.

Paul and the other apostles had seen Jesus face to face. Paul on the road to Emmaus and the others in the upper room. Jesus appeared to them in His glorified body.

The NT was the only thing in view that was not completed at the point in time Paul wrote the letters to the church at Corinth.

The Holy Spirit is with the church until the rapture. The Holy Spirit ministers in the church but three gifts have ended being replaced by the completion of Gods revelation our bible.

God has promised to supply all our needs. Not all our wants but our needs. Tongues are not needed because we have a complete written revelation of God. There will be no new prophesies because all have been given and recorded in our bible. Knowledge now is to be found on the pages of our bible with the Holy Spirit as our instructor into truth.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

let me show you I can spell too, I have more than one modern translation . And in each of them none of them say the Gifts of the Holy Spirit are done away with because of the bible being created. And you have no support scripturally

For your assertion:

notuptome
"The Holy Spirit ministers in the church but three gifts have ended being replaced by the completion of Gods revelation our bible."

"OT is related to the veil of the temple which was rent in twain. NT makes the holy of holies accessible to the believer where it was closed off to them in the OT. This goes directly to the that which is in part being done away."


LOL wow absolutely not. That was in context to the atonement & Law. Jesus is the reason why we are now able to come to the holy of holies. You are suggesting your understanding got you in of Gods word . That is wrong on some many levels . The " holy of holies is the Presence of God . Hebrews 10 speaks even more clearly to 1cor 13:8-10 look at the parallels


The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. 4It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

continue :

5Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:

“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, my God.’ ”a

continue :

8 First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law. 9Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.


11Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. 14For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

 

[Noose]

Again, the person speaking in tongues is to be the one to interpret.

Again, I disagree. [/QUOTE]
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.

13) Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

Was Paul wrong? Confused? Befuddled? Contradicting himself?[/QUOTE]

You are really misrepresenting Paul.
speaking in tongues and interpreting spoken tongues are two gifts by the same spirit (1 Cor 12:10). Paul urges people to speak in tongues only if someone else is given an interpretation and if not, they need to pray and be given an interpretation because Paul was insisting on understanding for the edification of the church.

Why would someone speak unkown language if they know the meaning or can interpret, is it for show off? why wouldn't they just give us an interpretation directly and save time? Paul was saying, if anyone speaks unknown language and there's no interpretation, they should pray that they get the meaning for the good of the church.

It doesn't make sense for people to be always speaking in unknown language and then later give interpretation, they should rather just give the interpretation part only.

 

[CS1]

When I make a funny comment, it isn't with the intent of making it a sticking point. It's with the intent of pointing out the funniness (to me) of something.

If anyone wants to think they heard the works of God being proclaimed in their own language but did not hear the gospel that saves in their own language, I'm fine with that. But it does say 3,000 were then saved, and without hearing the gospel in his own language, can a man be saved...?

then I ask you to explain why after hearing the wonderful Gospel did they mock ?

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

After the apostles spoke in tongues, Peter stood up and gave his sermon in the language most all of them understood, likely Hebrew.

It doesn't actually say that...

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

then I ask you to explain why after hearing the wonderful Gospel did they mock ?

It doesn't read to me as if the mockers DID actually hear anything in their own language. I believe they just heard noises and sounds. I rather thought when I read it that it sounded like some sort of drunk babbling to them. But to others, I think they heard in their own tongue.

And I know it doesn't go on to specifically say they then heard the entire gospel message in their own tongue, but neither does it say: and then peter preached the gospel in Hebrew only.

 

[CS1]

It doesn't read to me as if the mockers DID actually hear anything in their own language. I believe they just heard noises and sounds. I rather thought when I read it that it sounded like some sort of drunk babbling to them. But to others, I think they heard in their own tongue.

And I know it doesn't go on to specifically say they then heard the entire gospel message in their own tongue, but neither does it say: and then peter preached the gospel in Hebrew only.

did doesn't ?


lets let shall we Context of Acts 2:13 "Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine. "

 

[Noose]

That is flatly not true.

Paul was saying that tongues, when spoken out loud in the church, must be interpreted, so the church can be edified.

.

Yes, the tongues that are spoken today are all fake. It is funny that the 'spirit' that gave so many people the ability to speak in tongues has not given anyone the ability to interpret them yet in the 1st century church, God's spirit was able to distribute the gifts equally.

Paul was against tongues spoken loud without interpretation; i'm against tongues today because there's no interpretation whatsoever.
If today's people stuck in speaking in tongues in private prayer, we wouldn't be having this discussion because we wouldn't even know that people are speaking in tongues because they do it privately.
We are having this discussion because people have insisted in pubic display of unknown language with no single interpretation.

How i'm i wrong to call these satanic?

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

did doesn't ?


lets let shall we Context of Acts 2:13 "Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine. "

Not sure what you're saying?
Some did not mock. They heard in their own language.

 

[shrume]

Again, I disagree.

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.

13) Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

Was Paul wrong? Confused? Befuddled? Contradicting himself?[/QUOTE]

You are really misrepresenting Paul.
speaking in tongues and interpreting spoken tongues are two gifts by the same spirit (1 Cor 12:10).[/quote]
Actually, that are manifestations.

Paul urges people to speak in tongues only if someone else is given an interpretation and if not, they need to pray and be given an interpretation because Paul was insisting on understanding for the edification of the church.

Why not read what is written and believe it?

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.

13) Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

Noplace does Paul say people are to "speak in tongues only if someone else is given an interpretation".

Why would someone speak unkown language if they know the meaning or can interpret, is it for show off?

No, it's to edify the body of Christ.

why wouldn't they just give us an interpretation directly and save time?

...you've been reading SBG's posts... She said the same thing awhile back...

Because then they would not be speaking in tongues and interpreting.

Paul was saying, if anyone speaks unknown language and there's no interpretation, they should pray that they get the meaning for the good of the church.

No, he was saying that if they did not pray in tongues with the intent to interpret, they should shut up, and pray quietly to themselves and to God.

It doesn't make sense for people to be always speaking in unknown language and then later give interpretation, they should rather just give the interpretation part only.

The Bible says that two or three people are to do it (speak in tongues and interpret), in order.

 

[CS1]

Yes, the tongues that are spoken today are all fake. It is funny that the 'spirit' that gave so many people the ability to speak in tongues has not given anyone the ability to interpret them yet in the 1st century church, God's spirit was able to distribute the gifts equally.

Paul was against tongues spoken loud without interpretation; i'm against tongues today because there's no interpretation whatsoever.
If today's people stuck in speaking in tongues in private prayer, we wouldn't be having this discussion because we wouldn't even know that people are speaking in tongues because they do it privately.
We are having this discussion because people have insisted in pubic display of unknown language with no single interpretation.

How i'm i wrong to call these satanic?

you cannot make abloanket statement like that LOL . you do not know if they are fake or not . You can I agree judge if what has been said did do what all the gifts of the Holy Spirit are to do as 1cor 12, 13, and 14 teach .

I have seen many interpretations of tongues. This discussion is or was about the Baptism in the Holy Spirit.

 

[shrume]

Yes, the tongues that are spoken today are all fake.

That's what you said at first, then you said you do not have a problem with people speaking in tongues privately, now you're saying all tongues are fake again.

Choose a position and stick with it.

It is funny that the 'spirit' that gave so many people the ability to speak in tongues has not given anyone the ability to interpret them yet in the 1st century church, God's spirit was able to distribute the gifts equally.

I agree that people should not speak in tongues in public without interpreting.

Paul was against tongues spoken loud without interpretation;

That's right! Congrats!

i'm against tongues today because there's no interpretation whatsoever.

There is in our church. Every time.

If today's people stuck in speaking in tongues in private prayer, we wouldn't be having this discussion because we wouldn't even know that people are speaking in tongues because they do it privately.

Wow, this is your fourth flip-flop in the last half hour or so. So now all tongues are not fake again?

We are having this discussion because people have insisted in pubic display of unknown language with no single interpretation.

Churches that do this should read 1 Cor 14, and change their behavior.

How i'm i wrong to call these satanic?

Because they're not.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

Yes, the tongues that are spoken today are all fake. It is funny that the 'spirit' that gave so many people the ability to speak in tongues has not given anyone the ability to interpret them yet in the 1st century church, God's spirit was able to distribute the gifts equally.

How on earth would you know that God has given no one the gift to interpret various tongues?
Just because you may have seen a run amok gathering does not mean they all are.
You're not making sense to say because you haven't seen it means it hasn't and doesn't happen...

 

[peacefulbeliever]

Again, I disagree.

Paul was saying: I wish you all spoke in tongues, but I wish even more that you all prophesied.

Of course, some take pauls wishing that they all spoke in tongues as him saying: you do all speak in tongues, which to me is odd, because in another place he asks, do all speak in tongues?
Not sure about the "he" there. I'd have to look into it.

God said by way of Paul: I would that you all spake in tongues . . . . would - thelo - 1) to will, to have in mind, intend; a) to be resolved or determined, to purpose; b) to desire, to wish; to love, c) to like to do a thing, be fond of doing; d) to take delight in, have pleasure.

So we could read the verse as - 1) I intend, I have in mind that you all speak in tongues; a) I purpose that you all speak in tongues; b) I desire that you all speak in tongues; c) Be fond of speaking in tongues; d) take delight in speaking in tongues . . .

The manifestation of the spirit is given to every man for the common good - then the listing of the nine manifestations - each believer has the ability within the gift of holy spirit given them but each will manifest as the Spirit energizes. God will not energize all believers at the same time in a meeting - but each believer will be energized at different times in a different manner (another) so that the church is edified and things are done decently and in order. That "another" doesn't mean some can manifest word of wisdom but some cannot - some can manifest word of knowledge but some will not - some will heal but some will not . . . . because v7 says the manifestation of the spirit is given to EVERY man for the common good . . . so EVERY believer has the gift of holy spirit and within that gift are nine ways to manifest that gift - ALL come from God and are energized by God.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

God said by way of Paul: I would that you all spake in tongues . . . . would - thelo - 1) to will, to have in mind, intend; a) to be resolved or determined, to purpose; b) to desire, to wish; to love, c) to like to do a thing, be fond of doing; d) to take delight in, have pleasure.

So we could read the verse as - 1) I intend, I have in mind that you all speak in tongues; a) I purpose that you all speak in tongues; b) I desire that you all speak in tongues; c) Be fond of speaking in tongues; d) take delight in speaking in tongues . . .

The manifestation of the spirit is given to every man for the common good - then the listing of the nine manifestations - each believer has the ability within the gift of holy spirit given them but each will manifest as the Spirit energizes. God will not energize all believers at the same time in a meeting - but each believer will be energized at different times in a different manner (another) so that the church is edified and things are done decently and in order. That "another" doesn't mean some can manifest word of wisdom but some cannot - some can manifest word of knowledge but some will not - some will heal but some will not . . . . because v7 says the manifestation of the spirit is given to EVERY man for the common good . . . so EVERY believer has the gift of holy spirit and within that gift are nine ways to manifest that gift - ALL come from God and are energized by God.

Okay, then you would say...He has never energized me to heal. He has only energized me to speak in tongues?
Earlier you had said you have the ability to heal but never have because you aren't there yet/don't have enough faith. Have you changed your thought on that at all?

 

[DJ2]

Yes, the tongues that are spoken today are all fake. It is funny that the 'spirit' that gave so many people the ability to speak in tongues has not given anyone the ability to interpret them yet in the 1st century church, God's spirit was able to distribute the gifts equally.

Paul was against tongues spoken loud without interpretation; i'm against tongues today because there's no interpretation whatsoever.
If today's people stuck in speaking in tongues in private prayer, we wouldn't be having this discussion because we wouldn't even know that people are speaking in tongues because they do it privately.
We are having this discussion because people have insisted in pubic display of unknown language with no single interpretation.

How i'm i wrong to call these satanic?

I agreed with your response but it is possible that it may simply be a matter of self-delusion. Not a supernatural event at all.

 

[CS1]

It doesn't read to me as if the mockers DID actually hear anything in their own language. I believe they just heard noises and sounds. I rather thought when I read it that it sounded like some sort of drunk babbling to them. But to others, I think they heard in their own tongue.

And I know it doesn't go on to specifically say they then heard the entire gospel message in their own tongue, but neither does it say: and then peter preached the gospel in Hebrew only.

they mocked was the point and did not understand what was going on, so Peter explained it and proclaimed the Gospel message of the Lord Jesus Christ were 3000 got saved.


Please know I am not in the camp that you have to speak in tongues to be saved I have said that many times , kind of get lost with some .

Nor do I see anywhere in scriptures that the “Gifts of the Holy Spirit” are done away with, none of them.


in context to what is the “Baptism of the Holy Spirit” which was spoken in the Gospel of John chapter 1

John 1:33

And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. = Baptism of the Holy Spirit




This term I believe is what Peter was explaining in context to the day of Pentecost using Joel 2 as his text.

This empowering we have seen in the Old Testament over and over again on Gods elect: Kings, Prophets, Priest, Judges, Rulers

The Spirit of the Living God or the Spirit of the Lord, or Spirit of wisdom did the empowering as a normative.

Judge 3:10
Is 59:21
Ez 11:5

Over 21 verses used this way in the Old Testament.
This same empowering happened on Pentecost which helped the preaching of the Gospel message. Which is what Jesus said would happen after they received Power from the Holy Spirit Acts 1:8

And as we read through all the Book of Acts which is the Acts of the Holy Spirit Paul is led to teach the gifts to the church in Corinth and as we read they were using them already, but doing so in error. Paul did not say do not use the Gifts of the Holy Spirit he said or affirmed how they were to be used. and that is what he did in 1cor chapters 12, 13 and 14.

 

[peacefulbeliever]

It doesn't read to me as if the mockers DID actually hear anything in their own language. I believe they just heard noises and sounds. I rather thought when I read it that it sounded like some sort of drunk babbling to them. But to others, I think they heard in their own tongue.

And I know it doesn't go on to specifically say they then heard the entire gospel message in their own tongue, but neither does it say: and then peter preached the gospel in Hebrew only.

I agree - it does read: Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marveled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? . . . And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What does this mean? Others, mocking said These men are full of new wine. - Why else would they think they were drunk if those mocking understood?

Then Peter stood up with the eleven and preached the gospel - of course, in the language of the time. He also explained exactly what those that "heard them speak in his own language" . . . . Therefore being by the right had of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of holy spirit, he has shed forth this, which you now see and hear . . . . speaking in tongues - they witnessed the apostles new birth, the gift of holy spirit, being baptized with holy spirit, the promise of the Father being manifested - evidenced by speaking in tongues.

 

[CS1]

I agreed with your response but it is possible that it may simply be a matter of self-delusion. Not a supernatural event at all.

DJ2 that is your opinon , I do not see those here as self-delusion. I'm sure you are here for the edification of each other .

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

It reads to me as if some were marveling that they were all hearing them speak in their own language but that some others mocked them, saying they were drunk.

I guess I always just thought their unbelief and mocking prevented their hearing their own language spoken as with the others. But it doesn't say that specifically. It was just how I comprehended what I read.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

agree - it does read: Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marveled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? . . . And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What does this mean? Others, mocking said These men are full of new wine. - Why else would they think they were drunk if those mocking understood?

Yes, that is how I understood it too.
And oddly, there are some in here who seem they would have been among the mockers on that day!

But, they have obviously seen some run amok tongues, to the point where they now believe tongues has ceased. I also saw it run amok but can't say for sure if it was just a group where no one stepped in to speak on what paul SAID or if they were all deluded and pretending or WHAT...but I have not dismissed it because of any idjits. NO man will ever get me to deny scripture just because he's insane or deluded. Ain't gonna happen!