Baptism and holy spirit

So...they spoke in tongues and all heard in their own language, God being praised. They didn't hear the gospel in their own language, just praise?

1COR. 12:10.
To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits;
to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

It is admittedly an interpretation based on Paul explaining that tongues is speaking to God. And considering having 100s of people all speaking at the same time in different languages would be difficult if not possible to understand.

Acts 2:5Now 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?

I notice a few things:
1) Each one.
2) Hearing for themselves.

So, I personally feel the best interpretation is that God gave each one a gift to hear in their own language. You don't see them saying the disciples are speaking in every language, but the focus is on each one is hearing in their own native language. Intriguing.

But let's look at the other outpouring among the Gentiles for greater clarity.

Acts 10:44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, 47“Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?

We see the same thing here. People hearing them speaking in tongues and magnifying/praising/exalting God. Their focus is on God not on the people who are overhearing.

So that's my interpretation, but I'm okay if you don't agree, it's not something that I think is critical. I personally like to focus more on discussing prophesy than tongues because it builds up the church into unity with Christ.

I've just become aware that Romans 8:26 has a variant. One bible I have has ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν (concerning our) and another does not. One makes it possibly look like the spirit intercedes by means of unutterable sighings and the other that it intercedes concerning our unutterable sighings. Weird.

Yes this is what I believe is the most literal interpretation. In Acts 2:6 they are hearing the mighty deeds of God.

Later in Acts 2:36 the gospel was spoken to them by Peter.

Acts 2:36Let 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.

Great peace have they that love Thy Law,
and nothing' shall offend them'.

At the original outpouring, only the 12 apostles received the gift of the Holy Spirit and were speaking in tongues.


Unless tongues is interpreted (1 Cor 14:5).

But yes, we are to "covet to prophesy".

Yep. Tongues is not for preaching. It's always TO God, speaking the wonderful works of God (Acts 2:11), magnifying God (Acts 10:46), giving thanks to God (1 Cor 14:17).

I don't see why if you are operating in the gift/manifestation of tongues, and no one who understands the tongue is present to interpret, that you could not do it quietly anyway and therefore be talking to God, while not understanding what you're saying, and have communion with Him because the Spirit is manifesting in you - and it absolutely has to be a tongue other than one somewhere in this world.

I agree. Which is why paul had to address doing it with some semblance of order.
How many were in the upper room. Was it hundreds?
One could be speaking to a few in this direction and one to a few in that direction, and their voices wouldn't disturb each group...

So they heard God being praised in their own tongue and they then heard the gospel also in their own tongue?

This reminds me of something interesting. That yanni thing that was going around. One person literally heard that and another person literally heard a different word. And it's really weird to sit beside your mom and ask which she heard and have it be different than the word you heard! So I got to thinking that when God confused their language at babel, it didn't necessarily have to be that they all began to speak different languages. In fact, it would be doubtful that someone would just immediately start speaking a language other than the one they all knew. It is more likely that it was something in the hearing that was affected, not the speech. Sort of like the yanni thing. Just interesting, that's all.

So then, when someone interprets, they would be saying: oh, shrume just said such and such to God. And now he just said thus and thus to God.

Just thought of something else. It doesn't read like they were all speaking different languages. It reads as if the people just each HEARD in their own language.

The upper room is where the apostles abode (Acts 1:13) while waiting in Jerusalem. It's where they ate, slept, and brushed their teeth, etc. In that culture, no women would have been permitted in that upper room. So the group of 120 or so that met together (Acts 1:15), which included women, would have met somewhere else. A logical place to do that would be the temple.

Acts 1:
26) And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Acts 2:
1) And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2) And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3) And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4) And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Who is the "they" in Acts 2:1? I believe it refers back to Matthias and the 11 in Acts 1:26. Plus, in Acts 1:2, Jesus gave commandments to "the apostles he had chosen", which would be the twelve, or at that point maybe the eleven. Those were the ones who were told not to leave Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father (Acts 1:4).

I believe the original outpouring of the Holy Spirit was on the 12, not the 120. Also, I believe it happened in the temple. There were lots of people there, so many that after Peter's sermon, 3000 were added to the church. That did not happen in the upper room. God did this thing openly, not hidden away in some back room somewhere.

Yes, it is intriguing. And yet, this would mean that when it says they were all speaking in tongues, and tongues is a manifestation of the Spirit, through you, that it means they had some part in it and it was not just a something going on in the ears of the others. Otherwise, why does it state they were all speaking in tongues at all...? Why was no interpreter needed for these tongues but it is said today that a interpreter is needed? I know what my answer would be but I want to hear yours.

No, the person who speaks is to be the one to interpret.

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.

I know that many people use 1 Cor 14:28 to support the belief that someone else is to interpret, but the two verses above clearly state that the one speaking in tongues should interpret. I think 1 Cor 14:28 can be understood to mean the same person.

we suggest that someone,
please 're-read' your last few posts, something is very much amiss here...

You're gonna have to be more specific...