Baptism and holy spirit

Which would make sense to me IF tongues are human languages. If someone knows I speak the English tongue, but then they hear me speaking in THEIR OWN native tongue, yet I don't KNOW their native tongue, yeah, that would cause them some amazement.

But if I was speaking in a tongue they didn't understand, how exactly would that amaze them? It seems to me it would rather bore them...

No, the interpretation is for the people. 1 Cor 14:5

Gotta run for the evening, thanks for the conversation. God bless.

Bless your heart too!
But if all operate in every gift/manifestation, then WHY does it say: Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8 To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues,[a] and to still another the interpretation of tongues.[b] 11 All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines.

Then I misunderstood you when you said: "He is speaking TO God, therefore the interpretation is TO God."

It's fine to pray quietly to yourself in tongues, in church. That's what 1 Corinthians 14:28 is saying.
1Co 14:28 "But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God."

Gotta go on a tangent here for a moment.... I normally hate it when there are little descriptors added between sections of a chapter because I think they're distracting. But as I went to find and copy 1 Cor 14:28, I saw the descriptor just before verse 26 saying "Orderly Worship". And I kinda knew that verse would fit under under a heading like that. Then I re-read verse 26 and noticed something. The grouping in which TONGUES is appearing.. That of things being used to edify the church as a WHOLE. "when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying."

In the event that someone feels they need to speak in tongues as a method of edification of OTHERS, there NEEDS to be an interpreter or the only person to understand what is being spoken will be God himself, like normal. So the person should be making SURE they are supposed to be saying it TO THE GROUP...otherwise they should only be doing personal praying/worshiping. (as I understand it to be)

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

There was a huge portico surrounding the temple where the various sects used to meet and teach and stuff. That is probably where the apostles and 120 were staying continually.

For a good read about this > The Hope Of Israel and scroll down to the section that says "WHERE DID THE SPIRIT DESCEND AT PENTECOST?"

I've heard someone I trust saying that a message in tongues can be used for preaching (the gospel), but currently I don't see that to be the case. I'll likely go pray about it more sincerely. Meanwhile, I like your comment. and others of course, but I'm rather sparing on the "official likings"

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

Lol, I like a post many times even when I see it differently, simply because I appreciate the time someone is spending on me and the respectful way they are speaking with me!

But shrume said only the one who is actually speaking in tongues can be the one to interpret...

SBG, (I like that shortened version )

I like several things Shrume has said (and also Cee). On this one Shrume and I currently see this detail differently but not to the point of contention or strife.

As I see things, If tongues is going to be spoken specifically for the church to hear....it needs to be with someone present who is going to provide the interpretation.... because 1 Cor 14:28 mentions an "interpreter" being present, not an "interpretation". As I see it, that means the interpreter may be the one who spoke the original tongues, or it may be another individual.

And as I was alluding to earlier... if someone feels they ought to say something in tongues with the intention of having the whole church hear, they ought to find out clearly from God if he is going to be providing the interpreter(if someone else) or the interpretation(if that same person will be the interpreter)...otherwise they should keep it between him/herself and God.

As you can imagine, mistakes can be made as people are learning how to be open to the promptings of the Spirit, while not sure of how and when to do things. I believe that is one reason Paul concludes with "Forbid not to speak in tongues" (allowing for learning curves) and "let all things be done decently and in order" (an admonition to learn QUICKLY from the mistakes)

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

One quick response before bed...

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.

15) What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

And I believe 1 Cor 14:28 can be understood to mean the same person. IE: "that same one".

G'nite!

I've gotta say, I at least have understood more finally by revisiting this topic again. I have once again come to some conclusions, but they are more informed and more worked out in my mind. Here is what I'm walking away with.

First, I do believe in the manifestation of tongues (and I think MOST Christians DO.) I don't think it has ceased and I think the Spirit may still manifest in this way, and in whatever other way He sees fit, for the building and edifying of the church of saints. He may manifest in whatever way He sees fit. He has my permission.

Second, I don't have a problem with them being called manifestations or gifts or both. If the Spirit manifests in me and I heal someone, it IS a gift. So while I still don't understand the insistence on His manifesting not being also called gifts, it doesn't bother me to call them either or to use them interchangeably. No one has been able to adequately explain to me why the move of the Spirit must never be thought of as a gift, so my thought isn't changed and when the Spirit moves and manifests, I think it's a wonderful gift.

Third, I think true tongues are human languages, even if the one speaking has no idea which language they are speaking and those present have no idea what language they are speaking. They could be speaking a DEAD language for all I know or they know. Therefore, since they are not speaking in their native tongue, they do not understand what they are saying. But if one is present who DOES speak in that tongue, I think it would be an amazing thing for them to see and marvel over, that some guy who clearly is English speaking (or Russian speaking, whatever) is speaking Hindi to them! (And I'm not completely convinced that the person IS actually speaking Hindi or if some are just HEARING Hindi, because Pentecost says they spoke in tongues but it ALSO says that each man heard his own language being spoken.). So the manifestation of tongues could be that one person present hears Hindi because they are Hindi, while a person beside them hears French because that's their tongue. So I think it COULD be that the gift of tongues is stranger than we really know and still has some mysteries in it.

Fourth, I don't see any reason why the Spirit couldn't or wouldn't allow one to speak in tongues even IF no one was present who absolutely needed it in order to understand (because they spoke a different tongue than those present). And in that case, I can understand why, if no one of that tongue was present to benefit and no one with the gift of interpretation of various tongues was present, that they should NOT get up and start babbling in it, because while it might build them up because they would be communing with the Spirit manifesting in them (though without their understanding), they would be wasting everyone ELSES time.

BUT, if someone DID happen to be present with the gift of interpretation of various tongues, Paul said it shouldn't be prevented, just that it should be orderly, with one speaking at a time, with the interpreter interpreting.

Lastly, I see no reason why someone with the gift of speaking in tongues should not speak in tongues privately at times if it helps them to commune with God in spirit. Since I have never spoken in tongues, I don't understand that fully but Cee helped me to get a glimpse with his explanation, because by that explanation, I appear to have that communion but WITHOUT speaking in tongues, and I would NEVER try to discourage ANYONE from that deep communion I have had at times just because they reach it in a different way. That's between them and God and I refuse to interfere.

And...that's my takeaway from the conversation. Over and out.

Yes I believe they were speaking in tongues, but God was supplying the interpretation in the hearers' ears. We know that Paul says prophesy is for building up the Church. In the Acts 2 situation, the people listening were still unbelievers not believers yet.

Sorry, But you need to read a little closer.

The manifestation (To reveal, or made known) of the holy spirit is given to all. THIS is given to all. But the gifts are not.
1 cor 12:
4 There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. 6 And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. 7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: 8 for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills.

The gift of tongues is given to induviduals. Not everyone, Granted, multiple gifts could be given, bot not everyone is given the gift of tongues.

ALL these gifts are a manifestation of the same spirit whcih is given to all.

You said - The manifestation (To reveal, or made known) of the holy spirit is given to all. THIS is given to all. But the gifts are not.

Then quoted v4-7 . . . v7 "But" sets in contrast what is been said before so the subject is changed from "distribution of gifts" to the manifestation of the Spirit then list the manifestations. If the manifestation of holy spirit is given to all and tongues is one of the manifestations then why isn't it available to all? Is the phrase "gift of tongues" correct? Actually, the only manifestation listed as a gift is "gifts of healing".

See explanation of the difference in definition of "another" in post #595. And of course, it is the Spirit that energizes all these things and He does distribute to each one as He wills because ALL believers will not manifest ALL of these at ONE time - that would be confusion and disorder . . . For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. . . . But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way . . . . Of course, it is okay if you disagree.

All I did was put the passage in context.

i read the explanation, And I disagree, The passage does not say that.

It said the gifts God gives manifests (or makes known) the Holy Spirit, These gifts are given to induviduals, as the HS desires, and they all are given to form a WHOLE.

To one is given the gift of tongues, to another is given the gift of interpretation of tongues.

It gets no clearer than this.

It really is a mystery. Or as you put it earlier, intriguing!