Speaking in tongues

the strawman is 1cor chapters 12, 13, and 14 thank you . and the book of Acts . just want to make sure you have the whole bail not just a few stran's

=]=============================================================================

we only HOPE with our whole hearts, that your 'future' will HOLD your Heart right next to YODE-HA-VOVE-HAY!!!\
lots of hugs and Holy Kisses...

The Book that accounts the Acts of the Apostles speaks of God's holy spirit bestowing the gift of language, Glossa, the Greek term for the tongue. And then there is "lalia", which means speech. Tongues then in the Acts verses refers to speaking language, or speech.

When tongues were bestowed on the people gathered in one place, which you'll find in Acts chapter 2, the bible as we know it did not exist. The Apostles were given the task of bringing the teachings of Jesus to the people by word of mouth. Wherever they traveled and whomever they met who would be receptive to that teaching.
This meant that they'd encounter cultures that did not speak Hebrew, or Aramaic. God then prepared them for their teaching mission by giving them the gift of speaking those languages needed to do so.

The gift of language or tongues is a spiritual one. And they were and I would say do remain purposed not for believers sake, to hear tongues. But rather for reaching the unbelievers. As Paul said in his Corinthian church epistle. 14:22 So then, tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers. Prophecy, however, is not for unbelievers but for believers.

wrong the context you have used is not even done that way in the Book of Acts and 1cor 12. 13. and 14 . you are reading into the verses because of your bias. The Book of Acts speaks against your understanding contextually. the vewrses you used do not reflect Acts 2

Hi thanks for the reply and looking at my bias as a different perspective.

The contextuality I believe flows from Isaiah 28 as the foundation of tongues (God brining his interpretation in other languages other than Hebrew alone) and prediction of the work of the reformation in Acts 2 where God now spoke through the gentile tongues and not that of Hebrew alone as before the time of reformation.

The promise of Joel God pouring out his Spirit on all flesh, men woman, Jew and Gentile. It supports all of 1 Corinthian. Prophecy is declaring the word of God. Tongues is simply God declaring His word (interpretation) in other languages other than Hebrew. Because all new prophecy has ceased and we are not to go above that which is written seeing we have the whole interpretation of God so as tongues .prophecy in other languages other than the Hebrew God inspired the word a second time using Peter and not Joel .

Joel 2:29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.

Acts 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

See how all things work together to those who are called according to his good purpose that works in the believer to both will and do the good pleasure of God not seen. See how the gift mutual worked in two neither having a understanding coming from different nations ..

Today they have a electronic device that does that work in real time of brining two different nations together .The opposite of the tower of babel when he confused the understanding of men and separated the nations.

Paul was moved to many places to communicate the gospel (its takes two to communicate the gospel . If God did not do his mutual work in both, both would be Barbarians to one another

There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.
Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him "that speaketh" a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.1 Corinthians 14



11 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.

10 But God has revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searches all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knows the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knows no man,
but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely
given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Ghost teaches; comparing
spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
1Corinthians 2:

before we go any further because i do like you I take issue with you opening verse..
before we go any further I want you to explain something for me please . I like you and you always have very good input.

So, my issue is why would you start as foundational verse in Isaiah 28 as the foundation of tongues? When it is speaking of the doom of Jerusalem ? and if your position was correct why did Peter explain exactly what was happening and Used Joel 2 and not Is 28?

I think as Isiah set sets the standard or law. Joel gives us the timing (the reformation) and who it would effect both the gentile men and woman and child alike... just like in the days of the Judges . Both working together . The younger are not to let others look down on them because of their youth. They bring the gospel as prophecy just as any born again child of God that does make up the kingdom of priests, Samuel started a young age

the problem I have sir, is Isaiah 28 is speaking of doom of Jerusalem. And nothing Peter said from Joel 2 had anything to do with reformation. he had to do with the event that happened on the day of Pentecost Peter said "but this was that which was spoken by the Prophet Joel" Acts 2:15 in context to the Holy Spirit empowerment which Jesus told them to wait for in Acts 1:7-8 .

I'm sorry I do not agree with your take on Is28 or joel 2

I will give my input on Isaiah 28:11,12 which Paul actually quotes in 1 Cor 14:21:

For with stammering lips and another tongue [Heb acheret uvilashovn = foreign language] will he speak to this people... yet they would not hear.

In the law [Tanakh] it is written, With men of other tongues [Gk heteroglossais = other tongues or strange tongues] and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

So this is the first intimation of the gift of tongues, which would be a sign to Israel that the Gospel was from God, therefore accompanied by supernatural speaking in foreign languages. And in spite of this, Israel (by and large) refused to believe the Gospel -- "yet they would not hear".

We should always be aware that Old Testament prophecies can include various events (near and far) within the same chapter. So while the judgment of Israel is prophesied in chapter 28, the future evangelization of Israel is also prophesied, and the subsequent stubborness of Israel is also prophesied.

You are quite wrong on the issue of my bias toward the scriptures put forward on the issue of tongues. A simple and honest reading of the scriptures will attest to the existence of tongues, it does not take a scholar to see this. But it is these same scriptures that exposes the bogus nature of their claims. I agree with CS1 that the scriptures present tongues as part of the physical supernatural manifestations of the Holy Spirit and therein lies the problem. What is presented as physical supernatural acts are simply mundane babble, not what is described in scripture.

Catholics use this same reasoning when they claim that the bread is supernaturally turned into physical flesh. When confronted with this obvious lack of prima facie they will simply point to John 6:54-59 and call anyone who disagrees a mocker. i do not need to attend every mass to know that none of these wafers are turning into flesh. They are blind to the fact that the wafer is still mundane bread just as pentecostals are blind to the fact that their utterances are simply babble.

Regardless of what scriptures are used;
the bread is not flesh
the wine is not blood
the earth is not flat
and the babble is not tongues.

I also do respect them for that but it is a very clear example of how far delusion goes; taking a verse out of context and holding on to an erroneous interpretation. In their delusion, they do both speaking in tongues and handle snakes- and they also think they can heal at the same time. My point is, delusion doesn't only stop in handling the snakes, speaking in incomprehensible language is a boigger and a rampant delusion based on a verse that is taken out of context.

Mark 16:17-18 is a promise by the one who own the gifts.
1 Cor 12/13/14 is a reprimand of the church for doing the wrong the thing by a person who was promised by the owner of the gifts.
So, the person relying on 1 Cor 12/13/14 has far taken things out of context than the one relying on Mark 16.

If it didn't kill one of them, it can't kill 20 men, unless they are not men.

I have no issue with your position other than it is not all pentecostal that are blind and not all that is spoken is babble . And just because you have not heard it does not make it so and those who have heard it does not make it so either I will concede that point however, the idea that bread becomes the blood of Jesus which the the word of God does not say that but we do see the supernatural experience of tongues in the Word of God . I disagree with them being liken together . they are not.

"Can I ask you where did you get the information "Pentecost movement" ? and 1906-1907 ?"

You just need to research the history of the movement particularly the doctrine of tongues pre-1906 and then post-1907 to see the complete change from the original thought/theory of xenoglossy (speaking a real rational language) to the concept of "prayer language" (speaking something that is not a known human language, etc.). - i.e. the doctrine needed to either be redefined, since xenoglossy obviously wasn't what was being produced/done, or the movement needed to admit that they were wrong about tongues (being xenoglossy). They chose the former and redefined it.

I know I have more references somewhere – If I can find them, I’ll post them, but for now – here’s a few form one source:

https://charlesasullivan.com/4350/a-new-kind-of-tongues/

https://charlesasullivan.com/tag/philip-schaff/

https://charlesasullivan.com/9179/early-pentecostal-tongues-part-2/

https://charlesasullivan.com/9604/early-pentecostal-tongues-part-3/

well I am not wrong at all. you will use whatever you think is available in an attempt to prove you position...which is not biblical

make up your mind

do you wish to disprove tongues from scripture or from unproveable claims from members of the forum?

I am not saying the claims are not true. I AM saying you cannot prove it one way or another. And again, people went there because YOU shoved scripture aside

and what on earth does transubstantiation have to do with the discussion? but thanks for bringing it up because it illustrates perfectly with what I said that YOU do

you CANNOT seem to stick with what someone actually says and appear to need to change the subject and introduce unrelated things in order to swing the conversation another way

that tactic will not work with me and others can see what you are doing

I rather think your argument amounts to babble the way you jump around

You also can not prove tongues from the scripture just like you won't prove picking up of snakes and raising the dead from the scriptures; if one ceased, even the others ceased because they are from the same spirit.

Here's a link to an additional source with respect to the question answered in Post #334 above.

http://thecripplegate.com/were-tongues-real-languages/

The "longer ending of Mark 16" is one of the least-well attested portions of the New Testament. Using it as a proof text for anything is a bad idea.

Thank you but I have . From the Book of acts to the reformation and many of them had documented gifts of the Holy Spirit seen in the historical writings of people and groups 1550-1900
here is a a short list of name on it :

Martin Luther
Ulrich Zwingli
John Calvin
Huguenots
The Wesley's
The Movement of God and the Gifts of the Holy Spirit are seen from century to century .

really ? remove it and what is the context of Mark 15 as it ends >? there is no recorded of the resurrection ? which is the Foundational truth of all Gospels . you might want to rethink that point of Mark 16 .