Speaking in tongues

If I did I would cry out for help to remove the voice of a stranger

I know enough to make the devil flee.

I know God is no longer brining any new revelations after any manner in which he did prior to the last chapter the book of Revelation .

I know its a new age revived, old age on the rise gaining popularity even among the church as one of those sign gifts that some believe, giving them a false sense of security, I believe

I know the Son of man experienced what some call out of the body near death experience in Mathew 4. Which was a lying spirit brining in lying wonders that entered the weakened fleshly mind of Jesus as the Son of man. Having not eaten for forty day being subject to illusions .And all three times he experienced it he would say: as it is written and again as it s written . It make those lying wonders coming from a fallen angel flee .

Jesus as the Son of man having experienced it can help us if we would experience the working of Satan a fallen angel described as "not seen" by the faith that comes from hearing God, not holding to the our head of our Father in heaven .

Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels (fallen angels) , intruding into those things which he hath "not seen", vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. Col 2: 18-19

If God is not increasing it why would we believe the lie? Why go above that which is written ?

It would appear God was still bring new revelations.

Its easy to tell the difference, God is no longer brining any new revelation after any manner.

What we had in part up until the last book Revelation, today we have the whole or perfect, Need more than he has offered? For what reason or purpose?

Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Mathew 4:7

Dreams, visions, and OBE's are not designed to bring new revelations. Their solely intended for the person who receives them to inform the believer of something, either to prevent the believer from doing or enduring something, or to prepare the believer for something.

Excuse me if I'm wrong but "new revelations" are why Pentecostal's speak in tongues!

Wrong.

I think you meant God spoke in many languages called prophecy, inspired by God..... not men.

At the time of Pentecost God did bring new revelations through men and women, sons and daughters, Gentiles and Jew alike with mocking(stammering) lips in other languages other than Hebrew alone and other lips, of the gentiles nations of the world but the unbelieving Jew(no faith) refused to hear the word of God in exchange for the oral traditions of men .It was sign against the unbelieving Jew.

The foundation is a law and not just a good idea as a oral tradition of man is found in Isiah. Its fulfillment in 1 Corinthians 14

Note.... (purple in parenthesis) my added comments as personal opinions

For with stammering lips another tongue will he speak to this people.To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.Isaiah 28:21;22

In the law (Isaiah 28) it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.Wherefore tongues(God brining new prophecy as the word of God in other languages other than Hebrew alone) are for a sign, not to them that believe, (God) but to them that believe not:(God) but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not(God) , but for them which believe.(God)

As a sign it confirms they did not have the Holy Spirit .

How in the world the Pentecostal's turned that upside is a mystery. It would seem oblivious according to prophecy that oral tradition of the Pentecostal's (sign seeker) did make the word of God without effect taking away the understanding that come from hearing God through his words of prophecy .

The chapter that follows the law on tongues

Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?Isaiah 29:16

Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Respectfully, it might be worthwhile for you to take a basic English grammar class at your local college. Quite often, it is a challenge to understand what you're saying. Even using the free site www.grammarly.com would help.

I bet that no one spoke tongues before the Tower of Babel

you may have something there friend.

tongues are useful only because of the language barrier
being bilingual or mulitlingual does not save you

Personally in my opinion what passes for tongues is gibberish - the "gift" was only for 1st century AD as a warning to the apostate Jews/Israelites - once the temple and their cultus was shattered tongues ceased.

1 Cor 15:8 Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.

"Blessed African" is an interesting username. No, speaking in tongues is NOT superior to other spiritual gifts. You do not have to acquire this gift to be a first class citizen of Heaven.

the "will be done away" is for a future time, we are living in the church age, the same age as the writer of Corinthians.

Tongues is a sign against those who refuse to hear the word of God (prophecy)making it to no effect through a oral tradition of men.

Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

In effect God is mocking the unbelieving Jew with stammering lips he mocks them who refuse to hear. Rather than speaking in one tongue as Hebrew at Pentecost Peter spoke his normal dialect and God opened up the understanding of His word to all the languages of the world.

For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.Wherefore hear the word of the Lord, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.Isaiah 28:11-14

Tongues is not a sign to those who belive prophecy but is against them that do rebell.

Wherefore tongues "are for a sign", not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.1 Corinthians 14:22

"Will be done away" "When that which is complete (perfect = complete) is come", NOT "When He who is perfect is come".

What was Paul referring to? The complete Bible -- the Word of God.

Do we have a complete Bible? Absolutely.

micky mouse logic, we pray because we are taught to pray. and if we dont know what we need, the Father knows our hearts. no where does Jesus teach we should start babbling when we dont know what to pray for. He actually teaches against it.

There are several problems with your interpretation of I Corinthians 13. Here are two of them.

1. It makes Christians nowadays out to be superior in spiritual knowledge than an author of many of the books in the New Testament.

I Corinthians 13
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

So Paul in the first century was like a child in his speech, understanding, and thoughts. But when he becomes a man, after he becomes a man, then he puts away childish things. One problem with this particular cessationist viewpoint is that Paul was not around to experience the close of the canon. So that interpretation does not adequately depict what happen.

But suppose you want to plug in modern believers who have the Bible as the mature man in verse 11, does that make sense? Can you really say that, because you have the Bible, your understanding of the things in it is so great that Paul's understanding of it is like a child's? Is Paul's epistle really like something a kindergartener would write?

Realistically, we know that not having the Bible does not guarantee one has the measure of understanding Paul had. Some of us may read the Bible into adultoohd, and only after many years, one of the truths that Paul wrote 'clicks' for us and we have deeper understanding that Paul obviously had in order to write the epistle.

2. Your interpretation has nothing to do with anything Paul was talking about in this epistle.

Paul does not mention the completion of the New Testament scriptures elsewhere in the epistle. It is not a theme mentioned elsewhere or an idea Paul is building on throughout the epistle. There are other ideas in the epistle that do fit well with the concept of telios in I Corinthians 13.

Look at these verses from chapter 1.

7 So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:
8 Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Why would Paul write that if he anticipated a time before the Lord came back that the church would lack the very gifts he would discuss in this book? It doesn't make sense? But if we interpret I Corinthians 13 in line with these verses, then it makes sense that Paul may be referring to the perfection that comes along with the coming of the Lord.

If we look at the topics in chapters 13 through 15 we see.

Chapter 13 Chapters 14-15
tongues tongues
prophecy prophecy
the coming of the perfect/telios the state of the believer at the resurrurrection at the return of Christ,
which preceeds the end/telos



Also, Ii seems to me that the gender of telios has to do with the gender of telios, and that it does not have to have the same gender as all words and concepts related to it. Your 'he' argument seems like linguistic sophistry to me.

Paul quoted a verse that had a fulfillment in how the Assyrian captors took Israel away, speaking in a foreign language. He applied it, not just to Jews, though, but 'to them that believe not.' He says that 'Wherefore, tongues are a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not...." He does not limit the application merely to the Jews. Gentiles could come into a church meeting and, if all spoke in tongues, say 'ye are mad', also.

In addition to this, Paul teaches that the one who speaks in tongues edifies himself, that the one who blesses in tongues gives thanks well, and that if interpreted, the congregation can be edified. He does not conclude, 'Therefore, do not speak in tongues.' Rather, he gives instructions for how speaking in tongues is to be interpreted in church. He also commands to let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. If a revelation comes to one sitting by, the first is to hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy.

Paul calls these instructions 'commandments of the Lord' and implies that they did not have the right to deviate from the rules for universal church practice when he asks, "36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?"

Therefore, churches should allow speaking in tongues, interpretation, and prophesying according to the commandments of the Lord in I Corinthians 14, the only lengthy passage of scripture that actually gives instructions on what to do in church besides passages on communion.

Where do you get that from? It is a sign that they will not hear God.

Deade, if you are a mod, have mercy on me