Speaking in tongues

Indeed, Paul is defending resurrection but the resurrection that Paul taught is not what we are taught today. Paul defended and taught continuous resurrection and was against the idea of a one time future resurrection and rebuked the idea that resurrection had already happened in the past as some were teaching then.

Paul's choice of words in 1 Cor 15 shows a present continuous activity. He doesn't ask, "..if there will be no resurrection..." which would exclusively mean future. He asks, "...if there is no resurrection..." which implies present continuous.

IMO, Paul uses the analogy of baptizing for the dead to back up his idea of present continuous resurrection because of the underlying belief that those who practiced it had, of being one with the dead and risen saints (like Abraham) who would influence their lives positively. Paul doesn't have a problem with that idea.

Let’s try to follow the thought... the text in your previous post does not imply ‘present continuous’. Simple as that.

Yes Christ as a work of His faith provided all the work necessary to free us from the eternal wage of sin .The resurrection began when the suffering of Christ was finished... all the old testament saints that were awaiting the rising of the their disembodied new souls came out of their temporal graves and entered the new heavenly Jeruselmen prepared as the chaste virgin bride of Christ..... the church

The same place any believer goes and waits when a person spirit returns to the father who gave it and flesh returns to the lifeless spiritless dust it was formed of. We look back to the rising of those souls from the graves. When one gives up his spirit today it enters that continuous resurrection .To be absent of these bodies of death is to be present with the Lord.

My point is, Paul doesn't exclusively use future tense to describe resurrection, his choice of words would mean here and now rather than later. He says "..if there is no resurrection.." where he could have simply said "..if there will be no resurrection.."

1 Cor 15:
12But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

20But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For he “has put everything under his feet.” c Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

29Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? 30And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour?

Present tense does not necessitate present-continuous tense. It also doesn't preclude future fulfillment. It's an abstraction from a specific temporal fulfillment in order to address a criticism of the entire concept. A similar argument might be used today with an atheist who argues that "When you die, that's the end. There is no heaven or hell."

What is a spirit? A spirit is a mind, a mind makes up the collective thoughts being affected by what we see and hear. They are resurrected as spirits and they are one with the spirit of Christ and in the same way the spirit of Christ affects us, they together with Christ affects us. Not that they see what we see or hear what we hear, but they understand what we understand from whatever we see or hear and thereby judge us.

Heb 12:1-4, it is said they are a crowd of witnesses urging us on.

Paul has a question:

1 Cor 15:29Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?

If each Christian has every dead believer inside of them then each dead believer must be experiencing hundreds of Millions of understandings, consciousnesses all at the same time!

No it doesn't, logic does when that particular text is compared with many other texts about resurrection.

First off let me say that I have never spoke in tongues but I do believe that it is Biblical. But I don't think speaking in tongues is something you can just do at your own will or anytime you want to and I don't think you can just imagine, rehearse, or practice the words to say because it is the Spirit that takes over.

It is a gift from the Spirit and is performed by the Spirit at the will of the Spirit....Just my opinion on it anyhow.

I've heard about others trying to teach others words to say and things like that and in my opinion that is definitely not biblical.

I do believe in the kingdom of God there's only one understanding, the truth:

Jer 31:
31“The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
32It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to d them, e ”
declares the Lord.
33“This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares the Lord.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”

I have a question for you, could you please show me in the Word of God where the Holy Spirit "takes over" a person in context to speaking in tongues? The Holy Spirit does not control the believer but help us to do and empower us to do. If the Holy Spirit takes us over meaning He over rules our will then why do we still disobey God? Is it the Holy Spirits fault you did not obey or mine?

Thank you

That sounds pretty neat. How do you know when it is the Lord giving you the interpretation in your mind verses your own thoughts? I never had that before and have never be able to interpret tongues.

I don't think it spells it out word for word exactly like that, and that is why I said just my opinion on it.

Here's why I say that though, It is a gift of the Spirit and not something we can just do on our own and by our self...it takes the Spirit.

Now yes, we can quench the Spirit and not allow it to speak and that is our own will to obey or not...same with healing, prophesy, and the rest. If you don't have the gift then you can't just make up words to say and think you are speaking in tongues...it is something that comes from the Holy Spirit and the words will be from the Holy Spirit not something someone can just get a manual and learn the words...And again, I do believe we can quench the Spirit and not allow it to speak through us when it wants to and that is our own freewill to do so or not.

There have been a few times that I have been praying and felt like it was coming, yet I got afraid and quenched the Spirit. So I'm pretty sure that you can quench it...anyhow.

So really like I said I have never spoken in tongues, but everyone that I know that does says it comes from the Spirit and you can't just make up words or do it anytime you want too because it is from God not our own minds.

I don't think it spells it out word for word exactly like that, and that is why I said just my opinion on it.

Here's why I say that though, It is a gift of the Spirit and not something we can just do on our own and by our self...it takes the Spirit.

Now yes, we can quench the Spirit and not allow it to speak and that is our own will to obey or not...same with healing, prophesy, and the rest. If you don't have the gift then you can't just make up words to say and think you are speaking in tongues...it is something that comes from the Holy Spirit and the words will be from the Holy Spirit not something someone can just get a manual and learn the words...And again, I do believe we can quench the Spirit and not allow it to speak through us when it wants to and that is our own freewill to do so or not.

There have been a few times that I have been praying and felt like it was coming, yet I got afraid and quenched the Spirit. So I'm pretty sure that you can quench it...anyhow.

So really like I said I have never spoken in tongues, but everyone that I know that does says it comes from the Spirit and you can't just make up words or do it anytime you want too because it is from God not our own minds.

I would also like to point out that there may be times when one is able to speak in tongues, but should not. For example, the situation described in I Corinthians 14:27-28. If someone can speak in tongues (or speaks in tongues) and there is no interpreter, he should keep silent in the church and speak to himself and to God. Earlier in the chapter, Paul said if you bless with the Spirit, you give thanks well, but the other is not edified. He speaks in tongues more than them all, yet in the church he would rather speak five words with the understanding that he may instruct others than 10,000 words with an unknown tongue.


So if you are praying in the assembly of the saints and you have a choice between praying in an unknown tongue that no one understands, or praying in a language everyone understands so they can understand, agree, say 'amen', and be edified, praying in the known language is more appropriate.

1 cor 14:27-28 does not say it like that. You left out the context of verse 13

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

27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

Where do you see a contradiction between this and the paraphrase of this and other verses in my post?

no contradiction. I said you left out verse 13, which says those who speak in tongues are to pray that THEY interpret. How are they to know if one can interpret in church? The way you have placed it is a presumptions of who the person is that will interpret . That to me is why verse 13 states the one speaking in tongues are to pray they interpret .

Mute point. Acts 2 tongues ended.

Most fail to attribute true tongues to multi lingual persons.

Just ill advised behavior desperately seeking justification.

For the cause of Christ
Roger