Speaking in tongues

Woule you say then used as, as it is written with the word it representing the faith of the unseen author? Like in the way Jesus used it in Mathew 4. three time he used the phrase... as it is written.

1cor 2:13
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

1th 1:5 " For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.

Heb 2:4 " God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the HolyGhost, according to his own will?

Jude 1:20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

essentially useing scripture to explain scripture why are you opposed to what is said in context to scripture. and it does not mean that. You did not use it in that context when you first post it.

I think the principles as a law of faith still apply . Believers still have the Spirit of Christ in them. His living abiding word does not return void. While he is not adding any new prophecy now that we have the perfect The existing prophecy can still be used to fulfill his will and give us an answer to those who ask for the source of faith as a living hope in which we do have not of ourselves. But the faith of Christ needed to hear God .

Mathew 10:19-20 would still be in effect. But that does not mean we can add it to the perfect

Matthew 10:19-20 "But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, " "for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. "

Remembering that not only does the Holy Spirit teach guide and comfort us but according to the word and it continually is brining to mind that which he has taught us

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

So then again not new prophecy that we could add but old testament and new testament as a law of faith as it is written existing prophecy. No new laws needed to bring the gospel in the world.

notuptome said:

Read what Peter said to Jesus when the multitudes of followers turned and followed no more. John 6:68 Peter knew who Jesus was and followed Jesus not for miracles but because Jesus had the words of life.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Click to expand...

It's interesting that I have been studying John 6 with my family for devotions the past two nights. Let's look at what Peter says as recorded in the passage:
John 6
68 But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (NKJV)

Notice that Peter does not say anything at all about miracles. He doesn't say he followed Jesus 'not for miracles.' Maybe you just eisegete that idea into the passage like you do with the canon in I Corinthians 13. But I do not believe we should treat the Bible like that--reading our pet doctrine into it and then convincing ourselves the passage we read it into it really says it.

The miracle Jesus did with the fish after Peter had fished all night had already had an impact on Peter. If Peter actually believed because of the word He heard, Thomas refused to believe in the resurrection until He saw Jesus with His own eyes, insisting to put his finger into His hand and his hand into His side.

Jesus said,
In John 14, Jesus told His disciples:
11 Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves. (NKJV)

Jesus' works were not the enemy of His words. God working miracles is not the enemy of believing the word of God.

First of all, your bold statements do not prove your point. If premil is the write scenario, the author is not writing.

And second, who really believes that Paul wrote Hebrews?

We need to look at the whole context of the gospels and of Acts. We read about baptizing in the book of John 'for there was much water there.' In Acts 10, Peter asks 'who should forbid water'. Peter was a water-baptizer. He compares baptism to Noah's flood in the passage where he says 'baptism doth now save us. Also, in Acts, Philip bapties the Ethiopian eunuch in water.

This discussion is not about who wrote what , definitely not about premil and we are not talking about Hebrews only but also Romans. I can conclude you have no answers to the questions posted therefore have no footing in this discussion.

But Paul did truly pen the epistle to the Hebrews … with Jesus being the author (Holy Ghost writer).

What a contradiction of doctrine.
How can one be Pentecostal and not speak in tongues therefore unable to pray in the Holy Spirit as commanded to?
Nor can one experience the refreshing and the joy of fervent prayer in the Spirit.
How can a Pentecostal disciple praise and worship our Lord and God and the Father but by praying in tongues?
You are denying a fundamental truth here. You are denying the Bible evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Did I say that the gift of knowledge and wisdom is the ability to answer all questions? No, I did not. It is when the mind may not know but is revealed. A revelation. Same as studying and Holy Spirit teaches. Either way He teaches for He is the teacher. Not all the colleges, and scholars with their degrees, though there are some I'm sure that are born again and filled with the Spirit.

Experience is how I know kavik. And it has happened only a few times for me. However, I do flow in writing poems that are revelation for I write what I hear. Sometimes I post the same way. Not bragging of anything special about me. It's just the teacher who inspires, and I'm not that smart.

He's the One who is wanting to gift all His children. And this knowledge is superior to the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for that is what most people have. A talent for study. Be careful what conclusion you come to and make sure it's truth. Found in scripture.

I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing, but I will ask on what evidence you make this assertion.

The fundamental truth as a oral tradition of men or a written tradition of God, prophecy ?.

Believing, exercising the faith that comes from hearing God as prophecy is all the evidence needed to believe God .

When those develop their own oral traditions as a sign they are mocking God like those in Jerimiah 44 and saw no evil in doing so . God simply with mocking lips brings his interpretation as revelation in the langue's or tongues of others as he did at Pentecost. Yet for all that they clung to the oral traditions that did make the word of God without effect in a hope that their new oral tradition would confirm they are believers.

As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil. Jerimiah 44

I would offer as David said in the Psalms if men destroy the foundation of the doctrines of God .What can those who are trusting in the imputed righteousness of Christ do righteous .

From my experience Pentecostals leave out the foundation found in Isaiah

For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
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.Isiaha 28:10 -14

Once a person establishes what the sign confirms and who it is pointing to the rest of the doctrine falls into place Not a sign gift, the gift is we can hear God by faith (the unseen). But to those who seek after a sign believe prophecy is not all the evidence needed to believe God .

In the law 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 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 14:21-22

Tongues, God bringing new revelations in other languages other than Hebrews alone is a sign against those who do not hold prophecy as a higher authority than that the oral traditions of men . Its easy to see with the law above pertaining to God bringing His prophecy in other language's exactly what it does confirm as a sign. Yet for all that they still refuse to believe. But rather do whatsoever their own mouth says and see no evil in doing so . We walk by faith the unseen eternal .

You are the second person I met who believes that. If he did, would Luke have translated it from Aramaic or Hebrew? They say it is written in a very different style from Paul's. Paul doesn't put his name on it, either, as he does with his other letters.

Huh? Our salvation is nearer than when we first believed. That's still true. We are all moving forward in time, not backward. How is that true if salvation already occurred in the past?

None of us know the day or the hour, and neither did the apostles. We have to always be watchful. That's the perspective the epistles are written from.

In my experience, you have a very, very narrow view of what the prophecy from Isaiah means, interpretting it differently from how Paul applies it in the passage. Your interpretation does not seem to allow for the exercise of the gift the way Paul describes in the passage. One speaks in tongues--a language the speaker (generally) does not understand (v. 19)--and another interprets what he says (v.27). This edifies the body. Paul writes this long passage to lead up to instructions (commandments of the Lord v.37) on how to have an orderly church meeting.

There are also instructions related to prophets speaking, and instructions under which 'ye may all prophesy' (v.30). Prophesying in this context is revelatory in nature (v. 29.)

Paul quotes Isaiah in the midst of a discourse in which he explains that, not only do uninterpreted tongues not edify the congregation, unbelievers also respond with unbelief, not hearing God who said that '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.'

You developed your own interpretation of this verse from Isaiah that does not match or intersect with Paul's whole argument in the passage.

Again, Paul is explaining to the Corinthians that uninterpreted tongues do not edify the congregation. The interpretation edifies. Prophesying edifies. Tongues edify the speaker. One can give thanks well in tongues, but the other is not edified. Unbelievers in the assembly respond to speaking in tongues with unbelief, but if all prophesy and speak the secrets of the unbelievers heart, he glorifies God and says that God is truly among you. This leads up to Paul's specific instructions for church meetings which allow 'everyone of you' in church to engage in edifying utterances such as the singing of psalms, teaching doctrine, sharing tongues, revelations, and interpretations, within certain parameters laid down in the passage. A guiding principle is 'let all things be done unto edifying'. There are specific instructions for interpreting tongues and how to prophesy in the passage. Later, Paul implies that the rules for the church meeting are universal ("What came the word of God out from you or unto you only has it come?). The word of God did not originate from Corinth and they did not have a right to redesign the church meeting to fit their own tastes. He also wrote that his instructions were the commandments of the Lord.

You seem to miss the point, to miss the whole flow of argument and how Paul's quoting Isaiah fits into the flow of his argument in the passage.

Correction.
No one knows the day or hour of the end of age and no one mentioned any day or hour but phrases like; coming quickly/ coming soon/ in a little while/ shall not delay/ nearer, can not by any means, mean 2000 years and counting.

And no one said salvation is a one time event that happened in the past rather something continuous that had a beginning in the past.

Rom 13:11And do this, understanding the occasion. The hour has come for you to wake up from your slumber, for our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed. 12The night is nearly over; the day has drawn near.

Heb 10:25Let us not neglect meeting together, as some have made a habit, but let us encourage one another, and all the more as you see the Day approaching. .....
35So do not throw away your confidence; it holds a great reward. 36You need to persevere, so that after you have done God’s will, you will receive what He has promised. 37For in just a little while, He who is coming will come and will not delay.

This were not little children that Paul and Jesus could entice with fake promises; if the one who was to come would not delay then He did not delay and if the one who was to come said He'd come quickly then He did. Enticing with fake promises is not the way epistles were written as you suggested.

Count me third.

Heb 13:
22I urge you, brothers, to bear with my word of exhortation, for I have only written you briefly.
23Be aware that our brother Timothy has been released. If he arrives soon, I will come with him to see you.
24Greet all your leaders and all the saints.
Those from Italy send you greetings.
25Grace be with all of you.e

Who else was fond of mentioning their companions in the epistles?

I have seen this in action once. There was an old lady living just up the street from me. After mass one day she seemed quiet and then suddenly started regaling us with stories of good Christians. She spokoe in many languages it seemed. From what we could tell she moved from Polish to Spanish, Hebrew, Nigerian, and English all in the space of a few minutes.

1. Were there people to translate? How did you all know it was different rational languages?
2. Was she telling the same story in different languages or just switching stories as she switched languages?
3. Did she understand what she was saying?