Speaking in Tongues: Its Origins [Ancient and Modern], Purpose, and Power

I didn't say there was a Bible...but the letters and texts were already in circulation. or do you think Paul was about 400 years old when he wrote them? and the disciples were hiding in caves exercising their memories?

listen, I would not expect you to use anything that would actually agree with scripture

apparently, you would also like to include it in scripture

the text is anonymous...and having become a little familiar with it now, I can see why it was NOT considered inspired

it is chock full of cute little additions to actual scripture that are nonsense

again, it is anonymous. I guess anon is good to go for some however

people like to grasp at straws when their only 'proof' of God is physical and the understanding is human and not of the Spirit of God

but you know about spirits though, right?

One cannot say what individuals did or did not do throughout history. Many people have received the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues while alone in prayer time, while praising during a drive to work, etc. Historical record is processed and written by flawed man but the bible is the inspired Word of God. Therefore, the bible record is first and foremost for instruction in righteousness. Paul mentioned this in 2 Timothy:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Tim 3:16-17

Jesus said:
"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
He that believeth (the gospel) and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;" Mark 16:15-17

regarding early Christian baptism. there are quite a few sources with instruction. the Didache instructed sprinkling for cases where not enough water for immersion was available...or in the case of imminent death...which makes sense actually. but to refer only to this manuscript is anything but unbiased

If you look at the accounts of baptism in the early church, two things are clear:

First, in the early church, baptism was an extended event. The climax happened at the moment of immersion, but it took on greater meaning in the context of a more elaborate, multi-step process of initiation into the church.

Second, the early church, at least in the second and third centuries, seems to have preferred full immersion—not the sprinkling of water, or the baptism of infants.

2 exceptions

There were, however, two important exceptions to full immersion.

First, the Didache allows for the pouring of water three times instead of full immersion. This was allowed for in the absence of sufficient water for immersion.

Second, in the third century, Cyprian defended both sprinkling and pouring instead of full immersion in cases where a person was expected to die soon.
source

Does this publication also claim the lie that water baptizing should be administered "...in the name of the father, and the son, and the Holy Ghost; removing the all powerful name of Jesus Christ?

Sadly, people believed it was okay to begin administering water baptism, etc. in whatever fashion they deemed best in a situation. One day all will realize that God is God and His plan was put into place for a reason. God does nothing haphazardly. Man is to forgo his pride and bow to God and perform baptism, etc. in the pattern provided for by the apostles and in His Word.

you would think John was using a water gun or garden hose or something

if people do not understand how much the devil has done his very best to either destroy the Bible off the planet or at the least change it or convince people it does not say what it in fact does say, well, they would be far more effectual in this world

pretty sure all pride will vanish one of these days. we'll all be naked as if we were not already...not meaning clothes here so the haha crowd can just move on

Yes, I'm aware it's anonymous. I'm merrily pointing out that the text, or rather, variations of it, are included in the Bibles of some Christian sects; the EOC being one.

The Catholic lie is in my post about the Didache. This unfortunately, is where many church beliefs formed rather than from the Actual and Literal word of God. In those 10 LIES, includes the Catholic's disbelief in Tongues that has WRONGFULLY led churches throughout time to believe in something FALSE (the belief that Tongues has ceased is one of their biggest lies, and look at how many churches today are following this LIE).

Note one thing I have written is connected to the Didache, I am referring to Paul's instructions to the Corinthians.

No, that is the history we have been told. But NOWHERE in Greek history, do we find anything written about concerning like what we find in the Didache, All of those beliefs stem and are found in the heart of the Catholic belief system. And the Catholics CLAIM, the Didache was lost for 1500 years and then suddenly just appeared from NOWHERE as the written jargon of the Apostles.

But ANYONE WITH A CLUE, can read scripture from Acts to Revelation and see NOTHING about what's found in the Didache I revealed, remotely matches what is written by the Apostles in our Bible.

A clear FAKE, that people have been believing for Centuries!!

Your bottom belief is not from scripture and matches 100% to the Didache whether you think so or not.

And like I did say, what we see in Paul's letter that we know God inspired him to write, follows nothing we see when God walked the face of the Earth in the Gospels.

Therefore, if the TWO do not line up, it's wrong.

And God would not be so petty to care about human language, when the Holy Spirit was the focus and active on the scene!!

well good then

I'm going to follow the texts that have witnesses of our Lord Jesus Christ as the authors

not mr anon who could be and prob is a bunch of authors with alot of opinions

the EOC have not made a wise choice in that case

Ironically, YES!!

And we ONLY see in scripture the Apostles Baptizing in the Name of Yeshua, which this is not reflected in the Didache. Why would the Apostles in our Bible show them Baptizing in Yeshua's Name, but in the Didache they DO NOT mention this?

Does not make sense because the Didache is full of LIES!!

Now, the Name of Yeshua indicates the Father - Son - Holy Spirit since Yeshua literally means Yahweh's (the Father's) Salvation and in His Name (Yeshua) comes the Holy Spirit, but still, they did Baptize in Yeshua's Name which is not reflected in the Didache (Book of LIES).

Papyrus DATING METHOD proves most of the written work we see in the New Testament was written before the 70 A.D. Destruction. Therefore, it was ON HAND before the Book of Lies (Didache) ever was written!!

And, it's IMPOSSIBLE to refute the Papyrus Dating Methods, because it's the most sound and correct way to date the New Testament materials!!

There was no "Catholic" church when the Didache was written.

I would say modern day church "glossalia" aka ecstatic speech (stemming from the 1900's onward) follows nothing we have seen in the Gospels.

"God is not so petty to care about human language" not that is pretty funny considering "in the beginning was the Word"

How about you actually tackle the scripture maybe then we can converse.

this person does not recognize any difference between descriptions of tongues in scripture

for that matter, she thinks it is some kind of brain fluke and follows kavik in his 'spiritual' understanding which he gathers from another plain of existence, if you follow, but not of the the Holy Spirit

quite a crowd

it is up to the individual if they have that much time to waste explaining what will later be made fun of

The Catholic Church claims the moment Yeshua told Peter to feed His sheep, the Catholic Church was born. So in that sense, there was.

Seriously??

Well, no Proof- so its better to believe it stopped anytime in the first centurys. And it seems that what startet in 1901 through Agnes Ozman is something, but not from God.
Otherwise you could found this teaching in the churchhistory.
What somebody is doing in bis private of course nobody knows.
But what you teach is not found in churchhistory. Why God should not reveal it at least to his servants?
Instead all bis children could not have this benefit.
This makes no sense for me.
The other Thing is how this pentecostal teaching came into this World. With People which acting and noising like animals. Which where out of controle of their sense.
I cant Read in the Bible that believers acting like this After baptism with the Holy Spirit.
And you use the scripture. Show me Please where anybody taught in the bible that if somebody got the Holy Spirit he has also to speak in tongues. If you can Show me, i can believe it. But dont Take acts. The Acts Events are no teaching, they are one Time Events with a Special goal.

en.wikipedia.org
For almost a thousand years, Catholicism and Christianity were as one. The break, or schism between the Church of Rome and other Christian faiths began with the split with Orthodox Christians in 1054 over questions of doctrine and the absolute authority and behaviour of the popes.Jun 29, 2011
BBC - Religions - Christianity: Roman Catholic Church

www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/catholic/catholic_1.shtml



If you go by this, for 1,000 years, the Catholics and Christians were ONE before officially separating in the year 1054.