Why have the Sign Gifts Ended

he is talking about the great commission right?

Ask him.

I am talking about the Biblical gift described in I Corinthians 14. In verse 13, the one who speaks in tongues is to pray that he might interpret. Do you take this to be a mere natural ability? I Corinthians 12 lists interpretation of tongues among the gifts of the Spirit.

Don't shift the blame on me. You are the one who has prophecy ceasing on the one had and continuing on the other.

So what was the Holy Spirit doing in Corinth, such that Paul had to write three chapters about the "sign gifts"? Perhaps you cut that section from your copy of the Bible?

The truth is that you don't know what every Christian has been commissioned by Jesus to do.

As for what you call "sign gifts", I suggest you read The Case for Miracles by Lee Strobel.

I'm talking about individual callings, and I believe that's the context of Major's assertion as well.

You mean to say its sad, that the OP is not agreeing with your understanding?

God may have healed Paul when he was in Galatia. If God heals through people, that doesn't mean we do not have to take care of our health.

The fact that there was some illness in the first century among the figures described in the Bible does not disprove the existence of miracles back then, does it? Does it disprove the parts of the Bible about healing and spiritual gifts?

Whether God gifts people to heal and do miracles and the idea that all healing and miracles are 100% guaranteed no matter what are two different issues.

That's a very mechanical, non-intuitive way of reading the text. The grammar of the New Testament does not follow your rule. I suspect you did not make this up. I have found this interpretation in at least one commentary. But it does not stand up to scrutiny if we look at the rest of the Greek text of the New Testament. I will illustrate and share a few examples. This is not an exhaustive list of examples from the New Testament either.


The works in question in Mark 16:17 are
τοῖς πιστεύσασιν

τοῖς is a definite article, but in some cases it can function as a noun (from the perspective of linguistics. Greek studies has it's own tradition for grammatical categories.)

πιστεύσασιν is translated 'that believe'. It is in the Aorist Participle Active- Dative Masculine Plural. Look it up here:
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/mark/16.htm

We see the same sort of grammatical categories in John 1:22
22 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?

τοῖς γενομένου here is translated 'them that sent'. Like in Mark 16:17, τοῖς is in the Dative Masculine Plural followed by a verb in the Aorist Participle Active- Dative Masculine Plural. But there is no way you can look at a word earlier in the passage and reasonably conclude that it is the antecedent for τοῖς. And this passage illustrates that τοῖς can serve the function of a noun, doing whatever the verb after it describes. There are other examples of this, but I chose this one because the verb is in the Aorist Participle Active- Dative Masculine Plural.

You can study it here: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/1-22.htm

There is similar grammar in the following verses where τοῖς is used in a substantive sense and you cannot legitimately argue that it refers back to some other referent earlier in the passage:

Acts 1:16 has the same grammatical construction:
16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

'Them' that took Jesus is τοῖς in the Dative Masculine Plural... again. And συλλαβοῦσιν is in the Aorist Participle Active- Dative Masculine Plural. 'Them that took him' aren't mentioned anywhere earlier in the book of Acts. This is the first reference to them. There is nothing for the definite article to refer back to. It's another example of the definite article being used as a noun in this type of verb construction.

Other examples you might look up are Matthew 8:10, Mark 14:69, Matthew 26:71, Matthew:12:4 (though the men are referenced in verse 3 in this case)

We get what it means by the sense of the text. I therefore find your argument to be bogus. A plain sense reading of the text indicates that them that believe believe that Gospel that the apostles preached. I see no reason to think that switching from 'He that believes and is baptized' to 'them that believe' is any kind of grammatical error either. As far as I can tell, the general consensus of the translators of various translations on this passage is legitimate and there is likely no esoteric secret that only the Greek grammarians have uncovered that renders their consensus false.

I was on a mailing list with a Greek scholar who liked to debunk Greek myths preachers told about the Greek. He told me generally it is best just to go with translations. It seems like most secrets that preachers draw out of the Greek aren't legitimate, and some commentaries can even promote poor interpretation of the language.


The Bible does not call them 'sign gifts.' The signs in Mark 16 were for them that believe. The apostles preached, and others believed. And apparently people who may not have even met the 12 apostles were doing miracles and prophesying as referenced in I Corinthians 12-14.

That might be true according to your doctrine, but I am asking you to look at that scripture and ask "Why didn't Paul advise Timothy to read Matt-John and declare that "by his stripes he is healed"?

Correct. My assertation is that the "Sign Gifts" as recorded in Mark 16 were given to the ELEVEN Apostles gathered in front of Jesus exactly as seen in those Scriptures and were NOT GIVEN to us the church today!!!!

Mark 16:14-17........
"Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. 15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

Now there are Zero, NONE as in NO Scriptures that say the church was given those SIGN GIFTS which included speaking in tongues.

Yes you are correct. That is the correct way that HERMANUTICS is properly done when correcting explaining the Greek language.

He did not write 3 chapters about the Sign Gifts. He wrote 3 chapters in 1 Corinthians, 12-14 to CORRECT what the church was doing wrong with "Tongues". The CONTEXT of those 3 chapter is Tongues and how wrong they were being done.

I can not agree Dino with your comment. You and me and no one else was present with the ELEVEN when Jesus gave the Great Commission to the Apostles.

You are welcome to come up with all kinds of reason why you want to have the Sign Gifts but none of them are found in the Scriptures.

Mark 16:14......
"Afterward he appeared unto the ELEVEN as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen."

Where in that verse do we find your opinion that EVERY Christian received that commission???

To accept what you say, we have to completly disreguard the Scripture in Mark 16:14.

I have NO need to read Mr. Strobel's work I have read the Bible many times and I have found it much more appealing than the ideas of men.

That's a very mechanical, non-intuitive way of reading the text. The grammar of the New Testament does not follow your rule. I suspect you did not make this up. I have found this interpretation in at least one commentary. But it does not stand up to scrutiny if we look at the rest of the Greek text of the New Testament. I will illustrate and share a few examples. This is not an exhaustive list of examples from the New Testament either.


The works in question in Mark 16:17 are
τοῖς πιστεύσασιν

τοῖς is a definite article, but in some cases it can function as a noun (from the perspective of linguistics. Greek studies has it's own tradition for grammatical categories.)

πιστεύσασιν is translated 'that believe'. It is in the Aorist Participle Active- Dative Masculine Plural. Look it up here:
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/mark/16.htm

We see the same sort of grammatical categories in John 1:22
22 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?

τοῖς γενομένου here is translated 'them that sent'. Like in Mark 16:17, τοῖς is in the Dative Masculine Plural followed by a verb in the Aorist Participle Active- Dative Masculine Plural. But there is no way you can look at a word earlier in the passage and reasonably conclude that it is the antecedent for τοῖς. And this passage illustrates that τοῖς can serve the function of a noun, doing whatever the verb after it describes. There are other examples of this, but I chose this one because the verb is in the Aorist Participle Active- Dative Masculine Plural.

You can study it here: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/1-22.htm

There is similar grammar in the following verses where τοῖς is used in a substantive sense and you cannot legitimately argue that it refers back to some other referent earlier in the passage:

Acts 1:16 has the same grammatical construction:
16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

'Them' that took Jesus is τοῖς in the Dative Masculine Plural... again. And συλλαβοῦσιν is in the Aorist Participle Active- Dative Masculine Plural. 'Them that took him' aren't mentioned anywhere earlier in the book of Acts. This is the first reference to them. There is nothing for the definite article to refer back to. It's another example of the definite article being used as a noun in this type of verb construction.

Other examples you might look up are Matthew 8:10, Mark 14:69, Matthew 26:71, Matthew:12:4 (though the men are referenced in verse 3 in this case)

We get what it means by the sense of the text. I therefore find your argument to be bogus. A plain sense reading of the text indicates that them that believe believe that Gospel that the apostles preached. I see no reason to think that switching from 'He that believes and is baptized' to 'them that believe' is any kind of grammatical error either. As far as I can tell, the general consensus of the translators of various translations on this passage is legitimate and there is likely no esoteric secret that only the Greek grammarians have uncovered that renders their consensus false.

I was on a mailing list with a Greek scholar who liked to debunk Greek myths preachers told about the Greek. He told me generally it is best just to go with translations. It seems like most secrets that preachers draw out of the Greek aren't legitimate, and some commentaries can even promote poor interpretation of the language.


The Bible does not call them 'sign gifts.' The signs in Mark 16 were for them that believe. The apostles preached, and others believed. And apparently people who may not have even met the 12 apostles were doing miracles and prophesying as referenced in I Corinthians 12-14.

The least you could do is spell the word hermeneutics correctly.

The Bible doesn't tell you what is happening in the 20th and 21st centuries in the lives of individual Christians. Strobel's book does. If you refuse even to consider evidence contrary to your belief, you are merely ignorant.

Thank you! That was a very nice thing to say. My arthritis in my hands gives fingers fits.

The Bible doesn't tell you what is happening in the 20th and 21st centuries in the lives of individual Christians. Strobel's book does. If you refuse even to consider evidence contrary to your belief, you are merely ignorant.

I am usually gracious with the misspellings of others, as even I miss things in proofing occasionally. However, I find it funny when people misspell key words incorrectly. No shame though... unless you keep doing it.

You seem to have taken a dislike for me because I disagree with your opinions and choose to believe what the Bible says.

You are free to do that but I for one would never call you or anyone else ignorant.