Speaking in Tongues (Privately, Outside of Church)

[Beez]

Don't mind at all, but I would be very cautious of how I disagreed with a moderator.
They do have the power to ban you.

Yes, they do, but if I get banned, that's the way it goes.

I guess I am not so attached that I am worried, especially since I was recently threatened with being banned at another site because the moderator didn't like my diet. Seriously. So I decided not to give him the pleasure, clicked some buttons, and I left. The poor mod! He really came down hard on me -- very angry! Maybe he was having an extra hard day.

Thank you, Mr. Ellsworth!! You are kind.

Come to think of it, I had disagreed with him regarding my diet . . . .

 

[Kavik]

I find it funny how one talks about adding too and then overlooking all what the word of God says in context the gifts of the Holy Spirit. what did Jesus mean when HE said in Mark 16:17 NEW Tongues ? in the Greek it means new kind, unheard of, recently made. the NASB says NEW the ESV says NEW. Peter explained in ACTS WHAT THIS POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT WAS AND REF JOEL 2 . this empowerment was seen to happen and recorded throughout the book of Acts was all that added too? so you dismiss all of 1cor 12, 13, and 14 because of one verse you say was added yet you proved no context to what it now means when it is taken out. LOL I will not add nor take away you can do that next you will tell us the KJV Bible is not to be trusted. lol

‘New tongues’ , as in ‘they shall speak with new tongues’ just refers to the spreading to the message of Christianity to new lands, countries, places where those spreading the message would encounter hitherto unknown languages and would need to learn the language of these people.

‘Kainos’ is something new (in quality/condition), but can also connote something ‘novel’ or ‘unusual’. Speaking in new languages (glossa = language) simply means ones that are new in the sense of quality (i.e. may not sound like anything you’ve heard before) or ones that are ‘novel’ or unusual in sound (if I’m used to hearing local languages, something like Gaulish is going to sound very unusual to me and the quality of the language will be like nothing I’ve heard before). It doesn’t mean Gaulish is a new (neos – “brand new”) language nor that it is unprecedented or never before existed; it’s a ‘kainos’ language. Been around for centuries but it’s new to me; sounds a little unusual and even novel.

A dissimilarity of these ‘kainai glosai’ to any that had occurred before – languages that, to the listeners were new in the sense of novel, unusual, different in quality from anything they were familiar with. As Christianity spread, new languages had to be learned as the message was spread to new lands and peoples. These languages were unlike anything heard back home – they were of a very different in quality, very unusual and novel in sound and structure, but real languages nonetheless. ‘Kainos’ would indeed be the correct adjective to use here.

So, the phrase in Mark, “they will speak in new tongues” refers to the fact that as the message of Christianity spreads, people will encounter new languages in which the message will need to be spread – they will need to learn these languages in order to spread the message. “glôssais kainais” - ‘with new languages’ – ‘kainos’ is used here indicating the languages are not “brand new”, but have been around (“pre-existing” if you will) for centuries. They are however new/unaccustomed/unusual languages to the speaker; s/he will need to learn them, and they will speak in these ‘new’ languages to spread the message.

Again, referring to real languages here, not modern T-speech.

It’s not an entire verse that was added, just the one word ‘unknown’.

Joel 2 has nothing to do with ‘tongues’.

The H/S, as mentioned in earlier posts in this thread, may have indeed inspired the apostles as to what to say on Pentecost, gave them the courage to say it, and may have even inspired them to say it using Greek and Aramaic instead of the expected Hebrew, breaking with Jewish tradition, but in the end, there was really no language miracle per se; the apostles would have known both languages.

Only issue with the KJV is that it is written in 17[SUP]th[/SUP] century English using terms and expressions that would have been commonplace 400+ years ago. It’s the misunderstanding of many of these (now archaic) terms with respect to 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century English wherein the issue lies. The word "tongues" is perhaps one of the better cases in point.

 

[kohelet]

The speaker does not need an interpreter. The audience needs an interpreter. God does not need an interpreter.

Verse 14 says that the mans spirit prays, that is not the Holy Spirit praying. Mans spirit is mans will. Again of the man does not know the tongue then he prays by his will but his mind is unfruitful.

Without understanding you will remain confused. God is not the author of confusion.

1Co 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

What you say here, Roger, is partly good. Of course, either way, the speaker does not need an interpreter (though it wouldn't do him any harm to listen to the interpretation of his tongue as it's given in the church). I suppose you mean "if the man" where you write "of the man" but the sentence is still hard to understand. Are you assuming that I think it's the Holy Spirit who prays when a person is speaking in tongues? I don't see it that way.

What you do seem to be saying is that tongues in private results in confusion. There is nothing in these three chapters that tells us this though, not even remotely. The verse you quote relates to the shemozzle that existed in the church in Corinth, as becomes clear when we read v.33 in context, starting at v.26. You're breaking a rule of hermeneutics by taking a line out of context and having it say what you want it to say. Paul says nothing about tongues when used in prayer resulting in confusion. You're trying to force the square peg of your view into the round hole of what Paul is saying.

And Rodge, you say all this kind of pompously, using the passive voice, "submitting" this and that and so on. This makes your mistakes look all the more glaring. How can such an erudite figure as Rodge appears to be get this so wrong? I suggest, for your own good, that you tone down your lofty style and talk like the rest of us. We all make mistakes and you'll blend in.

 

[kohelet]

It would appear to me that currently, this particular topic is one of the most divisive in the church. I honestly wonder why that is?

I think that Enlightenment thinking has a lot to do with it.

 

[CS1]

I find it funny how one talks about adding too and then overlooking all what the word of God says in context the gifts of the Holy Spirit. what did Jesus mean when HE said in Mark 16:17 NEW Tongues ? in the Greek it means new kind, unheard of, recently made. the NASB says NEW the ESV says NEW. Peter explained in ACTS WHAT THIS POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT WAS AND REF JOEL 2 . this empowerment was seen to happen and recorded throughout the book of Acts was all that added too? so you dismiss all of 1cor 12, 13, and 14 because of one verse you say was added yet you proved no context to what it now means when it is taken out. LOL I will not add nor take away you can do that next you will tell us the KJV Bible is not to be trusted. lol

‘New tongues’ , as in ‘they shall speak with new tongues’ just refers to the spreading to the message of Christianity to new lands, countries, places where those spreading the message would encounter hitherto unknown languages and would need to learn the language of these people.

‘Kainos’ is something new (in quality/condition), but can also connote something ‘novel’ or ‘unusual’. Speaking in new languages (glossa = language) simply means ones that are new in the sense of quality (i.e. may not sound like anything you’ve heard before) or ones that are ‘novel’ or unusual in sound (if I’m used to hearing local languages, something like Gaulish is going to sound very unusual to me and the quality of the language will be like nothing I’ve heard before). It doesn’t mean Gaulish is a new (neos – “brand new”) language nor that it is unprecedented or never before existed; it’s a ‘kainos’ language. Been around for centuries but it’s new to me; sounds a little unusual and even novel.

A dissimilarity of these ‘kainai glosai’ to any that had occurred before – languages that, to the listeners were new in the sense of novel, unusual, different in quality from anything they were familiar with. As Christianity spread, new languages had to be learned as the message was spread to new lands and peoples. These languages were unlike anything heard back home – they were of a very different in quality, very unusual and novel in sound and structure, but real languages nonetheless. ‘Kainos’ would indeed be the correct adjective to use here.

So, the phrase in Mark, “they will speak in new tongues” refers to the fact that as the message of Christianity spreads, people will encounter new languages in which the message will need to be spread – they will need to learn these languages in order to spread the message. “glôssais kainais” - ‘with new languages’ – ‘kainos’ is used here indicating the languages are not “brand new”, but have been around (“pre-existing” if you will) for centuries. They are however new/unaccustomed/unusual languages to the speaker; s/he will need to learn them, and they will speak in these ‘new’ languages to spread the message.

Again, referring to real languages here, not modern T-speech.

It’s not an entire verse that was added, just the one word ‘unknown’.

Joel 2 has nothing to do with ‘tongues’.

The H/S, as mentioned in earlier posts in this thread, may have indeed inspired the apostles as to what to say on Pentecost, gave them the courage to say it, and may have even inspired them to say it using Greek and Aramaic instead of the expected Hebrew, breaking with Jewish tradition, but in the end, there was really no language miracle per se; the apostles would have known both languages.

Only issue with the KJV is that it is written in 17[SUP]th[/SUP] century English using terms and expressions that would have been commonplace 400+ years ago. It’s the misunderstanding of many of these (now archaic) terms with respect to 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century English wherein the issue lies. The word "tongues" is perhaps one of the better cases in point.

context of all chapters of 1cor 12, 13 and 14 . Never said Joel two has anything to do with tongues it has something to do with what happen on the day of pentecost according to Peter who said so under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit or are suggesting Peter was not speaking the word of God?

 

[CS1]

I find it funny how one talks about adding too and then overlooking all what the word of God says in context the gifts of the Holy Spirit. what did Jesus mean when HE said in Mark 16:17 NEW Tongues ? in the Greek it means new kind, unheard of, recently made. the NASB says NEW the ESV says NEW. Peter explained in ACTS WHAT THIS POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT WAS AND REF JOEL 2 . this empowerment was seen to happen and recorded throughout the book of Acts was all that added too? so you dismiss all of 1cor 12, 13, and 14 because of one verse you say was added yet you proved no context to what it now means when it is taken out. LOL I will not add nor take away you can do that next you will tell us the KJV Bible is not to be trusted. lol

‘New tongues’ , as in ‘they shall speak with new tongues’ just refers to the spreading to the message of Christianity to new lands, countries, places where those spreading the message would encounter hitherto unknown languages and would need to learn the language of these people.

‘Kainos’ is something new (in quality/condition), but can also connote something ‘novel’ or ‘unusual’. Speaking in new languages (glossa = language) simply means ones that are new in the sense of quality (i.e. may not sound like anything you’ve heard before) or ones that are ‘novel’ or unusual in sound (if I’m used to hearing local languages, something like Gaulish is going to sound very unusual to me and the quality of the language will be like nothing I’ve heard before). It doesn’t mean Gaulish is a new (neos – “brand new”) language nor that it is unprecedented or never before existed; it’s a ‘kainos’ language. Been around for centuries but it’s new to me; sounds a little unusual and even novel.

A dissimilarity of these ‘kainai glosai’ to any that had occurred before – languages that, to the listeners were new in the sense of novel, unusual, different in quality from anything they were familiar with. As Christianity spread, new languages had to be learned as the message was spread to new lands and peoples. These languages were unlike anything heard back home – they were of a very different in quality, very unusual and novel in sound and structure, but real languages nonetheless. ‘Kainos’ would indeed be the correct adjective to use here.

So, the phrase in Mark, “they will speak in new tongues” refers to the fact that as the message of Christianity spreads, people will encounter new languages in which the message will need to be spread – they will need to learn these languages in order to spread the message. “glôssais kainais” - ‘with new languages’ – ‘kainos’ is used here indicating the languages are not “brand new”, but have been around (“pre-existing” if you will) for centuries. They are however new/unaccustomed/unusual languages to the speaker; s/he will need to learn them, and they will speak in these ‘new’ languages to spread the message.

Again, referring to real languages here, not modern T-speech.

It’s not an entire verse that was added, just the one word ‘unknown’.

Joel 2 has nothing to do with ‘tongues’.

The H/S, as mentioned in earlier posts in this thread, may have indeed inspired the apostles as to what to say on Pentecost, gave them the courage to say it, and may have even inspired them to say it using Greek and Aramaic instead of the expected Hebrew, breaking with Jewish tradition, but in the end, there was really no language miracle per se; the apostles would have known both languages.

Only issue with the KJV is that it is written in 17[SUP]th[/SUP] century English using terms and expressions that would have been commonplace 400+ years ago. It’s the misunderstanding of many of these (now archaic) terms with respect to 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century English wherein the issue lies. The word "tongues" is perhaps one of the better cases in point.

"The H/S, as mentioned in earlier posts in this thread, may have indeed inspired the apostles as to what to say on Pentecost, gave them the courage to say it, and may have even inspired them to say it using Greek and Aramaic instead of the expected Hebrew, breaking with Jewish tradition, but in the end, there was really no language miracle per se; the apostles would have known both languages. "

Wow . may have huh? there is no may have about it The Holy Spirit H/S did empower the church on this day. Peter did speak Peter did quote Joel 2. All was done by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit . I think it is very very dangerous when one assume that maybe it was not inspired . If one can pick and choose what is or is not the Inspired word of God even when the context is clear and supported by many scriptures; can lead to human reasoning and not sound Bible word of God.

 

[Kavik]

Agreed - I believe that the H/S did inspire the apostles, and yes, Peter did quote Joel 2; however, neither has anything to do with modern tongues as practiced by some Pentecostal/Charismatic denominations. Joel's prophesy does not reference 'tongues' and there was really no language miracle per se at Pentecost; the inspired decision to spread the word in local languages was something totally new and unheard of to many people (indeed as the narrative demonstrates, some people went so far as to accuse them of being drunk to do such a thing). If anything, that was the miracle; the realization that for the message to spread to the world (such that it was known at that time), it had to, and could, be done in the local vernaculars rather than a specific prescribed language (for most Jews, this prescribed language was Hebrew).

 

[CS1]

Agreed - I believe that the H/S did inspire the apostles, and yes, Peter did quote Joel 2; however, neither has anything to do with modern tongues as practiced by some Pentecostal/Charismatic denominations. Joel's prophesy does not reference 'tongues' and there was really no language miracle per se at Pentecost; the inspired decision to spread the word in local languages was something totally new and unheard of to many people (indeed as the narrative demonstrates, some people went so far as to accuse them of being drunk to do such a thing). If anything, that was the miracle; the realization that for the message to spread to the world (such that it was known at that time), it had to, and could, be done in the local vernaculars rather than a specific prescribed language (for most Jews, this prescribed language was Hebrew).

I do not coin the term modern tongues as I would not say Modern Holy Spirit not modern salvation. NOr do I believe the canon of Scripture is what was meant in 1cor 13:10"

" [FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away."[/FONT]

[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] the Perfect there is Jesus not the canon of scripture God word is and was always Perfect . Just because it was brought together of 66 books and YES God did do that amen, is not what is speaking of Perfect, The Holy Spirit is still very much needed as the Gospel of John says in chapter 14 and 16.
Has the Word of the Holy Spirit changed today ? IS HE still not calling? and saving? or is that a Modern thing? [/FONT]

 

[CS1]

Agreed - I believe that the H/S did inspire the apostles, and yes, Peter did quote Joel 2; however, neither has anything to do with modern tongues as practiced by some Pentecostal/Charismatic denominations. Joel's prophesy does not reference 'tongues' and there was really no language miracle per se at Pentecost; the inspired decision to spread the word in local languages was something totally new and unheard of to many people (indeed as the narrative demonstrates, some people went so far as to accuse them of being drunk to do such a thing). If anything, that was the miracle; the realization that for the message to spread to the world (such that it was known at that time), it had to, and could, be done in the local vernaculars rather than a specific prescribed language (for most Jews, this prescribed language was Hebrew).

the things of God are foolishness to the world is it not? did they not mock Jesus when HE performed the mighty works of God? did they not also say what HE did was of the Devil? why would they do anything different and scoff and mock as they did in Acts 2. Did not Peter immediately come out and say WE ARE NOT DRUNK! hmmm what about authorial intent? if you apply your concept of modern tongues to the experience in Acts 2 that too would have been seen as modern tongues therefore unbiblical.

 

[Beez]

Are people not allowed to worship God in whatever manner they see fit as long as it is not directly harming someone else?

No. those who have read the Bible know that He is specific regarding worship. People have died thinking that.

 

[notuptome]

I do not coin the term modern tongues as I would not say Modern Holy Spirit not modern salvation. NOr do I believe the canon of Scripture is what was meant in 1cor 13:10"

"But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away."

the Perfect there is Jesus not the canon of scripture God word is and was always Perfect . Just because it was brought together of 66 books and YES God did do that amen, is not what is speaking of Perfect, The Holy Spirit is still very much needed as the Gospel of John says in chapter 14 and 16.
Has the Word of the Holy Spirit changed today ? IS HE still not calling? and saving? or is that a Modern thing?

You are entitled to see 1 Cor 13:10 as you wish. Right or wrong it's an opinion.

the things of God are foolishness to the world is it not? did they not mock Jesus when HE performed the mighty works of God? did they not also say what HE did was of the Devil? why would they do anything different and scoff and mock as they did in Acts 2. Did not Peter immediately come out and say WE ARE NOT DRUNK! hmmm what about authorial intent? if you apply your concept of modern tongues to the experience in Acts 2 that too would have been seen as modern tongues therefore unbiblical.

Here is where I become concerned. If you are referring to 1 Cor 1&2 then we have a problem. The preaching of the cross is foolishness to those who perish. The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit. The reason is that you are by inference making those who disagree with your understanding of tongues to be unbelievers and thereby unsaved people.

Did some mock in Acts 2? Yes. Did all mock? No but they were uncertain as to what was transpiring.

I am uncertain of your intent regarding Acts 2. Are you claiming that what you have in the church today is the same as what occurred at Pentecost? It is the same Holy Spirit but do men speak and are heard in the native languages of those in the audience? If you could clarify this it would be helpful.

Worship practices have changed as the apostles did not have worship bands in the early apostolic church. Yet it is the same Jesus and the same Holy Spirit working in the hearts of men making them wise unto salvation.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Kavik]

I do not coin the term modern tongues as I would not say Modern Holy Spirit not modern salvation. Nor do I believe the canon of Scripture is what was meant in 1cor 13:10"

I use the term “modern tongues” to differentiate the phenomenon from the term ‘tongues’ as used in the Bible. The two are totally different from each other. Biblical ‘tongues’ were just various real languages, ‘modern tongues’ (a/k/a T-speech/glossolalia) is something completely different – non-cognitive non-language utterance.

Has the Word of the Holy Spirit changed today? Is HE still not calling? and saving? or is that a Modern thing?

I am not denying the work/ability of the H/S, nor am I suggesting the H/S was not at work on Pentecost – maybe it didn’t come across that way in my posts. What the H/S did at Pentecost with respect to language however, is the debate; not the existence of the H/S itself. As far as the H/S ‘saving’ as it’s understood in the Pentecost/Charismatic churches, I’m pretty sure there are many who would argue that’s a very modern concept/understanding.

If you apply your concept of modern tongues to the experience in Acts 2 that too would have been seen as modern tongues therefore unbiblical.

Not sure I understand – that’s not at all what I’m saying; modern tongues have zero to do with the experience in Acts 2 with respect to language. Again, two totally different phenomenon.

 

[KelbyofGod]

No. those who have read the Bible know that He is specific regarding worship. People have died thinking that.

I haven't followed or even looked at this thread in about a week, and when I finally do, the last post I read included a quote from myself.
I found that interesting... and a little unnerving.

What I'll say about the gift of "unknown" tongues (yes, I differentiate between this babbly kind and the diverse languages that can be obtained through study and learning them, or even the diverse languages that can be gotten directly from the spirit without learning them from man) is that yes, it's still in operation and is available for all that want it. It has been that way since the holy ghost was first poured out in Acts 2.

(Acts 2:39)Act 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.


Yes, the topic divides people. it did in the apostles' days as well. Just consider how upset the high priests and sadducees got when Peter and the other apostles told them that the Holy Ghost was a witness (observable evidence) given to those that obey God.

Act 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him. Act 5:33 When they heard that, they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to slay them.

People who speak against tongues (even just saying it means something other than that babbly kind God gave and still gives) are almost always those that don't have it. That's a little like speaking against the flavor of vanilla ice cream without ever having tasted vanilla ice cream. (speaking evil of things they know not) BTW, at least you are fortunate in that you've not experienced it and THEN speak against it. (I'll let you pray about that one if you REALLY want to know what that means).

People in the bible could TELL when someone received the Holy Ghost... not because they started living a better life or stopped cussing (those things take a considerable amount of time to manifest).... it was because they started speaking in tongues. And that observable evidence often came right as they were laying their hands on them, praying for them to receive it. Or even while they were still preaching (think Cornelius in Acts 10 and again it was observable to those who stood by).

If you don't think it was so, go through the book of Acts yourself and read the play-by-play accounts of when the holy ghost was poured out. It is an OBSERVABLE occurrence, and often happens at a clearly separated time from when the people believe and/or when they get baptized. (Acts 8:5-20, Acts 19:1-7)<--notice when the bible says they believed vs. when they received the Holy Ghost.

There's a lot more to say on this topic but I'll hopefully end with this for now. How many of you that speak against tongues have ever even heard God speak to you? Did not Jesus say that his sheep hear his voice? God still TALKS. He even mocks those who serve gods that do not speak. Doesn't it worry you at all? (Psalm 50:21, Isaiah 57:11)

Too many people in here are like fans in a fan club, comparing autographed writings (obtained by someone else and handed down) and thinking they know him personally.


Love in Jesus, ( Mark 10:21,22)
Kelby

 

[Beez]

Kelbyofgod, I didn't mean to make you uncomfortable. I struggle with reading, so I am often behind. Cataract surgery that didn't work out so well so well and other stuff.
Sorry!!

 

[KelbyofGod]

Kelbyofgod, I didn't mean to make you uncomfortable. I struggle with reading, so I am often behind. Cataract surgery that didn't work out so well so well and other stuff.
Sorry!!

Beez,
Please don't take me wrong. I wasn't saying that I was in any way offended by your post. I was unnerved because I recognized that God was trying to get my attention. I'd been holding back on speaking what I know due to the bickering that's been going on about this topic. Seeing your quote just struck me as more than a coincidence and basically a "hey, it's time to speak" so I did.

Also, I wasn't directing any of that at you. I just quoted your post as the last post on the thread before I started writing. (I'm kind of a slow writer). Thank you for considering anything I'd said as worthy of being quoted at all.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

 

[Kavik]

KelbyofGod -
People in the bible could TELL when someone received the Holy Ghost... not because they started living a better life or stopped cussing (those things take a considerable amount of time to manifest).... it was because they started speaking in tongues. And that observable evidence often came right as they were laying their hands on them, praying for them to receive it. Or even while they were still preaching (think Cornelius in Acts 10 and again it was observable to those who stood by).

With respect to Cornelius, I’m going to paraphrase (and in a few places quote) from the book “Tongues Revisited – a Third Way” in which the author devotes a section which addresses just this subject.

Given that Cornelius commanded a unit known as the “Italian Regiment”, one may surmise that he was from Italy (Latin, “Italia”). The people he called together were his relatives and close friends – essentially a group of Romans; speakers of Latin and Greek, and possibly at least a working knowledge of Aramaic (due to their military postings).

In short, they were a multi-lingual group. We know they were at least bi-lingual as they spoke to Peter with no reported language difficulty. The passage is silent as to what language they conversed in, but as was the practice in the day when speakers of two different languages (in this case, Latin and Aramaic) tried to communicate with each other, the common language of choice was Greek (just as it would be English in today’s world – a German and Japanese get together and the language they’ll most likely use to communicate to each other in is English).

So, in short, we have some Latin and Greek speaking Romans meeting some Christian Jews (Aramaic and Greek speakers). From the narrative, we know that the incident is reported from the perspective of Peter and his peeps. “They heard them speaking in languages (“tongues”) and praising God”.

From this, we can deduce that Peter and his group heard two types of speech here: (1) speech that they understood, and (2) speech they did not understand.

Considering they knew that some of what was said were praises to God, those must have been said in a language they knew. Some of what was said however, they did not understand because it was foreign to them. They did not speak that language.

A direct quote – “Is praise of God, that is, saying in some way how marvelous God is, evidence for the presence of the Holy Spirit? If backed up by a true understanding of and commitment to God and his work, then I would say it is indeed an indication of the residence in that person of the Holy Spirit. It is to be expected that a new believer will praise the Lord in some way, and these people had just minutes previously become believers in Christ! Cornelius and his family were devout and God-fearing (Acts 10:2, 22). They had accepted the revelation of God that they knew of up to that point, but they were not saved (Acts 11:14). They had become Jewish proselytes, Gentiles who had adopted the faith of the Jews. This was in spite of the disdain in which they were held by ethnic Jews (Acts 10:28) even while they were respected by them (Acts 10:22).”

The likely scenario was that Peter and his friends entered Cornelius’s house and Peter addressed the gathered group, telling them about Jesus, his life, resurrection, etc. Cornelius and his friends responded to what they heard as a reaffirmation of what they already believed. Reacting joyously, some of them addressed the Lord directly in their mother-tongue (i.e. Latin, a language Peter and his friends apparently did not speak), or turned to their friends and discussed these tremendous things with them (again in Latin).

To quote directly again - “Some of them, perhaps for the benefit of Peter and his friends, addressed the Lord, or talked among themselves in their shared language, Aramaic or, more likely, Greek. They were filled with the wonder and joy of having received 'life through repentance' (Acts 11:18). It was very evident to Peter and the others that here were truly converted people. It is so reminiscent of Acts 2; the multilingual situation and the praise of the wonders of God, though in this case it was from newly converted people. Another difference also was that here there were no cultural 'high language/low language' conventions to break (with Acts 2, the high language was Hebrew; the low languages were Aramaic and Greek). These people were simply thrilled that they were saved, and told the Lord so. This is quite sufficient to have prompted Peter's comment, "The Holy Spirit came on them as he came on us at the beginning." “

So, no modern T-speech here, just plain old real languages. In this case here the foreign language (“tongue”) was Latin; a language Peter and his friends apparently did not know. These apostles were among the non-Jews (read, non-Aramaic speaking people) the apostles preached to; thus, any native language these people spoke (with the exception of Greek) would have been considered a “tongue”.

Where are there other examples of this occurring – your comment seemed to indicate more than one occurrence(?).

 

[CS1]

You are entitled to see 1 Cor 13:10 as you wish. Right or wrong it's an opinion.

Here is where I become concerned. If you are referring to 1 Cor 1&2 then we have a problem. The preaching of the cross is foolishness to those who perish. The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit. The reason is that you are by inference making those who disagree with your understanding of tongues to be unbelievers and thereby unsaved people.

Did some mock in Acts 2? Yes. Did all mock? No but they were uncertain as to what was transpiring.

I am uncertain of your intent regarding Acts 2. Are you claiming that what you have in the church today is the same as what occurred at Pentecost? It is the same Holy Spirit but do men speak and are heard in the native languages of those in the audience? If you could clarify this it would be helpful.

Worship practices have changed as the apostles did not have worship bands in the early apostolic church. Yet it is the same Jesus and the same Holy Spirit working in the hearts of men making them wise unto salvation.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

notuptome you are the only one with a problem lol. you assume a lot . you try to make accusations that I have said, suggest , or implying those who do not agree with me are unsaved. That is lie you continue to say. So tell the truth. or don't assume you know what I mean or interject a false narrative .

When you lack the ability to properly answer what has been said concerning 1cor chapters 12, 13 and 14. And the many accounts in the Book of Acts you result to false assertions. I have asked you not to do that. as I said, you and other can and do disagree with my understanding. I have never said you or anyone was not saved. But yet you some how like to draw that conclusion. it's old. and it is offensive. stop it.

1cor 12, 13, and 14 speak about the Gifts of the Holy Spirit Period. They(chapters) instruct, correct, and list them all in the context of these three chapters how to use them and why and what happens when you do correctly. You have stated that you have not seen the gifts today . You believe that the gifts I think (tongues) have gone away because you think the bible is that which is perfect has come. I do not see that in the word of God in context to 1cor 12, 13, and 14. You have not provided any proof to refute that claim Biblically.

You have shown foolishness of those who have used the gifts in error, immaturity , and ignorance. Which I agree with you. But just because you have not seen something God says HE does today does not make the word of God null in void without your approve verification. You are not a prophet.

 

[CS1]

I do not coin the term modern tongues as I would not say Modern Holy Spirit not modern salvation. Nor do I believe the canon of Scripture is what was meant in 1cor 13:10"

I use the term “modern tongues” to differentiate the phenomenon from the term ‘tongues’ as used in the Bible. The two are totally different from each other. Biblical ‘tongues’ were just various real languages, ‘modern tongues’ (a/k/a T-speech/glossolalia) is something completely different – non-cognitive non-language utterance.

Has the Word of the Holy Spirit changed today? Is HE still not calling? and saving? or is that a Modern thing?

I am not denying the work/ability of the H/S, nor am I suggesting the H/S was not at work on Pentecost – maybe it didn’t come across that way in my posts. What the H/S did at Pentecost with respect to language however, is the debate; not the existence of the H/S itself. As far as the H/S ‘saving’ as it’s understood in the Pentecost/Charismatic churches, I’m pretty sure there are many who would argue that’s a very modern concept/understanding.

If you apply your concept of modern tongues to the experience in Acts 2 that too would have been seen as modern tongues therefore unbiblical.

Not sure I understand – that’s not at all what I’m saying; modern tongues have zero to do with the experience in Acts 2 with respect to language. Again, two totally different phenomenon.

well that is your opinion of the gift of tongues. you cannot separate the gifts of the Holy Spirit from the Greek word out of Context . as you know the words have systematic range of meaning. tongues means only three things in the Old and New testament. It all depends on how the authorial intent is used. Tongues the word : a language, descriptive of a language spoken by a specific people " he spoke to me in my tongue or native language". languages or the organ in the mouth.

So in context to 1cor chapter 12, 13, and 14 "The Gifts of the Holy Spirit " is the context to what is being said. Not modern, not human reasoning, not even of the flesh BUT of the Spirit of God. Therefore the information and instruction was given by God to Paul to instruct of the Power and working of the Holy Spirit. So tell me how it is now, have to be something of the flesh or human understanding? IS not the Gifts Supernatural ? are they not beyond human understanding ?


again you say modern tongues have nothing to do with Acts . I'm saying Modern tongues is not in the Book of Acts The Holy Spirit working in the lives of the believer is. That is the Main theme of Acts unless you think it is about man ? and not God Spirit?

 

[notuptome]

notuptome you are the only one with a problem lol. you assume a lot . you try to make accusations that I have said, suggest , or implying those who do not agree with me are unsaved. That is lie you continue to say. So tell the truth. or don't assume you know what I mean or interject a false narrative .

When you lack the ability to properly answer what has been said concerning 1cor chapters 12, 13 and 14. And the many accounts in the Book of Acts you result to false assertions. I have asked you not to do that. as I said, you and other can and do disagree with my understanding. I have never said you or anyone was not saved. But yet you some how like to draw that conclusion. it's old. and it is offensive. stop it.

1cor 12, 13, and 14 speak about the Gifts of the Holy Spirit Period. They(chapters) instruct, correct, and list them all in the context of these three chapters how to use them and why and what happens when you do correctly. You have stated that you have not seen the gifts today . You believe that the gifts I think (tongues) have gone away because you think the bible is that which is perfect has come. I do not see that in the word of God in context to 1cor 12, 13, and 14. You have not provided any proof to refute that claim Biblically.

You have shown foolishness of those who have used the gifts in error, immaturity , and ignorance. Which I agree with you. But just because you have not seen something God says HE does today does not make the word of God null in void without your approve verification. You are not a prophet.

Well I'm not a prophet but I can see that you are far too emotionally invested in this subject matter and seem to be developing a personal issue with me.

You are dangerously close to abusing your position as a moderator by disparaging me in a fashion that would certainly not be allowed by other posters. I do not hold that against you because it's only my opinion.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[CS1]

Well I'm not a prophet but I can see that you are far too emotionally invested in this subject matter and seem to be developing a personal issue with me.

You are dangerously close to abusing your position as a moderator by disparaging me in a fashion that would certainly not be allowed by other posters. I do not hold that against you because it's only my opinion.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

nope not emotionally invested LOl just don't like those who lie about what they think I have said when I have not. No personal issues with you lol in fact I'm just pointing out your constant assertions. And your idea of what is dangerously close to abusing is absurd. Context to the discussion . Which is "Speaking in Tongues (Privately, Outside of Church)"

when you lie and misrepresent ones words it is clear you have an issue with those who do not agree with you. remember you questioned me go back and read 460 and what was the context.? lol