Baptism and holy spirit

[Stunnedbygrace]

And so, Paul didn't intend for them to think angels were going to come down and preach another gospel to them or that men could speak the language of angels.

 

[shrume]

It's interesting how people put scriptures together in order to support what they already believe.

Why can't 1 Cor 13:1 and Galatians 1:8 simply be statements of fact?

"I do not believe in speaking in tongues, so 1 Cor 13:1 is hyperbole."

"I don't speak in tongues, therefore 1 Cor 13:8 means tongues has ceased."

 

[peacefulbeliever]

I was talking about where paul says to not listen to anyone with a different gospel than the one they'd heard. Paul says even if an angel from heaven preaches a different gospel to you, etc., etc. So I can't then go and say that when someone preaches a different gospel then they are an angel because paul said so!

He's basically saying: don't listen to any other gospel from any other man. In fact, even if an angel were to come and preach a different gospel, don't listen.

He uses the same hyperbolic device in the verse you give though. He's basically doing the same thing. Saying if I could speak every language there is on earth - heck, even if I could speak the language of angels, without love, it is useless.

I entered in the phrase "angel from heaven preaches a different gospel" into Biblegateway and there were 0 usages of that phrase - that's why I asked you if 2 Cor. 11:4 was the verse you were speaking about. If the verse you are quoting does not exist - how can you compare the two? Are you saying that there is not an angelic language? How do we know there is not an angelic language? I agree with the perception that ANYTHING done without love is NOTHING. Also because a figure of speech is used does not make a statement not true . . . figures of speech are used to emphasize, to call attention to the point, to add force or power to an expression - in that sense I could see how this could be an hyperbole . . . exaggerating the fact that without love nothing has meaning. I am just trying to understand why the questioning over something simply stated?
Shoot, I need to go back and read where this debate over this section of scripture started!!!! to see what I am even debating!!! LOL!

 

[7seasrekeyed]

It is a bit self serving to make knowledge of 1 Cor 13 all knowledge.

One must keep in mind that the apostles and disciples did not have the benefit of a codified canon at the time they walked on the earth. They had the OT which they were able to use to persuade men that Jesus was the Messiah He claimed to be.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

I'm really not following you on the self serving thing...

strange that Apostles wrote the NT though

what were they thinking? didn't they know you were coming on board? (kinda joking)

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

It's interesting how people put scriptures together in order to support what they already believe.

Why can't 1 Cor 13:1 and Galatians 1:8 simply be statements of fact?

"I do not believe in speaking in tongues, so 1 Cor 13:1 is hyperbole."

"I don't speak in tongues, therefore 1 Cor 13:8 means tongues has ceased."

And then there's me. I believe tongues exist but I also believe paul was speaking hyperbolically in those two verses.

 

[peacefulbeliever]

PB, it's like this:

My child acts up and I put him in a chair in the corner and I say: You don't get up until I tell you that you can. I don't care if your hair is on fire, you sit there. In fact, I don't care if a bear comes into the room, you don't move. It's hyperbole. I do not mean for him to think a bear will come into the house or his hair will catch fire.

Thank you but I know what an hyperbole is . . .

 

[7seasrekeyed]

It's interesting how people put scriptures together in order to support what they already believe.

Why can't 1 Cor 13:1 and Galatians 1:8 simply be statements of fact?

"I do not believe in speaking in tongues, so 1 Cor 13:1 is hyperbole."

"I don't speak in tongues, therefore 1 Cor 13:8 means tongues has ceased."

said in my bestest droll voice

'yes. isn't it though'

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

I entered in the phrase "angel from heaven preaches a different gospel" into Biblegateway and there were 0 usages of that phrase - that's why I asked you if 2 Cor. 11:4 was the verse you were speaking about. If the verse you are quoting does not exist - how can you compare the two? Are you saying that there is not an angelic language? How do we know there is not an angelic language? I agree with the perception that ANYTHING done without love is NOTHING. Also because a figure of speech is used does not make a statement not true . . . figures of speech are used to emphasize, to call attention to the point, to add force or power to an expression - in that sense I could see how this could be an hyperbole . . . I am just trying to understand why the questioning over something simply stated?
Shoot, I need to go back and read where this debate over this section of scripture started!!!! to see what I am even debating!!! LOL!

1 Cor 13:1
Gal 1:8

Those were the verses I was referring to. Sorry I didn't list them. I paraphrase a lot and just assume others will know the verses I am referring to, which is ridiculous. No one knows every verse!

 

[peacefulbeliever]

It's interesting how people put scriptures together in order to support what they already believe.

Why can't 1 Cor 13:1 and Galatians 1:8 simply be statements of fact?

"I do not believe in speaking in tongues, so 1 Cor 13:1 is hyperbole."

"I don't speak in tongues, therefore 1 Cor 13:8 means tongues has ceased."

Thank you shrume for posting the verse . . . I couldn't find it!!!

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

Thank you but I know what an hyperbole is . . .

Yes, I'm certain you do! I was comparing: don't move even if your hair catches on fire, to the same device used in: if I were to speak every known human language and even the language that angels speak.

That isn't to say the angels don't speak some language that isn't of earth, they very well could. But neither is it to say that paul was declaring that angels speak some special language and humans can speak that very language they speak.

So if I were to insist that I know for a fact that angels don't speak some language humans don't speak, I would be wrong because I can't know that. Conversely, if I were to say angels do speak some language humans don't speak but that believers can speak that language, I would also be wrong, because I can't know that.

 

[shrume]

Yes, I'm certain you do! I was comparing: don't move even if your hair catches on fire, to the same device used in: if I were to speak every known human language and even the language that angels speak.

I don't believe that in 1 Cor 13:1 Paul was stating that "if I were to speak every known human language...". He is simply stating that when he speaks in tongues, it's a language of men or angels.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

I don't believe that in 1 Cor 13:1 Paul was stating that "if I were to speak every known human language...". He is simply stating that when he speaks in tongues, it's a language of men or angels.

If I could speak all the languages of earth and of angels, but didn’t love others, I would only be a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

To me, he's stating: if I could speak every language on earth and every language even in heaven...

 

[shrume]

If I could speak all the languages of earth and of angels, but didn’t love others, I would only be a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

What version is that?

I don't believe that's a good translation of the verse..

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

Shrume, you gave me a good hard laugh!

It's NLT.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

Here's NASB:

13 If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

 

[hornetguy]

I don't believe that in 1 Cor 13:1 Paul was stating that "if I were to speak every known human language...". He is simply stating that when he speaks in tongues, it's a language of men or angels.

I don't know why you don't understand the hyperbolic tone Paul is using in this verse... (well, I DO know why, but for the sake of this posting...)

He very clearly says

If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body [a]to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.

EACH of those examples is hyperbolic in nature. Do you think that Paul knew all mysteries and knowledge? Did you ever hear of Paul moving a mountain because of his faith? Did Paul surrender his body to be burned?

That is hyperbolic speaking... does understanding that fact somehow interfere with your established belief system?

My cut and paste scripture is NASB.

 

[shrume]

Found it, it's the New Living Translation, which in many places is not a good translation. They paraphrase a lot.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

I don't know why you don't understand the hyperbolic tone Paul is using in this verse... (well, I DO know why, but for the sake of this posting...)

He very clearly says



EACH of those examples is hyperbolic in nature. Do you think that Paul knew all mysteries and knowledge? Did you ever hear of Paul moving a mountain because of his faith? Did Paul surrender his body to be burned?

That is hyperbolic speaking... does understanding that fact somehow interfere with your established belief system?

That's where I'm currently scratching my head too. I mean, I believe tongues exist and he believes tongues exist, but that verse being hyperbolic doesn't threaten my construct....so I'm left wondering why it would collapse his.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

Found it, it's the New Living Translation, which in many places is not a good translation. They paraphrase a lot.

Okay, so I posted NASB. Do you like that translation okay?