Why have the Sign Gifts Ended

[presidente]

BUT........you conviently ignored the question posed to YOU. YOU believe and poreach signs and wonders and miracle healings.

That being YOUR testimony, the question posed to you was..........
"If you possess the gift of healing, why are you wasting your time here? Might I suggest you go to St. Jude's hospital and heal all of those children with cancer?

Why don't you do it, if you have the gift of healing?

Btw, Are you demanding a sign before you will believe what the Bible has to say about spiritual gifts?

Did I claim to have the gift of healing?

Also, I am not beholden to your misunderstanding regarding spiritual gifts. I Corinthians 12 indicates that spiritual gifts are distributed among the saints, not that every believer has every gift. And we see that the apostles did not heal all sick people they encountered, and at least not instantly, and Paul had an infirmity or two himself at times. So did Timothy. The apostles had done miracles before, but in Acts 4, they prayed for God to stretch forth His hand to heal and to do signs and wonders. You act like miracles are purely the will of men, done at the will of men without some sort of cooperative effort with the Holy Spirit.

 

[presidente]

You do realize that the New Test. Bible was written in the Greek.....right???

How in this world can anyone who can use a computer and go to the bathroom by yourself( I am assuming that to be the case) can you say in all acceptable thought.........
" 'we must' not insist on bunk Greek arguments to entrench themselves in their positions, even when said positions have been debunked with examples from the Bible."

Again.... how can anyone "Debunk" Greek Grammer??? All anyone can do is say....."I do not understand it" but it is not possible to Debunk it.

I tire of your dishonesty. Either you have a short memory, are participating in a discussion without reading posts directed at you, have a bit of problems grasping what sentences mean....or you are being disingenuous for the sake of debate. It's kind of like if two people are in an elevator and one of them passes gas and blames it on another. I suspect you know what I am talking about. There probably aren't that many paying attention to our exchanges, so you are not going to fool me as to what I meant. I am not calling Greek bunk. I am not calling Greek grammar bunk. I debunked your false assertions about Greek by showing you other cases in Greek that do not follow your rules, where insisting on your rules would result in absurd conclusions, such as the disciples in the upper room being the ones who went to arrest Jesus in Acts 1.

You are again WRONG! The SIGN Gifts I have referred to in Mark 16 were in fact given exclusively to the ELEVEN exactly as the Scriptures say.

Foolishness. The plain sense of the text, as many commentators who aren't 'charismatic' at various points of history can see, indicates that 'them that believe' include them that believed at the hearing of the apostles. If you want to rely on commentaries by people who did not know what they were talking about or didn't study out the point, arguing from a narrow understanding of Greek grammar without looking at actual usage of the same sort of grammar in other passages, burying your head in your sand when someone points out how other passages do not follow your narrow understanding of how grammar interacts with semantics, that's up to you. But if you choose to be foolish in your thinking, that is up to you.

Again.....the idea of Apostolic succession is foreign to the Word of God. IT does not exist and it makes no difference to me how much you denigrate what I have said.

You will have to define 'apostolic succession' since historically it refers to the idea that bishops received succession through ordination being passed down from the apostles through a line of bishops. Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox and various other groups that call themselves 'Orthodox' use the term, though other groups like Moravians and some Anglicans may also claim it.

 

[presidente]

Bunk Greek arguments? Oh my!

Yes, we have seen in this thread some false assertions about how Greek grammar is to be used to interpret scripture, which does not hold up to other examples in which other scriptures using the same words clearly are not to be interpreted the way Major asserts. 'Them' in Acts 1:16 'which was guide to them that took Jesus' does not refer to the 'disciples' earlier in the passage, but rather functions as a stand-alone pronoun with a meaning discerned from the context. We should interpret Mark 16:17 consistent with the actual context in which it appears also.

Apostolic succession is by precise definition the continuation of apostles in the church. Essentially it allows for new apostles even though there is no such teaching in the bible.

Historically 'apostolic succession' has to do with the idea that the apostles laid hands on bishops who laid hands on other bishops and passed down the succession throughout history. Roman Catholic bishops do not consider themselves to be apostles but to have a kind of apostolic authority, and they do use the term 'apostolate' in some senses. The term 'apostle' is also used to refer to certain individuals in history, in many cases recognized as bishops, who were influential into introducing the message of Christ to new peoples or a new region, like St. Oscar, Apostle of the North, Gregory Apostle of Armenia, Patrick, apostle of Ireland, Cyril and Methodius, Apostles to the Slavs, Bulgars, etc., and other such people.

If you allow new prophets then you can allow new apostles. Gifts are passed along like family inheritances. Christians are created by their parents being Christian.

I do not know what religious group adheres to what you describe.

Mark 16 is abuse by those who do not like the precise wording of scripture.

We have seen this in this thread with those who say that 'them that believe' applies specifically to the apostles, when other scripture shows the exact same definite article used in Mark 16:17 being used in such a way that it does not refer to the most recent prior plural noun, but rather as a pronoun with a meaning derived from context.

 

[notuptome]

Yes, we have seen in this thread some false assertions about how Greek grammar is to be used to interpret scripture, which does not hold up to other examples in which other scriptures using the same words clearly are not to be interpreted the way Major asserts. 'Them' in Acts 1:16 'which was guide to them that took Jesus' does not refer to the 'disciples' earlier in the passage, but rather functions as a stand-alone pronoun with a meaning discerned from the context. We should interpret Mark 16:17 consistent with the actual context in which it appears also.

Well no one is a Greek expert from reading a Greek concordance. This is especially true of those who endeavor to create a false context to preserve bad doctrine.

Historically 'apostolic succession' has to do with the idea that the apostles laid hands on bishops who laid hands on other bishops and passed down the succession throughout history. Roman Catholic bishops do not consider themselves to be apostles but to have a kind of apostolic authority, and they do use the term 'apostolate' in some senses. The term 'apostle' is also used to refer to certain individuals in history, in many cases recognized as bishops, who were influential into introducing the message of Christ to new peoples or a new region, like St. Oscar, Apostle of the North, Gregory Apostle of Armenia, Patrick, apostle of Ireland, Cyril and Methodius, Apostles to the Slavs, Bulgars, etc., and other such people.

Well I don't know where you get your history but if we look at the bible we see no such thing. Apostolic succession is not by the will of man. God by His will gifts teachers and preachers to the church. Eph 4:11

I do not know what religious group adheres to what you describe.

I had an editing problem there. It was intended to demonstrate the negative not ascribe a positive aspect regarding apostles, and the gifts in light of how every soul must be saved according to the will of God. No man is born a Christian by his parentage.

We have seen this in this thread with those who say that 'them that believe' applies specifically to the apostles, when other scripture shows the exact same definite article used in Mark 16:17 being used in such a way that it does not refer to the most recent prior plural noun, but rather as a pronoun with a meaning derived from context.

Mark is a bad place to form doctrine. Mark must be viewed through the rest of scripture or error will abound. The long ending of Mark is suspect and may not be entirely genuine. It takes more than a smattering of Greek to rightly divide Mark 16.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[presidente]

Well no one is a Greek expert from reading a Greek concordance. This is especially true of those who endeavor to create a false context to preserve bad doctrine.

Mark is a bad place to form doctrine. Mark must be viewed through the rest of scripture or error will abound. The long ending of Mark is suspect and may not be entirely genuine. It takes more than a smattering of Greek to rightly divide Mark 16.

Yes, these are issues we see in this thread-- a 'smattering of Greek' argument to argue for an odd interpretation of 'them that believe.' If Major's interpretation were applied to John 6:35, then 'He that believeth on me' would have to refer to Jesus believing in Himself.

And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Mark 16 needs to be interpreted in light of I Corinthians 12, which shows that gifts are distributed among the body.

Well I don't know where you get your history but if we look at the bible we see no such thing. Apostolic succession is not by the will of man. God by His will gifts teachers and preachers to the church. Eph 4:11

You sound like you are allowing for 'apostolic succession', now, but redefining it as something different this time. You can look up 'apostolic succession' on Wikipedia if you would like to know how others use the term.

 

[notuptome]

Mark 16 needs to be interpreted in light of I Corinthians 12, which shows that gifts are distributed among the body.

Not at all that is a private interpretation. Mark 16 is not speaking of gifts. Verse 17 speaks of new tongues which is understood to be the new tongue of the new creature in Christ. A tongue that spoke cursing now speaks praise of the risen Savior. Paul demonstrated the protection from poisonous serpents after he was shipwrecked and accidently bitten by a serpent.

You sound like you are allowing for 'apostolic succession', now, but redefining it as something different this time. You can look up 'apostolic succession' on Wikipedia if you would like to know how others use the term.

You know better. You may desire to find a way to misunderstand Gods word but no counsel shall stand against God. Wikipedia is hardly a sound bible source for defining your terms.

Do you consider yourself an apostle or a prophet?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[SophieT]

I tire of your dishonesty. Either you have a short memory, are participating in a discussion without reading posts directed at you, have a bit of problems grasping what sentences mean

When you deal with a person who could not care less about actual debate and whose objectivity has long since been smushed out, you will never ever receive any sort of actual discussion and sometimes not even acknowledgment of what you have written regarding this particular subject.

Some people simply despise the fact the Holy Spirit operates without their permission. You will find these people on threads such as this, mocking, lying and distilling the truth through the lies they have been taught.

A total waste of time addressing anything to them. They can all go and stew in their own juices, which is all they are doing anyway.

 

[Major]

I tire of your dishonesty. Either you have a short memory, are participating in a discussion without reading posts directed at you, have a bit of problems grasping what sentences mean....or you are being disingenuous for the sake of debate. It's kind of like if two people are in an elevator and one of them passes gas and blames it on another. I suspect you know what I am talking about. There probably aren't that many paying attention to our exchanges, so you are not going to fool me as to what I meant. I am not calling Greek bunk. I am not calling Greek grammar bunk. I debunked your false assertions about Greek by showing you other cases in Greek that do not follow your rules, where insisting on your rules would result in absurd conclusions, such as the disciples in the upper room being the ones who went to arrest Jesus in Acts 1.



Foolishness. The plain sense of the text, as many commentators who aren't 'charismatic' at various points of history can see, indicates that 'them that believe' include them that believed at the hearing of the apostles. If you want to rely on commentaries by people who did not know what they were talking about or didn't study out the point, arguing from a narrow understanding of Greek grammar without looking at actual usage of the same sort of grammar in other passages, burying your head in your sand when someone points out how other passages do not follow your narrow understanding of how grammar interacts with semantics, that's up to you. But if you choose to be foolish in your thinking, that is up to you.



You will have to define 'apostolic succession' since historically it refers to the idea that bishops received succession through ordination being passed down from the apostles through a line of bishops. Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox and various other groups that call themselves 'Orthodox' use the term, though other groups like Moravians and some Anglicans may also claim it.

OK. I am done talking with you.

You are abusive, argumentative and confrontation. You do not show the ability to talk coherently, correctly or in any way with any Bible doctrinal understanding.

I have no intension of explaining anything further to you as you show no abiity to understand what is stated to you.

PLEASE do not respond to me any further!

 

[Major]

When you deal with a person who could not care less about actual debate and whose objectivity has long since been smushed out, you will never ever receive any sort of actual discussion and sometimes not even acknowledgment of what you have written regarding this particular subject.

Some people simply despise the fact the Holy Spirit operates without their permission. You will find these people on threads such as this, mocking, lying and distilling the truth through the lies they have been taught.

A total waste of time addressing anything to them. They can all go and stew in their own juices, which is all they are doing anyway.

Isn't it interesting how what one says of another is also just as applicable to them????

The bottom line on this reasoning is that when the Literal Words written in the Bible are rejected, then we will fall for any false teachings that sounds good.

 

[Major]

Unpacking the scriptures, especially on this subject would normally take numerous pages. But I will do my best to be concise and hit the key points with enough information so you can confirm anything I say from the Word…after all, that is the standard for truth.

Probably one of the most disturbing things that has led to much confusion and disappointment when it comes to spiritual “gifts”, was brought on by well-meaning translators. And while most versions have adopted this distortion as God-breathed…. Thankfully, a few, including KJV, put these added words in italic.

Just one word added by translators in four different areas has significantly challenged the foundation of this magnificent subject.
In chapters 12, 13, &14 of I Corinthians the word GIFTS has been added four times …..12:1, as well as 13:2, 14:1 & 14:12. These should be deleted or crossed out in your Bible, as they are not in the original text and not well supplied in these verses.

12:1 Now concerning spiritual (gifts) brethren I would not have you ignorant.

the word “spiritual” in verse 1 is the Greek word (pneumatikos) meaning “that which belongs to, is determined by, influenced by, or proceeds from the spirit” (spiritual matters). By inserting the word GIFTS here, it sets the wrong mental assumption for the rest of this chapter and the proceeding chapters 13 & 14

((although 12:4 does talk about the “diversity of gifts” …..of which there are seven given to the “Church of the Body of Christ” They are →“ The gift of holy spirit given at new birth (Acts 2:38,) → The five gift ministries (Ephesians 4: 8,11), → and the gifts of healing (I Corinthians 12:9) because every healing is a gift, but it is still manifestation thereof.))

Jumping ahead to verse 7
12:7 BUT the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
The word BUT in verse 7 sets in contrast that which precedes it … verses 4-6 was dealing with diversity of gifts & spiritual matters ….. But now it’s changed to MANIFESTATION…..and there is a big difference!

The word manifestation in the Greek is phanerôsis meaning “to be visible,” “bring to light,” …a showing forth of something you already have. And what we already have is → holy spirit (the gift) given to us from God.
What are we to bring to light?
Verse 7 says the spirit. Verse 7 further goes on to say that it is given to every man… (every born again person) to profit withal.

If we wrongly think these are a GIFT, we put ourselves in the position of waiting for God to give us one or more of the “so-called gifts” listed in verses 8-10. It stimulates believers to hope for, pray for, and even beg God for these….. and then to question their righteousness and worthiness, if they do not receive it.

Quick analogy: I give you a Car → that is the gift….. You start the car, turn on the wipers, honk the horn, drive to the store, → that is the operation or manifestation of that car.

You do not sit in the car and hope for the horn to honk, radio to turn, on wipers to work ….because YOU operate those, they came with the car I gave you….just as the 9 manifestations came with the gift that God gave us.

Verses 8-10 goes on to list the 9 manifestations (operations) of the spirit which are available to each and every born-again believer today….. they have not ceased.← (see below)

verse 11 has led to some controversy regarding the words “he wills”
I Cor. 12:11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

Some say the words “severely as he will” are referring to “as God wills”. If that were the case then God just contradicted Himself from verse 7 where He stated “is given to every man” Furthermore the word severely is the Greek word idia from idios meaning “ones own”. Of the 114 times the word idios is used in the Bible, this is the only place it is translated "severely". Usually translated “one’s own” “his own” or “your own”.

Still in operation

Since I Corinthians was written to the Church of the Body as stated in 1 Cor 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
Everything in I Corinthians is written to us…which includes the manifestation of the spirit in Chapter 12.

Although some have used 1 Cor 13:8 (out of context) to validate the claim that tongues have ceased.
13:8. Charity never faileth: but whether prophecies, they shall fail; whether tongues, they shall cease; whether knowledge, it shall vanish away
BUT ….If tongues and prophecy did cease….we wouldn’t know it…. because it also states that Knowledge shall vanish away.


Focusing primarily on the “worship manifestations” Chapter 14 sets the parameters for the use of tongues, tongues with interpretation and prophecy within the fellowship of the believers (Church).
The church of Corinth was a bit off the mark, and Paul by revelation sets them straight as to the use of those manifestations. Paul makes it clear that tongues must be accompanied with interpretation when in a group setting.

The benefits of Tongues (of which there are at least 8) in the private prayer life is phenomenal and something that all Christians should want to do.
Speaking in tongues is not a forced or learned language, it is of God and cannot be counterfeited. And all the ridiculous things you may have seen associated with this manifestation…. It is none of that!
You are in control, you do the speaking, (out loud or silent) you start and stop at will just as you do when you speak your native language….. It’s your job that you speak it’s God’s job what you speak.

Over the years I have had the privilege of showing hundreds of believers how to manifest from the Word of God. Not one person failed to manifest…..not because of me, but because of God.

This is nothing more than copy and pasted from the pages of the Charismatic Pentecostal handbook on how to "Fake" what you want to have.

Please answer this very simple factual question........
"IF" the gift of tongues actually exist today, then why does the Assembly of God denomination require that all their missionaries be able to speak the languages of the country they go to?????

 

[presidente]

OK. I am done talking with you.

You are abusive, argumentative and confrontation. You do not show the ability to talk coherently, correctly or in any way with any Bible doctrinal understanding.

I have no intension of explaining anything further to you as you show no abiity to understand what is stated to you.

Look in the mirror when you type to these things. If you just want to play games, or really cannot understand the conversation, it may be best not to continue anyway. We can agree on that much.

 

[Major]

When you deal with a person who could not care less about actual debate and whose objectivity has long since been smushed out, you will never ever receive any sort of actual discussion and sometimes not even acknowledgment of what you have written regarding this particular subject.

Some people simply despise the fact the Holy Spirit operates without their permission. You will find these people on threads such as this, mocking, lying and distilling the truth through the lies they have been taught.

A total waste of time addressing anything to them. They can all go and stew in their own juices, which is all they are doing anyway.

YOU have the desire to speak in tongues. IT is what YOU WANT to do. Then please do so. But I would say to you to not condemn those who do not agree with what YOU want todo but instead read the Bible and accept it.

The Bible could not be more clear if people would just read it at face value. Acts 2:6 clearly reads that.......
"...every man heard them speak in his own language."

This is not Brain surgery. Did you read that...IN HIS OWN LANGUAGE! As the Apostles spoke in tongues, the multitudes of people from at least sixteen different nations each heard the gospel presented IN HIS OWN LANGUAGE...

"And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God." -Acts 2:7-11​

Can YOU explain how YOU have become so misinformed on what the Bible ACTUALLY says so as to alloy YOU TO SPEAK in tongues?

 

[SophieT]

YOU have the desire to speak in tongues. IT is what YOU WANT to do. Then please do so. But I would say to you to not condemn those who do not agree with what YOU want todo but instead read the Bible and accept it.

The Bible could not be more clear if people would just read it at face value. Acts 2:6 clearly reads that.......
"...every man heard them speak in his own language."

This is not Brain surgery. Did you read that...IN HIS OWN LANGUAGE! As the Apostles spoke in tongues, the multitudes of people from at least sixteen different nations each heard the gospel presented IN HIS OWN LANGUAGE...

"And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God." -Acts 2:7-11​

Can YOU explain how YOU have become so misinformed on what the Bible ACTUALLY says so as to alloy YOU TO SPEAK in tongues?

You are actually clueless as to what my desires are. so, as a matter of courtesy, let me tell you quite simply what the basic desire is.

I desire to know God as He actually is AND His Son AND His Spirit, as they actually are and not as mankind misrepresents them.

YOU are a deterrent to any person wishing the same. You take the liberty to also misrepresent me. You are way off and walking the path of the Israelites who did not believe God and murmured and complained against Him. And we all know how far they got.

This is not a warning, but you will have to answer for your false teaching. Good day to you and I have nothing else to say to you.

 

[Major]

Unpacking the scriptures, especially on this subject would normally take numerous pages. But I will do my best to be concise and hit the key points with enough information so you can confirm anything I say from the Word…after all, that is the standard for truth.

Probably one of the most disturbing things that has led to much confusion and disappointment when it comes to spiritual “gifts”, was brought on by well-meaning translators. And while most versions have adopted this distortion as God-breathed…. Thankfully, a few, including KJV, put these added words in italic.

Just one word added by translators in four different areas has significantly challenged the foundation of this magnificent subject.
In chapters 12, 13, &14 of I Corinthians the word GIFTS has been added four times …..12:1, as well as 13:2, 14:1 & 14:12. These should be deleted or crossed out in your Bible, as they are not in the original text and not well supplied in these verses.

12:1 Now concerning spiritual (gifts) brethren I would not have you ignorant.

the word “spiritual” in verse 1 is the Greek word (pneumatikos) meaning “that which belongs to, is determined by, influenced by, or proceeds from the spirit” (spiritual matters). By inserting the word GIFTS here, it sets the wrong mental assumption for the rest of this chapter and the proceeding chapters 13 & 14

((although 12:4 does talk about the “diversity of gifts” …..of which there are seven given to the “Church of the Body of Christ” They are →“ The gift of holy spirit given at new birth (Acts 2:38,) → The five gift ministries (Ephesians 4: 8,11), → and the gifts of healing (I Corinthians 12:9) because every healing is a gift, but it is still manifestation thereof.))

Jumping ahead to verse 7
12:7 BUT the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
The word BUT in verse 7 sets in contrast that which precedes it … verses 4-6 was dealing with diversity of gifts & spiritual matters ….. But now it’s changed to MANIFESTATION…..and there is a big difference!

The word manifestation in the Greek is phanerôsis meaning “to be visible,” “bring to light,” …a showing forth of something you already have. And what we already have is → holy spirit (the gift) given to us from God.
What are we to bring to light?
Verse 7 says the spirit. Verse 7 further goes on to say that it is given to every man… (every born again person) to profit withal.

If we wrongly think these are a GIFT, we put ourselves in the position of waiting for God to give us one or more of the “so-called gifts” listed in verses 8-10. It stimulates believers to hope for, pray for, and even beg God for these….. and then to question their righteousness and worthiness, if they do not receive it.

Quick analogy: I give you a Car → that is the gift….. You start the car, turn on the wipers, honk the horn, drive to the store, → that is the operation or manifestation of that car.

You do not sit in the car and hope for the horn to honk, radio to turn, on wipers to work ….because YOU operate those, they came with the car I gave you….just as the 9 manifestations came with the gift that God gave us.

Verses 8-10 goes on to list the 9 manifestations (operations) of the spirit which are available to each and every born-again believer today….. they have not ceased.← (see below)

verse 11 has led to some controversy regarding the words “he wills”
I Cor. 12:11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

Some say the words “severely as he will” are referring to “as God wills”. If that were the case then God just contradicted Himself from verse 7 where He stated “is given to every man” Furthermore the word severely is the Greek word idia from idios meaning “ones own”. Of the 114 times the word idios is used in the Bible, this is the only place it is translated "severely". Usually translated “one’s own” “his own” or “your own”.

Still in operation

Since I Corinthians was written to the Church of the Body as stated in 1 Cor 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
Everything in I Corinthians is written to us…which includes the manifestation of the spirit in Chapter 12.

Although some have used 1 Cor 13:8 (out of context) to validate the claim that tongues have ceased.
13:8. Charity never faileth: but whether prophecies, they shall fail; whether tongues, they shall cease; whether knowledge, it shall vanish away
BUT ….If tongues and prophecy did cease….we wouldn’t know it…. because it also states that Knowledge shall vanish away.


Focusing primarily on the “worship manifestations” Chapter 14 sets the parameters for the use of tongues, tongues with interpretation and prophecy within the fellowship of the believers (Church).
The church of Corinth was a bit off the mark, and Paul by revelation sets them straight as to the use of those manifestations. Paul makes it clear that tongues must be accompanied with interpretation when in a group setting.

The benefits of Tongues (of which there are at least 8) in the private prayer life is phenomenal and something that all Christians should want to do.
Speaking in tongues is not a forced or learned language, it is of God and cannot be counterfeited. And all the ridiculous things you may have seen associated with this manifestation…. It is none of that!
You are in control, you do the speaking, (out loud or silent) you start and stop at will just as you do when you speak your native language….. It’s your job that you speak it’s God’s job what you speak.

Over the years I have had the privilege of showing hundreds of believers how to manifest from the Word of God. Not one person failed to manifest…..not because of me, but because of God.

With all due respect to you, I would suggest that YOU do your own work and not follow, copy and paste from the blogs of the Assembly of God.

To say that 1 Corinthians 13:8 is "Taken out of context" to validate the end of tongues is disingenuous and false.

From "Barnes Commenatry of the Bible"......
As for the proper CONTEXT of 1 Corinthians 13:8.....Paul here proceeds to illustrate the value of love, from its “permanency” as compared with other valued 'but temporary' endowments. It is valuable, and is to be sought because it will always abide; may be always exercised; is adapted to all circumstances, and to all worlds in which we may be placed, or in which we may dwell. The word rendered “faileth” ( ἐκπίπτει ekpiptei) denotes properly to fall out of, to fall from or off; and may be applied to the stars of heaven falling Mark 13:25, or to flowers that fall or fade James 1:11; 1 Peter 1:24, or to chains falling from the hands, etc.; Acts 12:7. Here it means to fall away, to fail; to be without effect, to cease to be in existence. "

The connection demands that the latter should be regarded as the true interpretation; see 1 Corinthians 13:13. The sense is, that while other endowments of the Holy Spirit must soon cease and he valueless, love would abide, and would always exist. The “argument” is, that we ought to seek that which is of enduring value; and that, therefore, love should be preferred to those endowments of the Spirit on which so high a value had been set by the Corinthians.

They shall fail - The gift shall cease to be exercised; shall be abolished, come to nothing. There shall be no further use for this gift in the light and glory of the world above, and it shall cease.

They shall cease - Macknight says this means that they shall cease in the church after the gospel shall have been preached to all nations.

Macknight and most others understand this of the knowledge of the mysteries of the Old Testament, or “the inspired knowledge of the ancient revelations, which should be abolished when the church should have attained its mature state;”

 

[presidente]

Not at all that is a private interpretation. Mark 16 is not speaking of gifts.

You seem to have your own peculiar definition of 'private interpretation'. I'm guessing that would be a 'private interpretation' of what private interpretation means if I used your terminology.

Verse 17 speaks of new tongues which is understood to be the new tongue of the new creature in Christ. A tongue that spoke cursing now speaks praise of the risen Savior.

That is certainly a peculiar interpretation and it is odd that you would accuse others of 'private interpretation.' One of our resident posters who seems to like rather inconsistent allegorical interpretations proposed that some time back. Why would someone go with your interpretation when there is evidence that both the apostles and other disciples spoke with 'new tongues' by speaking in languages in Acts 2 and I Corinthians 14? Why not let scripture interpret scripture?

You know better. You may desire to find a way to misunderstand Gods word but no counsel shall stand against God. Wikipedia is hardly a sound bible source for defining your terms.

I do not know if you are playing games or if you cannot follow the conversation. I did not say I believed in 'apostolic succession' or that such a term was Biblical. I pointed out that the way you were using it was not consistent with the general use of the term in theology or church history. And your definition seemed to change between one post or another.

 

[presidente]

PLEASE do not respond to me any further!

f you promote error in the forum or post anything else, I may choose to respond to the post, or not. What you have control over is if you respond to me.

You are the one who has behaved poorly in this thread, whether by lack of comprehension, or playing games, I do not know.

 

[Major]

You are actually clueless as to what my desires are. so, as a matter of courtesy, let me tell you quite simply what the basic desire is.

I desire to know God as He actually is AND His Son AND His Spirit, as they actually are and not as mankind misrepresents them.

YOU are a deterrent to any person wishing the same. You take the liberty to also misrepresent me. You are way off and walking the path of the Israelites who did not believe God and murmured and complained against Him. And we all know how far they got.

This is not a warning, but you will have to answer for your false teaching. Good day to you and I have nothing else to say to you.

Goes both way my friend.....goes both ways and thank you for your warning. I have actually read and understood what the Bible says so I think I will follow its warning instead of your opinion.

THen if that is the case, I would suggest that you change your postings to not show such a desire to do what is not Biblically command for you to do.....speak in tongues.

Good day, God bless and stay safe.

 

[Dino246]

Foolishness. The plain sense of the text, as many commentators who aren't 'charismatic' at various points of history can see, indicates that 'them that believe' include them that believed at the hearing of the apostles.

I pointed that out to him twice, and he didn't bother responding to it. Selective ignorance perhaps.

 

[notuptome]

You seem to have your own peculiar definition of 'private interpretation'. I'm guessing that would be a 'private interpretation' of what private interpretation means if I used your terminology.

Okay then.

That is certainly a peculiar interpretation and it is odd that you would accuse others of 'private interpretation.' One of our resident posters who seems to like rather inconsistent allegorical interpretations proposed that some time back. Why would someone go with your interpretation when there is evidence that both the apostles and other disciples spoke with 'new tongues' by speaking in languages in Acts 2 and I Corinthians 14? Why not let scripture interpret scripture?

You simply approach the scripture with a predetermined conclusion. You are not reading what God has written but impressing your own ideas on the passage. Mark 16 is looking at 2 Cor 5:17

I do not know if you are playing games or if you cannot follow the conversation. I did not say I believed in 'apostolic succession' or that such a term was Biblical. I pointed out that the way you were using it was not consistent with the general use of the term in theology or church history. And your definition seemed to change between one post or another.

You are the one playing games to confuse those who do not know the scriptures. I use terminology consistent with how God gives us His word. You must understand context to understand what is being taught in any given passage. You continue to deny the truth so you can never reach a correct conclusion.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Dino246]

Well no one is a Greek expert from reading a Greek concordance. This is especially true of those who endeavor to create a false context to preserve bad doctrine.

Not at all that is a private interpretation. Mark 16 is not speaking of gifts. Verse 17 speaks of new tongues which is understood to be the new tongue of the new creature in Christ. A tongue that spoke cursing now speaks praise of the risen Savior.

You simply approach the scripture with a predetermined conclusion. You are not reading what God has written but impressing your own ideas on the passage. Mark 16 is looking at 2 Cor 5:17

These comments go so well together.

Plural "tongues" now means singular "tongue"? Wow. That's an excellent example of "impressing your own ideas on the passage". That view doesn't align with Acts 2, wherein the disciples spoke in other tongues (plural) as the Spirit gave them utterance. Nor does it align with Acts 10, wherein Cornelius and his companions spoke in tongues (plural) and praised God. Nor does it align with 1 Corinthians 12, wherein the gifts of speaking in tongues (plural) and interpretation of tongues (plural) are described.