TONGUES TODAY

Absolutely · May 25, 2021

Has Jesus been informed of this ceasing?

Absolutely · May 25, 2021

I guess paul was not saved

Absolutely · May 25, 2021

Many testimonies of muslims getting a visitation by Jesus similar to paul in mid east countries.
Getting saved with no bible or preacher ....as did I.

Major · May 25, 2021

Absolutely said:

For heaven sake man....READ THE BOOK. I have posted it for you many times.

1 Corinthians 13:8-9 ......
"Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, THY WILL CEASE; where there are tongues, THEY WILL BE STILLED; where there is knowledge, IT WILL PASS AWAY. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part,"

How can those words be so hard to understand???????

Absolutely · May 25, 2021

Major said:

The jailer was told after he exclaimed " what must i do to be saved"????

The correct answer.." Believe on the lord Jesus christ and you shall be saved as well as your household".

Wrong answer.."Read a bible"

Absolutely · May 25, 2021

Major said:

Thats what i thought.
No knowledge anymore.
Knowledge left 2000 years ago.

Absolutely · May 25, 2021

Major said:

So now you are saying tongues prophecy and knowledge never left us?
Never ceased?
Never vanished?

Or that you say some did and some didnt?

Major · May 25, 2021

Absolutely said:

Listen my friend. I love you and I am sure that you are a wonderful Christian man and it is not my job or position to make any judgments.

No matter what I say to you and no matter HOW I say it, you will turn it into a negative comment to suit what you want to hear.

Allow me to say that the problem we are having here in this discussion is MY fault!!! I am just not used to having conversations with anyone who is at your level of communication with others.

I am just very different and that should be obvious to you and everyone else. We are NOT communicating or even debating the spirit of this thread at all.

"I" am making Scriptural posts, doing the literal exegesis of those Scriptures and YOU and Mrs. Sophie are doing nothing but being sarcastic, and name calling without even so much as a how do you do to the Scriptures that validate my exegesis of them.

There has been ZERO/NONE rebuttal of a Scriptural nature so as to have a civil conversation. So for that reason I am not going to respond to your posts anymore.

Fell free to post anything you want to toward me, or call me any name you want to, but I can not longer in good coconscious carry on this debate? (?).

Maybe down the road we can speak on a different subject and be in agreement, but not now on this one.

SophieT · May 25, 2021

Major said:

those are lies...again...no one here has called you any names and I certainly have not

Believe me, I am not looking for your opinion on who or what is a Christian or how they should behave

you have not exactly shown anything other than a desire to stomp out the gift of tongues and ignored all that people have said...you dismiss and then say we have no proof or some other nonsense

I understand. when a person such as yourself is used to having people think he knows it all and then meets up with many others who know he does not know it all, it can quite hard

bye

PaulChristensen · May 25, 2021

Kavik said:

It is interesting how that 1 Corinthians 14:2 is bypassed, where Paul says that the person who speaks in tongues does not speak to men but to God because no one understands him, but speaks mysteries in the Spirit. And Paul describes people speaking with tongues would be speaking to the air and be just like a barbarian to the others because they wouldn't understand what he is saying.

I think those who maintain that tongues always has to be understandable languages are actually conditioned to believe that because it has been drilled into them by their mentors to such a degree that when they read 1 Corinthians 14:2, they have a blind spot and cannot see the literal text but overwrite their conditioned belief over it, thereby putting words into Paul's mouth that he never said.

Also, I have provided absolutely true testimonies of people speaking in modern tongues languages they have never learned, and most of the time the language has been unknown to anyone, but once, even praying normally in tongues, the language changed to a language understood by a foreign visitor. This happened twice to people well known to me - committed godly believers who never lie nor exaggerate. If it happened to them it really did, and they would just sit back and laugh at anyone who asserted they were mistaken.

The notion that tongues has to always be an understandable language is a silly notion taught by those who are ignorant about the ways the Holy Spirit moves, and are totally uninformed in what tongues is all about, and they superimpose their "conditioned" interpretation into the Scripture to make it say what they want it to say.

Most genuine Pentecostals would take the attitude, "If a person is ignorant, let him remain ignorant." That's why many genuine Pentecostals and Charismatics don't argue about tongues on these threads. They just can't be bothered wasting their time with teaching these opposers of modern tongues got out of the backside of a horse.

presidente · May 25, 2021

Major said:

Do you mean no rebuttal in the thread, or just from those two posters.

I have posted civil rebuttals, pointing out contextual reasons to see 'that which is perfect' as referring to future events related to the return of Christ, referring to I Corinthians 1:7 and I Corinthians 15. I also pointed out that the interpretation that interprets the passage to be about the completed canon makes the reader out to be superior in understanding to the apostles that wrote scripture, and is not supported by the context.

I also pointed out, in a civil post, that 'tois' translated 'them' in 'them that believe' in Mark 16 is a masculine plural definite article in the dative case which goes with the participle which immediately follows it, and does no refer back, grammatically to 'the eleven' as you have argued in a previous thread.

presidente · May 25, 2021

Absolutely said:

Had you never heard the gospel at all?

presidente · May 25, 2021

Major said:

The Bible does not use the term 'sign gifts.' That's a loaded term that may inher some unbiblical ideas. The Bible says nothing about miracles or healing ceasing.

God works through men. this is very well illustrated in numerous scriptures. I Corinthians 12:28 indicates that there are non-apostles who heal and work miracles. First apostles then..... miracles, then gifts of healing.... This is rather explicit in this verse.

Not directed at me, but probably.

Biblically, do you have any reason to think demons would stop demonizing people? If people still offer sacrifices to demons, might they not still enter them? What Biblical reason is there to think that that has stopped? And what Biblical argument could anyone make for the idea of casting out demons ceasing? Justin Martyr and Tertullian both used the fact that Christians cast demons, spirits that the pagans had considered gods, out of people as part of their apologies, defenses of the Gospel.

Lafftur · May 25, 2021

Jesus Christ is Lord! I speak this by the Holy Spirit, amen.

If I speak in tongues, which I do often, I speak this by the Holy Spirit, amen. SELAH!

Do NOT grieve, quench, neglect or speak evil against the Holy Spirit of God. If you do so, you are being VERY foolish and do NOT know God, only claim to by pride and human reasoning.

Love for God is BETTER than human reasoning....just saying...lol!

My recommendation.......Repent and call upon the Name of Jesus Christ that you can be forgiven of your ignorance, amen.

You are loved....sinner or saint, amen.

Major · May 26, 2021

Lafftur said:

Ignorance????

The Bible is the one I suggest you call Ignorant because it says..........

Acts 2:5-11, 41

5 Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6 And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. 7 And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? (ELEVEN APOSTLES) 8 And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, 11 both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.”

According to the Bible, only the APOSTLES spoke and ALL the people HEARD what was spoken in tongues.

1 Corinthians 14:34.........CONTEXT of chapter 12-14 is the "CORRECTION" of the error of speaking in tongues and in verse #34 Paul says...
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.”

You said you speak in tongues but the Bible says that YOU as a woman are NOT to speak in tongues in church.

Mark 16:14-18 ........
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.

15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

17 And these signs shall follow THEM (the ELEVEN of verse #14) that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

You say you speak in tongues but the Bible says that it was the ELEVEN who were given the SIGN GIFT of tongues.

presidente · May 26, 2021

Major said:

Not directed at me, of course, and I am a man. But Mary was among the 120 in Acts 1-2. Speaking in tongues outside of church is not forbidden. Speaking in tongues in church requires an interpreter to edify the congregation.

in English it does not say that. In Greek it does not say that. 'Tois' modifies the participle that immediately follows it. I have pointed this out to you on more than one occasion. Please stop repeating this idea of yours. it is embarrassing.

I pointed out previously, if you try to make pronouns always refer back to a noun that agrees grammatically, rather than going with the participle that follows as in this case, then in Acts 1:16, where it says that Judas was a 'guide to them that took Jesus' then Peter was addressing the very people there in the upper room who arrested Jesus. This, of course, would be a misinterpretation of the passage, as yours is of Mark 16.

If you want to resolve this issue, email or contact someone who can really read Koine Greek and ask about it. You could ask a professor, but there is the possibility a first year Greek student could set you straight, also. You are apparently are the victim of a commentary that does a poor job with this passage in the Greek. I see people on these forums bend interpretations of passages to fit their preconceived notions. You are trying to bend the Koine Greek to fit your interpretation also. You may be parroting someone else to do so, but it's the same thing.

Kavik · May 26, 2021

PaulChristensen said:

Not trying to get into an argument, but, I have discussed 1 Cor. 14:2 quite a bit in other threads as well as some of the things you bring up. Didn’t want to repeat myself here, but….

With respect to 1 Cor. 14:2 – The whole passage is talking about real, rational language.

Let me use an analogy - If I attend a worship service in “East Haystack”, some remote town in the US out in the middle of nowhere, two things are going to be evident: one; there’s only going to be so many people at that service (i.e. there will be a finite given amount of people there) and two; the chances that anyone speaks anything but English is pretty slim to nil.

If I start praying aloud in say Lithuanian, there’s no one at that service that’s going to understand a single word I’m saying. Even though I’m speaking a real language, no one there will understand my “tongue”. That does not mean or imply that no one else understands Lithuanian; just no one at that particular service.

In this sense, therefore, I am speaking only to God, since he understands all languages. To everyone at the service, even though I’m praying in the Spirit (as defined in my original post), to the people listening to me, I’m still speaking “mysteries” – i.e. even though I’m praying as I ought, no one understands me; no one has a clue what I’m saying as no one speaks my language.

When one looks at the original Greek, the verb which is usually translated as “understandeth/understands” is actually the verb “to hear” in the sense of to hear someone with understanding. The verb is not “to understand”. That part of the verse is more properly “no one hears [him] with understanding”, i.e. no one listening to him understands what he’s saying.

There is nothing in this passage that suggests modern tongues-speech nor is there anything that even remotely suggests that the speaker does not understand what he himself is saying. It is the listeners who do not understand, not the speaker – no matter how hard some people want the speaker to also not understand…….it just isn’t there.

I suppose it could be people conditioned in some cases, but it’s also just a reading of the text (and getting rid of the archaic ‘tongue’ for the more modern ‘language’).

“Putting words into Paul’s moth that he never said” I would argue is precisely what many tongues-speakers are doing. A reading into the text of things that are just not there.

“The notion that tongues has to always be an understandable language is a silly notion”

I think you’re partially right; it’s typically not understood by the listeners as they do not speak/understand the speaker’s language. Tongues may not be understandable to everyone hearing it, but at the very least, it has to be language, which modern tongues-speech is not. A good working definition of the modern phenomenon is non-cognitive non-language utterance.

“Also, I have provided absolutely true testimonies of people speaking in modern tongues languages they have never learned, and most of the time the language has been unknown to anyone, but once, even praying normally in tongues, the language changed to a language understood by a foreign visitor.”

These types of stories seem to abound in tongues-speaking circles, but unfortunately, they are all anecdotal at best. There are no documented cases of xenoglossy – anywhere. Thousands of examples of tongues-speech have been studied. Not one was ever found to be a real rational language, living or dead.

I should think that the tongues-speaker would, at the very least, want to know specifically what language s/he was supposedly speaking and would want to ask the person who heard him/her exactly what was said. Was it just a word, a phrase, a short monologue, what? Did the person’s tongues-speech switch over to the target language such that everyone listening could notice the switch, or was it just the one person who heard it in their language? Did that person hear the speaker physically speaking their language, or was it something that just sort of came into their head? Were these people living in the country where the language is spoken, or did it occur somewhere far removed (which would beg the question with some stories I’ve heard of how did a person from a remote part of the world come to be attending a Pentecostal/Charismatic service in the US?). I’m not doubting it could happen, but unfortunately, the specific details are recalled rather vaguely at best. Personally, this is an area I would love to see more study done on.

CS1 · May 26, 2021

Kavik said:

Not trying to get into an argument, but I have discussed 1 Cor. 14:2 quite a bit in other threads as well as some of the things you bring up. Didn’t want to repeat myself here, but….

With respect to 1 Cor. 14:2 – The whole passage is talking about real, rational language.

Let me use an analogy - If I attend a worship service in “East Haystack”, some remote town in the US out in the middle of nowhere, two things are going to be evident: one; there’s only going to be so many people at that service (i.e. there will be a finite given amount of people there) and two; the chances that anyone speaks anything but English is pretty slim to nil.

If I start praying aloud in say Lithuanian, there’s no one at that service that’s going to understand a single word I’m saying. Even though I’m speaking a real language, no one there will understand my “tongue”. That does not mean or imply that no one else understands Lithuanian; just no one at that particular service.

In this sense, therefore, I am speaking only to God, since he understands all languages. To everyone at the service, even though I’m praying in the Spirit (as defined in my original post), to the people listening to me, I’m still speaking “mysteries” – i.e. even though I’m praying as I ought, no one understands me; no one has a clue what I’m saying as no one speaks my language.

When one looks at the original Greek, the verb which is usually translated as “understandeth/understands” is actually the verb “to hear” in the sense of to hear someone with understanding. The verb is not “to understand”. That part of the verse is more properly “no one hears [him] with understanding”, i.e. no one listening to him understands what he’s saying.

There is nothing in this passage that suggests modern tongues-speech nor is there anything that even remotely suggests that the speaker does not understand what he himself is saying. It is the listeners who do not understand, not the speaker – no matter how hard some people want the speaker to also not understand…….it just isn’t there.

I suppose it could be people conditioned in some cases, but it’s also just a reading of the text (and getting rid of the archaic ‘tongue’ for the more modern ‘language’).

“Putting words into Paul’s moth that he never said” I would argue is precisely what many tongues-speakers are doing. A reading into the text of things that are just not there.

“The notion that tongues has to always be an understandable language is a silly notion”

I think you’re partially right; it’s typically not understood by the listeners as they do not speak/understand the speaker’s language. Tongues may not be understandable to everyone hearing it, but at the very least, it has to be language, which modern tongues-speech is not. A good working definition of the modern phenomenon is non-cognitive non-language utterance.

“Also, I have provided absolutely true testimonies of people speaking in modern tongues languages they have never learned, and most of the time the language has been unknown to anyone, but once, even praying normally in tongues, the language changed to a language understood by a foreign visitor.”

These types of stories seem to abound in tongues-speaking circles, but unfortunately, they are all anecdotal at best. There are no documented cases of xenoglossy – anywhere. Thousands of examples of tongues-speech have been studied. Not one was ever found to be a real rational language, living or dead.

I should think that the tongues-speaker would, at the very least, want to know specifically what language s/he was supposedly speaking and would want to ask the person who heard him/her exactly what was said. Was it just a word, a phrase, a short monologue, what? Did the person’s tongues-speech switch over to the target language such that everyone listening could notice the switch, or was it just the one person who heard it in their language? Did that person hear the speaker physically speaking their language, or was it something that just sort of came into their head? Were these people living in the country where the language is spoken, or did it occur somewhere far removed (which would beg the question with some stories I’ve heard of how did a person from a remote part of the world come to be attending a Pentecostal/Charismatic service in the US?). I’m not doubting it could happen, but unfortunately, the specific details are recalled rather vaguely at best. Personally, this is an area I would love to see more study done on.

I disagree because the context of 1cor 14:2 is not found in 1cor 14:2 solely in that one verse. The context of the unit chapters ( written with context before verses were added) starts in chapter 12 and ends in chapter 14: 40

The Text tells US from the open " Concerning Spiritual Gifts", list them and what they are, how not to use them, and how to use them.

Paul in his writings never in context to Speaking in tongues said they were understandable language when he talked about the gifts of the Holy Spirit. In fact, he said the opposite. That is why there is needing an Interpretation and he did not say tranlation.

Kavik · May 26, 2021

CS1 said:

Interpretation equates to translation - the difference in English is not overly obvious; one typically "interprets" the spoken word, but "translates" the written.

I would respectfully argue that in that part of the text, Paul is addressing real language issues facing a multi-cultural and linguistically diverse church in a major port city.

SophieT · May 26, 2021

Major said:

no it does not and I don't care if you reply or not. you never seemed to understand I was only refuting your false claims and never sought to engage you. you are no authority here or anywhere else because you reject what is true

I don't think repentance comes easy though, to someone who is so pointedly and continually wrong with an attitude that speaks volumes about their inability to hear anyone but themself

TONGUES TODAY

Banned

Banned

Banned

Active member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Active member

SophieT

Guest

Active member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Active member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

SophieT

Guest