Praying in Tongues

Yes - Matthew 1:23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.” (NKJV Strong's,)

The Father comes as a Son, it is a modelling principle “pattern” for the sons of God. God does not come as a Father, giving us an example as a Father for we cannot be the Father.

Romans 8:14 - For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. (NKJV Strong's,)

Can God not speak to Himself? Are not all things possible for Him who has created us?

nothing of Deuteronomy 32 has anything to do with acts 2 or 1cor chapter 12 to 14.

Also you assume they had no understnsding. if you would have just started from verse 7 you would have seen they had more than understanding they had arelationship with God as they had for generations.
"
“Remember the days of old,
Consider the years of many generations.
Ask your father, and he will show you;
Your elders, and they will tell you: "

Big stretch you try to do. Babylon(babble) has nothing to do with 1cor 12 to 14 of anything in Acts or 1cor. That was in gen, and it was not contextual to the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Very bad allegorizing

And maybe those who do not know the truth will not either.

How can you rediscover something you never had?

Are you saying that praying in tongues is evidence of salvation?

I hope not.
I'm a man who was told that because I did not speak in tongues it was evidence that I was not saved.

Boy did that mess with my mind for a long long time.

I can count on one hand how many times I spoke in tongues and that was in my quite time and not forced.

Unlike the person who told me I wasn't Saved because I did not speak in tongues and then gave me some advice on how to manufacture it.
As follows.

Speak "She will come on a Honda" then speed it up (along with a few others)
Then your mind will get used to speaking in tongues.

What a load of Trollope and a heavy burden to place on people.

Personally I have no problems the tongues are still for today.
I'm not a cessationalist. My wife speaks in tongues when we pray. It's not a problem.

Tongues is a gift as a result of salvation and not a passage to salvation.

Under necessity I would add

1 Cor 14: 2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men, but to God.

4 The one who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but the one who prophesies edifies the church.

But for your summation, I add this:

1 Cor 12: 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues

Insisting that if you do not speak in tongues you are not Spirit filled is one of the reasons so many deny tongues outright. That requirement is NOT Biblical.

And I would add:

1 Cor 14:39b and do not forbid speaking in tongues

That I believe was written specifically to cessationists.

It goes beyond that RickyZ.

It can damage a belivers walk with Jesus and the relationship he seeks with us.
They focus on this which can cause a neglect of loving.
Tongues do not show love.

This shows the oldest manuscript was written in Aramaic:

The Aramaic text used in crafting the AENT is the most original autograph that modern scholars have encountered. This is important as most popular English New Testaments come from Greek translations originally converted from Hebrew and Aramaic texts. Simply put, most New Testaments are a translation of a translation. Conversely, the AENT comes directly from Aramaic, the very language spoken by Jesus and his disciples. Scholars naturally agree that it is best to translate from the oldest, most original text and this of course is critical for accuracy.


The Jewish historian (who was alive when Christ was alive and afterwards) Josephus is documented making this claim:
Josephus said that Jews would rather eat pork than learn Greek!!



“The New Covenant’s original language was neither
Greek nor Aramaic, as popular wisdom goes,
but rather in Hebrew, the same Hebrew language
that the Tanakh, the “Old Testament”, was written in.”
-Hebrew New Testament
by, Dr. D. Briggs, Ph.D., Walden University


“The New Testament WAS originally written in Hebrew.
As the following scholars agree – Bivan, Blizzard,
Grant, Loisy, Schonefield, Trimm, Minge, Segal, Dam,
etc. They all raise the flag regarding the New Testament
as being originally written in Hebrew and NOT Greek or
Aramaic.”


“What was the language of ordinary life of educated
native Jews in Jerusalem and Judaea in the period
from 400 BCE to 150 CE? The evidence presented by
Mishnaic Hebrew and its literature leaves no doubt
that that language was Mishnaic Hebrew.”
– The Companion Bible,
E. W. Bullinger, (Appendix 94)


“Hebrew continued to be used as a spoken and written
language even after the fourth century, including the
New Testament period.”
-The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church
third edition, in 1997


“Matthew put down the words of the Lord
in the Hebrew language, and others have translated
them, each as best he could.”
-Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, c. 150 A.D


“Matthew, indeed, produced his Gospel written
among the Hebrews in their own dialect.”
– Irenaeus (120-202 A.D.)
Bishop of Lions, France


“There were debates raging concerning the
destruction of the scrolls of the New Testament,
because they contain the divine Name of God in
Hebrew (YHWH).” This debate clearly documents
that the gospels were written in Hebrew in early
church history.
-the Babylonian Talmud (Shabbat 116a),
the Jerusalem Talmud (Shabbat 15c),
and the Tosefta (Shabbat 13:5).


“The first Gospel composed in the Hebrew language,
was written by Matthew…for those who came to faith
from Judaism.”
-Origen (225 A.D.)


“Matthew had first preached to the Hebrews,
and when he was about to go to others also,
he transmitted his Gospel in writing in his
native language”
– (Ecclesiastical History III 24, 6)




MY BAD, YOU SAID ONLY 3 AND I GAVE YOU WAY TOO MANY!!

I did not make the claim you must speak in Tongues to be saved, I copied what Jesus and Paul claimed!!

You're either shouting, or have a self-righteous snarky attitude, or both. That isn't going to get you any closer to credibility.

Josephus' comment is irrelevant, since we are talking about Christians, not Jews. There is no citation for your third quote. General reference works are not "biblical scholars". Origen and Irenaus are not biblical scholars. Talmudic sources are not biblical scholars, and are suspect because they are Jewish and not Christian. The only name I recognize is Bullinger, but I'll check out the sources.

You based your earlier claims on passages from John's gospel, yet here your quotes only refer to Matthew's gospel.

By the way, you still haven't answered my original questions. How hard can it be?

Because my answers are in bold? So what, it's in bold!!

Peter did not want to preach to the Gentiles at first because he still did not want to accept them. Therefore, Peter is acting like a typical Jew from that period. And like other typical Jews of that period, Josephus fits the bill!!

The 3rd quote is by the person in the 2nd quote, the 3rd quote just is a list of biblical scholars that he added:

“The New Covenant’s original language was neither
Greek nor Aramaic, as popular wisdom goes,
but rather in Hebrew, the same Hebrew language
that the Tanakh, the “Old Testament”, was written in.”
-Hebrew New Testament
by, Dr. D. Briggs, Ph.D., Walden University


“The New Testament WAS originally written in Hebrew.
As the following scholars agree – Bivan, Blizzard,
Grant, Loisy, Schonefield, Trimm, Minge, Segal, Dam,
etc. They all raise the flag regarding the New Testament
as being originally written in Hebrew and NOT Greek or
Aramaic.”

No, Origen and Irenaus are historical accounts that the Jews spoke HEBREW until the 4th century. This means the Apostles dealt with them in HEBREW (both in speaking and in writing)(just like the original Gospels)!!

And the Talmud is proof the Gospels were written in Hebrew because they used the HEBREW name for God (YHWH)!!



This states the New Testament and New Covenant

“The New Covenant’s original language was neither
Greek nor Aramaic, as popular wisdom goes,
but rather in Hebrew, the same Hebrew language
that the Tanakh, the “Old Testament”, was written in.”
-Hebrew New Testament
by, Dr. D. Briggs, Ph.D., Walden University


“The New Testament WAS originally written in Hebrew.
As the following scholars agree – Bivan, Blizzard,
Grant, Loisy, Schonefield, Trimm, Minge, Segal, Dam,
etc. They all raise the flag regarding the New Testament
as being originally written in Hebrew and NOT Greek or
Aramaic.”

And I found other articles pertaining to Matthew which is why that was also added.



These questions?

To the first question:
The Aramaic text used in crafting the AENT is the most original autograph that modern scholars have encountered .

The second question I already addressed in several posts how a word looks similar in Greek, but have different meanings like (he) and (it) are tou and to.

The English translation has 7 (he)'s in it where the Greek only has 1, and does not refer to the Holy Spirit as (he), but as (it).

So clearly, the original Hebrew to Greek did not make the Holy Spirit appear to have a persons qualities, but the English translations made the Holy Spirit look like a person. Which leads to why would the English translation do such a thing? Was it intentional so we think that, or was it by accident?

Cessation is from biblical grounds that you may not be aware of. That verse was not written for cessationists, it was written by a cessationist because Paul says when perfect love comes, all gifts would cease; you only need to find out when the 'perfect' came.

The Apostles raised the dead, why isn't that happening today like it happened before?
There are no genuine miracles today, not a single one. The tongues are all fake.

The Holy Spirit is an IT!
Scripture says otherwise.
The Holy Spirit guides, leads, reveals, comforts.
The Holy Spirit can be grieved. How do you grieve an IT?
The Holy Spirit gives gifts.
The Holy Spirit is equal with the Father and the Son.
The Holy Spirit is eternal.
The Holy Spirit is Holy!
The Holy Spirit helps Christians in prayer.
The Holy Spirit bears witness with our spirit.

(This IT business reminds me of Cousin Itt of the Addams family.)

Deuteronmoy 32 is essential in understanding the foundation the word faith as to how it is used through the scriptures. The phrase "no faith" reveals natural unconverted man .All men are born with none. Doubt is not the opposite of faith again "no faith" not believing God but trusting in the imaginations of their own heart is. The fool.

"No faith" is the same thing as saying" no relationship" with God. It is shown like in the foundation of the tongue doctrine in Isiah 28 " yet they would not hear or they refused to beleive" and again when the law is defined deeper in 1 Corinthians 14:21-22 "yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord". In other word they refused to believe the word of God prophecy in any language to include their own tongue.

For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.Isiah 28:11-12

In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that "believe not" (no faith) but prophesying(exercising the faith of Christ)) serveth not for them that believe not,(no faith) but for them which believe. 1 Corinthians 14:21-22

Those in Acts 2 heard the word spoken of Peter but again because they did not mix faith (believe God) they said the men where drunk .

So then its not just hearing but mixing faith or believing God that can soften our hearts in confirmation that we have exercised His faith that works in us to both will and do His good pleasure. .

Deuteronomy 32 speaks of those who have "no faith" again not little by none.. It describes natural man that neither has knowledge of God or has knowledge and is a stranger to the promises it in exchange for the oral traditions of men like revealed in Jerimiah 44. It describes a fool no God working in a person heart. No difference, no faith, no God in their heart as a hearing coming from God.

Also you assume they had no understnsding. if you would have just started from verse 7 you would have seen they had more than understanding they had arelationship with God as they had for generations.
"I person must hear God and by that hearing, believe God .If they hear and do not belive it shows they have no faith

Those who have no faith can hear the word of God like with the section you offered and not believe God like the example I use with Jerimiah 44.

Those in Isiah 28 did not believe the word of God as prophecy even in their own Hebrew tongue, again they mocked God after the manner spoken of in Jerimiah 44 indicating they were a froward nation of "no faith".

As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil. Jerimiah 44

Having a faith that comes from hearing God is the contextual gift of the Holy Spirit. without it babbling occurs as oral traditions of men like this tongue doctrine that men turn the sign upside down that shows they have no faith to making it a faith by them making a noise without meaning called babbling total confusion.

The babbling Babylonians were confused to who God was and how they could understand him who has no form so they could seek after Him .They had no faith as it is written by which they could understand God. Every man had his own private interpretation. Again they wanted to build a tower that was as high as their imagination as in out of sight out of sight. There was no walking by faith nothing but babble when it came to understanding God.

the word cessation is not in the word of God. And is an unBiblical term.

1 Cor 13:8Love never fails; but if there are prophesies, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will be ceased; if there is knowledge it will pass away.

Or as a prewarning..

Matthew 24:25-27 King James Version (KJV) Behold, I have told you "before".Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; "believe it not". For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

The pre-warning in Mark shown reveals the elect will not be deceived by the lying sign's and wonders they heed the commandment not to add or subtract from the perfect at the end of the book of prophecy called Revelation. It remains the last chapter in the book of prophecy


Mark 13:20-23 King James Version (KJV)And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days. And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not: For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things.

the Reader's Digest version

no

that is not what he is saying. where did you even get that?

you don't sound your usual kind and thoughtful self

hugs

let us know when knowledge has passed away

although truth be told, it seems for a good number round these here parts, that may have happened

not you of course...you can still type

nah

what is fake is your cover up for not believing in what is plainly written

tell me, how does that sound? cause that is how I seez it

you believe or not. I don't even care if someone chooses not to believe, but the part ( me with my curious nature) I find interesting, is why people who oppose this particular gift do not seem able to stop raging at it

if I don't believe in something...like monsters under the bed for instance, I don't poke around under there every night before retiring....and I don't write Disney cartoonists that they need to stop what they are doing cause it's all fake