TONGUES TODAY

I am sure that you and your friend are correct.
Bless you my friend!

You are simply incorrect. The very reason why I posted alll the Scripture I posted was so that you would not be able to use the excuse of "taken out of CONTEXT"

The only reason I did not post what you just did was that it simply did not apply to the question/discussion at hand.

GOOD. Now that you did we can both speak to what you just posted as you seem to think it helps what you believe.

Verse #12.......Again we see THEY. THEY are again the Apostles.

Verse #14......"These ALL" refers again to the ELEVEN Apostles.
Now we see the WOMEN and Mary and the others which make up the 109.

Verse #15.......Again, an APOSTLE, Peter speaks.

If you have a point in which I have some how made a mistake or posted something in error, now would be a good time to point it out.

I agree with everything you just posted as it is pretty much what I posted in #272 already.

BUT.......no where does it say that Mary, or the women or the other 109 spoke in tongues.

What are you trying to say and where did I take ONE Scripture out of context when I posted several???????

Listen, I respect you. I t is not that I have a blind spot, I should not have been in the position in the 1st place.

Actually you should have never brought up what your friend was told and then ask anyone if they think he is telling the truth.

No one wants to respond to that kind of question because look at what it has caused you to say.

There was NO good answer to give which is what I tried to do, but you pushed the envelope and what did it get??????

Some told you, that someone told him that he heard a man in Africa who does not speak english all of a sudden begin to speak perfect Kings English.

OK. Makes perfect sense to me!

I appreciate that. I know that foreigners speaking clear English is a very rare event, but English speakers have been know to speak understandable foreign languages, so why not the other way around? Wouldn't it be a hoot if an African missionary to the United States arrived, hadn't learned English, tried tongues out and ended up preaching in English? That would put the cat among the pigeons I'll bet!

I gave that story to show that modern tongues does exist among all the lunatic fringe versions of it. I think that third world Pentecostals are not corrupted by the Prosperity and unconditional healing stuff that is in some American Charismatic outfits. Also, the supernatural is more real to them because they see it in their shamans and witchdoctors.

Precisely - Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles – it stands to reason that he would use his knowledge of languages more than the average person. It was essentially part of his ‘job description’. He’s not advocating for modern tongues-speech here.

I am baptized withe the Holy Ghost and he speaks in tongues through me, making intercession on my behalf with groaning and speech I cannot understand.
I leave that in God's hands!
I was COG and it was a small church,we were NEVER taught how to by anyone.
We had prophesy,ppl called out by the Spirit with an issue no one knew but themselves,healings, miracles ( it isn't only about healing,it can be financial,restoring broken relationships,deliverance from addiction ECT.ect)

Who are we to state what God does or does not do!
He is the creator and THIS is his plan!

I am curious what your qualifications are? I have a degree in Linguistics. How many degrees does it take to be a 'Linguist.' I had that conversation with a PhD student, who, back in the day, they had in some of the same classes with us undergrads but gave them more projects.

I remember you posted an article supporting this idea from what appeared to be a very small theological journal in which the author argued that the shocking things about the tongues of Acts 2 is that they were not Hebrew. I also recall you seemed to assume a great deal of linguistic homogeneity in the first century world, assuming many of those language groups listed in Acts 2 spoke either Greek and Aramaic and did not retain their own languages and dialects.

Your interpretation did not fit the historical context well, either, since languages other than Hebrew were used in the synagogues. Speaking other languages on the streets would not have been shocking. Aramaic interpreters could be used in Judaean synagogues and Hellenized synagogues that read and taught out of the Septuagint was a pretty big thing. There could have been as many of those or more than the Hebrew-reading synagogues. There was at least one Hellenic synagogue in Jerusalem, and probably many more considering the demographics.

Also, I do not see how that convoluted, historically unrealistic theory, about speaking in tongues in Acts 15 supposedly being the apostles speaking in Greek or Aramaic while the audience stood there shocked that they weren't speaking Hebrew has anything to do with linguistics as a discipline.

Feigned omniscience? How could you possibly know that?

There are other streams of literature that you could study besides Samarin's writings on this. Btw, based on one of Samarin's criteria, some prayer in English I've heard is not a real language, since I have heard high-pitched praying in English devoid of intonation. Besides Samarin, there is also historical literature. There are many accounts from early Pentecostalism of people hearing languages they knew 'in tongues.' The Apostolic Faith newsletter from Azusa Street revival contains many testimonies of it. Agnes Ozman while in Topeka also recorded experiences along these lines, speaking Bohemian (Czech) and Bohemians understanding her in their language. There are also numerous examples from missionaries.

What missionaries, like AG Garr, from Azusa street found was that they could not just go to a foreign country and speak in tongues and automatically be speaking in the local language at will. This was an assumption on their part, one not justified by scripture, and it did not work out. Even though Garr had experienced one of his tongues being identified as Banglaa at Azusa, which he sensed was different from what he normally spoke, he could not just generate it in India.

Since then many missionaries and others have experienced the same sort of thing. I also have spoken and corresponded with a number of people who heard a language they knew or understood 'in tongues.'
Generally, though this is not something that happens in a typical church meeting. In church, one speaks in tongues and no one understands him. The message in tongues must be interpreted to edify the congregation. It is possible for someone to speak in a genuine tongue and for there to be no interpreter or for the church to behave in a disorderly manner and not allow for interpretation. If that were not the case, parts of I Corinthians 14 would not have been written.

I am open to the idea that some 'speaking in tongues' is free vocalization. I have seen some Charismatics go to great lengths to extract some sounds from people and call it 'tongues.'

Your interpretation is what I have heard called 'the miracle in the ear' rather than the 'miracle in the mouth.' I take the latter view, which most readers probably take also... I mean that the disciples were actually speaking in the tongues of those who understood them. It says 'every man heard them speak in his own language', not that they heard them, but they weren't really speaking in their own language, or their heard the language, but the mouth was moving differently like in a dubbed Chinese movie.

But both views are old. At least in the fourth century, there were two St. Gregories who held to differing stances on this. One wrote that they were speaking in the languages of those present. Another wrote that the people present miraculously heard the languages.

In I Corinthians 14, a gift of the Spirit is required to interpret the language. Paul says in verse 13 to let him that speaks in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret. I speak two languages, and I can interpret automatically. Paul also writes further down in the chapter that he speaks in tongues 'more than ye all', but in the assembly he would rather speak 5 words with his mind that he may instruct others than 10,000 words with a tongue. The implication is that when he speaks in tongues, he is not speaking with his mind as he would with a normal language. That is why not only Pentecostals and Charismatics, but also those who are in other denominations who preach or write commentaries on this passage tend to think of speaking in tongues as an utterance the speaker does not understand.

I'm sorry you think Jesus is Michael the archangel, I don't know where you got that idea.

...kinda like making up in ones mind that the gifts and power from God only rested on certain apostles.
Made up mess from mens minds to excuse themselves from not pursuing or even showing interest in what was made available to the believer.

" it just quit. God quit. "

The backslidden cessationist.
Yep they quit.
When they quit God saw no interest in changing their minds.

Under this logic. The entire brass serpent on a pole was a waste.
They should have just been satisfied that God spoke through moses and any miraculous was evil.

It says that every man 'heard them speak in his own language'. Notice the reference to their _speaking_ in their own language.
There was a large meeting or series of meetings of 120 people in the upper room, including the Lord Jesus' mother, and after the casting of lots, Matthias was added to the 11. But the group was much larger. How about reading the whole chapter? It would be rather ridiculous to insist, as a matter of doctrine, that only the eleven spoke in tongues, not not Matthias, or the 120, based on this. Acts 2 one says 'they were all with one accord'. Why would 'all' get cut down from 120 to just 11 or 12 in Acts 2:1?

I have seen some nonsensical misapplication of Greek grammar rules that defy semantics in this thread, and basing doctrine on ambiguities. I have come across that before. I asked a retired Greek professor who used to work at a Harvard center about this. He said he'd say it was 75% for it referring to the 120 and 25% for referring to the apostles. Being an expert in Greek probably has little to do with interpreting this point of the passage. In Acts 10, apparently speaking in tongues was poured out more broadly with the outpouring of the Spirit. It was not restricted to the twelve in that case.

There are those of us that will not agree on the gifts of the Holy Spirit and that is fine,

I will say this all of us will never agree Jesus is Micheal the archangel. I am going to make this short so you can look it up for yourself.


Jesus the man is God those he made is introduction through Mary the virgin the Spirit of Christ as always been in the eternal Godhead.

The Angel of the Lord, the Commander(Captian in the KJV) of the LORD’s army, and other Old Testament unexplainable visitations are known as Christphanies. it is clear with all scriptures this is the Spirit of Christ.

When you come into a room and speak corrective instruction, one has to assume you are well versed on the word.
You are claiming great knowledge.
But when pressed, you ask others for a verse.

You should show enough interest in bible dynamics that when i bring up " attacking from the enemy" you bring to the table where that never happens.

Your response was something along the lines " that is AOG doctrine"

1) i am not aog
2) i correctly pointed you to paul.

Anyone and everyone with a bible knows paul was constantly stalked and attacked by the enemy.
Iow a no brainer.

Why do you need someone to look that up for you?

I believe that i showed you earlier where Jesus had many disciples besides the 12 that went out and did miracles.

( which contradicts some notion that Jesus thought exclusively of some temporary power to a number 12)

Jesus is creator
Michael is a created being.

Where do you get off making statements like this. Do you claim to be omniscient? Have you been to every church where speaking in tongues happens?

There are churches where one person speaks in tongues and someone else interprets it. I've seen that numerous times throughout my life. There are occasions where other people get the same interpretation but the one who spoke it out started before they had the chance. There are messages that edify the body of Christ. And there are people who have testified to having heard a language they knew being spoken 'in tongues', and occasions where they verified the interpretation. These latter two things seem to be a bit rare, and are not the norm in a church meeting.

Based on what can you broadly make that statement you make above?

You quoted from I Corinthians 13. This passage should be interpreted in line with other statements and themes of the book. In chapter 1, as Paul was opening up this book that would correct the Corinthians attitudes and practices, address gifts of utterance like tongues and prophecy, and teaching about the resurrection that would occur at the coming of Christ, he wrote of how the Corinthians were enriched in all utterance and in all knowledge, and in 1:7 he writes, "So that ye come behind in no spiritual gift, waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." You should interpret I Corinthians 13 in line with these statements.

Also, I Corinthians 13 addresses these three topics, which are followed up on in subsequent chapters:

Ch. 13. prophecy...tongues... the coming of the perfect
compare to
Ch.14-15 prophecy...tongues... the state of the believer at the resurrection and the coming of Christ.

You cut off at verse 10. Let's look at a bit more context, shall we:
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.


Before perfection/completion comes Paul is like a child in his speech, understanding, and thoughts. This was a time period when Paul was writing much of the New Testament. Much of the New Testament is written by someone revealing mysteries whose thoughts and understanding were like that of a child's in comparison to what is coming later. There are those who would argue that 'that which is perfect' refers to the completed New Testament scriptures. But clearly, this view is problematic, considering how Paul's understanding before completion comes was like a child in comparison to what comes later.

Does it make sense that Paul is saying that his thinking is like a child's, but after he, and the other kindergartener apostles finish writing their child-like writings, others who read them can be adult in their thinking.

Many of us who study the Bible throughout the years, as I assume you and many on the forum do, will find that they read something from Paul early in their walk with Christ, and years later come back and say, "Wow! I never really noticed that before!" and pick up one some insight that Paul clearly had nearly 2000 years ago, that they are just seeing in the text themselves. A new believer getting a copy of the Bible and reading it does not put him in a position so far superior to Paul's in understanding that Paul is like a child.

But let us consider what Paul was saying in light of the actual themes of the epistle. Something is coming that will transform him that will make his thoughts, speech, and understanding like that of a child. If we continue reading, we see that Paul is waiting either the resurrection of the dead, or the transformation to occurs to those who do not sleep when Christ returns. The corruptible puts on incorruptible. The mortal puts on immortality. Christ returns, and He delivers up the kingdom to God. Then comes the end, 'telos' in Greek.

12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

I added the bold for emphasis. Notice that in this age, faith, hope, and charity still abide. During this age, we still see through a glass darkly.





Acts tells us that people wanted Peter's shadow to fall on them that they might be healed. There is no record of Christ performing healing by shadows before His ascension, but that does not mean that God did not do such things through Peter.



It says they heard 'them' speak in their own language. So it wasn't just Peter. And it does not say they just heard their own language, but actually says they heard them speak in their own language.

Watchtower doctrine.

Wait...i think they dropped that error.
Pretty sure they no longer say that after being debunked properly a few hundred times

I know there is a very ancient belief that some of the 'angel of the Lord' passages refer to preincarnate Jesus. But this interpretation is a big questionable. If one accepts it and sees that Michael was/is a prince over Israel, then the idea that Michael refers to preincarnate Christ may make sense. But the whole thing is so speculative, it is a dangerous thing to proclaim. If you are wrong in this guesswork, then you should consider that maybe your statement could be blasphemy.