Is Speaking In Tongues Biblical Today?

[pescador]

What you told me is that the verses from the Old Testament are meaningless for you because they are of the Old Covenant. Therefore, nothing in the Old Testament has any value for you. So, you can just stick with the New Testament only - perhaps.

However, not all of the New Testament is valid, either, for you. Nothing in the Gospels has any real meaning because all of that took place under the Old Covenant which, as you stated, is not for you because you are part of the New Covenant.

Likewise, virtually all of Revelation is useless for you because it talks about events happening after the New Covenant is ended.

So, in your apparent Bible, the only meaningful books seem to be the Acts and the epistles (excepting, of course, the letter to the Hebrews, perhaps).

Why did you avoid my direct question?

There is no value in replying to you.

 

[pescador]

Theoretically they are all possible - all things are possible with God after all. But they are not the normal operation of those gifts are they. Being omniscient is not the normal operation of the gift of prophecy. Moving mountains is not the normal operation of the gift of faith. And giving away absolutely everything you own or giving up your own life is not the normal operation of the gift of giving. Similarly speaking in the language of angels is not the normal operation of the gift of tongues. Paul was painting a hypothetical picture where each gift is exaggerated to the highest conceivable degree in order to make the point that having even the most superlative of gifts would be worthless without love.



It was not me who said Cornelius spoke in tongues in the same way as the disciples. It was Peter, as recorded in divinely inspired scripture. Your argument is with God's infallible word, not me. If there was a 2nd non-human version of tongues then we would have told about it. But scripture says no such thing. As I said the idea of tongues being a non-human language was only invented around the beginning of the twentieth century.

You can't reason somebody out of something that they haven't reasoned themselves into. Stick with your lack of faith. Farewell.

 

[bbbbbbb]

There is no value in replying to you.

Thank you.

 

[Francis Drake]

Has "Knowledge" ceased? YES!

That's one bizarre statement! You might live to regret it.

"KNOWLEDGE" is progressive and
what you knew yesterday has vanished away.

That's one of the most illogical claims I have seen on the forum.

The simplest of people would understand that knowledge does not vanish, but accumulates with today's knowledge being added to yesterday's.

Paul said "knowledge will cease" as a prophetic future event.
But using your theology, the cessation of knowledge must always have been a daily past and present experience for Adam and Eve as well as Paul, making Paul's pronouncement utterly void of sense.

Tell me @Major1, at what date did knowledge first start to vanish away. Mmmm.............I guess you can't answer that because that knowledge has vanished!

My experience over the years has been that people will do what they want todo and what makes them feel religious regardless of what the Scriptures say.

That of course includes yourself.

“Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.”

Again that includes yourself.

 

[Major1]

That's one bizarre statement! You might live to regret it.

That's one of the most illogical claims I have seen on the forum.

The simplest of people would understand that knowledge does not vanish, but accumulates with today's knowledge being added to yesterday's.

Paul said "knowledge will cease" as a prophetic future event.
But using your theology, the cessation of knowledge must always have been a daily past and present experience for Adam and Eve as well as Paul, making Paul's pronouncement utterly void of sense.

Tell me @Major1, at what date did knowledge first start to vanish away. Mmmm.............I guess you can't answer that because that knowledge has vanished!

That of course includes yourself.

Again that includes yourself.

“Begin each day by telling yourself: Today I shall be meeting with interference, ingratitude, insolence, disloyalty, ill-will, and selfishness – all of them due to the offenders’ ignorance of what is good or evil.”
― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

 

[Major1]

Nothin' like extracting single verses -- for what purpose?

Paul wasn't emotional? Read the New Testament then return to the discussion. I'm not going to discuss what the Bible clearly says (in context) about the spiritual gifts. Don't believe the truth -- it's your choice. I'm done!

John 8:32........
"Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

 

[swordsman1]

You can't reason somebody out of something that they haven't reasoned themselves into. Stick with your lack of faith. Farewell.

It's a shame people have been taught to abandon their God given ability to reason and apply sound exegesis, in favor of subjective experiences that have no basis in scripture.

 

[Major1]

It's a shame people have been taught to abandon their God given ability to reason and apply sound exegesis, in favor of subjective experiences that have no basis in scripture.

AMEN brother, AMEN!

Again it confirms that men will do what they want to do regardless of what God tells us to do.

 

[pescador]

AMEN brother, AMEN!

Again it confirms that men will do what they want to do regardless of what God tells us to do.

Excluding yourself and swordsman1 of course.

 

[Francis Drake]

Theoretically they are all possible - all things are possible with God after all. But they are not the normal operation of those gifts are they.

Yes they are God's expected normal operation. That few attain that place does not detract from God's norm.

Being omniscient is not the normal operation of the gift of prophecy.

You introduced the word omniscient, which is completely misleading.
This is what Paul actually says.
"2And if I should have prophecy and understand all mysteries and all knowledge"
The prophetic gift merely opens up the possibility of knowing the hidden stuff that God chooses to reveal.
ie. God revealed to me when praying for someone that her demonic problem was rooted in Mormonism. The lady denied vehemently that she had anything to do with it. Half an hour later she suddenly remembered her mother telling her as a child that her great-great-great grandfather had gone out to Salt Lake with Brigham Young.
Another time I prophetically quoted back to an old man, word for word, what his class teacher had said about him to his father on a parent's evening. Those words had bound him demonically all his life and he got set free that night.
The Lord has revealed many things like this and I am the least when it comes to the prophetic giftings.

Moving mountains is not the normal operation of the gift of faith.

Agreed, but "absence of evidence" is never "evidence of absence" in any argument.
Moving mountains was obviously a metaphor, and believers have through application of faith moved many impossible mountains.
Dunkirk being a good example of God's miraculous response to England's National Day of Prayer in 1940. They expected to be able to rescue maybe 30,000, yet they rescued 334,000, enabling Britain to fight another day.

And giving away absolutely everything you own or giving up your own life is not the normal operation of the gift of giving.

I really cannot see where this is going @swordsman1 as it doesn't help you one bit.
History is full of people who have given their everything and their lives for the Lord.

Similarly speaking in the language of angels is not the normal operation of the gift of tongues.

Now that I categorically deny.
You obviously know nothing beyond the narrow band of your own unbelief.

Did you hear me singing last night at a Celebrating Israel event when I didn't know the Hebrew words? Lost in the crowd I just sang in tongues worshipping the Lord to the music of the Israeli band.
Whether in tongues of angels or of men matters not a jot, given that God clearly knew the words.

Paul was painting a hypothetical picture where each gift is exaggerated to the highest conceivable degree in order to make the point that having even the most superlative of gifts would be worthless without love.

I utterly reject your assertion that the gifts were exaggerated. History utterly proves you wrong there. Paul lists all the possible gifts implying that even if he was perfect in all of them, but lacked love, he was nothing.
But you have absolutely no excuse for extracting the "Tongues of angels" from that perfectly valid list. They all hold perfectly equal status of validity, and none were imaginary.
If you are permitted to dismiss unwanted words like that in this verse, then you can get away with it in any verse!

It was not me who said Cornelius spoke in tongues in the same way as the disciples. It was Peter, as recorded in divinely inspired scripture. Your argument is with God's infallible word, not me.

No, my argument is directly against you swordsman and you alone, because you insist on manipulating the words of scripture.

Here is that passage again, and you will note that its not even Peter speaking, but Luke.
Acts10v44Of Peter still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those hearing the word. 45And the believers from the circumcision, as many as had come with Peter, were amazed that the gift of the Holy Spirit has been poured out even upon the Gentiles. 46For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and magnifying God.
Read that again swordsman. It says they heard them speaking in tongues and magnifying God.
Just where does it say, "Cornelius spoke in tongues in the same was as the disciples."

Then Peter answered, 47“Is anyone able to withhold the water to baptize these who have received the Holy Spirit, just as we also have?” 48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain some days.
You will see here that they received the Holy Spirit, just as the Jews had received the Holy Spirit.
But that makes no reference to any particular gift or ministry of that gift.
Stop limiting God to your own short-sighted vision.

If there was a 2nd non-human version of tongues then we would have told about it. But scripture says no such thing. As I said the idea of tongues being a non-human language was only invented around the beginning of the twentieth century.

We have been told, but as Jesus said, but having ears, you hear not, and having eyes you see not. That is your freewill choice.

And the story that non human tongues was only invented in the early 20thC is such an obvious lie, given that it is written in scripture.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Yes they are God's expected normal operation. That few attain that place does not detract from God's norm.

You introduced the word omniscient, which is completely misleading.
This is what Paul actually says.
"2And if I should have prophecy and understand all mysteries and all knowledge"
The prophetic gift merely opens up the possibility of knowing the hidden stuff that God chooses to reveal.
ie. God revealed to me when praying for someone that her demonic problem was rooted in Mormonism. The lady denied vehemently that she had anything to do with it. Half an hour later she suddenly remembered her mother telling her as a child that her great-great-great grandfather had gone out to Salt Lake with Brigham Young.
Another time I prophetically quoted back to an old man, word for word, what his class teacher had said about him to his father on a parent's evening. Those words had bound him demonically all his life and he got set free that night.
The Lord has revealed many things like this and I am the least when it comes to the prophetic giftings.

Agreed, but "absence of evidence" is never "evidence of absence" in any argument.
Moving mountains was obviously a metaphor, and believers have through application of faith moved many impossible mountains.
Dunkirk being a good example of God's miraculous response to England's National Day of Prayer in 1940. They expected to be able to rescue maybe 30,000, yet they rescued 334,000, enabling Britain to fight another day.

I really cannot see where this is going @swordsman1 as it doesn't help you one bit.
History is full of people who have given their everything and their lives for the Lord.

Now that I categorically deny.
You obviously know nothing beyond the narrow band of your own unbelief.

Did you hear me singing last night at a Celebrating Israel event when I didn't know the Hebrew words? Lost in the crowd I just sang in tongues worshipping the Lord to the music of the Israeli band.
Whether in tongues of angels or of men matters not a jot, given that God clearly knew the words.


I utterly reject your assertion that the gifts were exaggerated. History utterly proves you wrong there. Paul lists all the possible gifts implying that even if he was perfect in all of them, but lacked love, he was nothing.
But you have absolutely no excuse for extracting the "Tongues of angels" from that perfectly valid list. They all hold perfectly equal status of validity, and none were imaginary.
If you are permitted to dismiss unwanted words like that in this verse, then you can get away with it in any verse!

No, my argument is directly against you swordsman and you alone, because you insist on manipulating the words of scripture.

Here is that passage again, and you will note that its not even Peter speaking, but Luke.
Acts10v44Of Peter still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those hearing the word. 45And the believers from the circumcision, as many as had come with Peter, were amazed that the gift of the Holy Spirit has been poured out even upon the Gentiles. 46For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and magnifying God.
Read that again swordsman. It says they heard them speaking in tongues and magnifying God.
Just where does it say, "Cornelius spoke in tongues in the same was as the disciples."

Then Peter answered, 47“Is anyone able to withhold the water to baptize these who have received the Holy Spirit, just as we also have?” 48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain some days.
You will see here that they received the Holy Spirit, just as the Jews had received the Holy Spirit.
But that makes no reference to any particular gift or ministry of that gift.
Stop limiting God to your own short-sighted vision.

We have been told, but as Jesus said, but having ears, you hear not, and having eyes you see not. That is your freewill choice.

And the story that non human tongues was only invented in the early 20thC is such an obvious lie, given that it is written in scripture.

Just as a matter of curiosity, how did you know that you were fluent in Hebrew and not in Aramaic?

 

[Francis Drake]

Just as a matter of curiosity, how did you know that you were fluent in Hebrew and not in Aramaic?

I never mentioned speaking in either.

Here's that section again.-
"Did you hear me singing last night at a Celebrating Israel event when I didn't know the Hebrew words? Lost in the crowd I just sang in tongues worshipping the Lord to the music of the Israeli band.
Whether in tongues of angels or of men matters not a jot, given that God clearly knew the words".

 

[Francis Drake]

“Begin each day by telling yourself: Today I shall be meeting with interference, ingratitude, insolence, disloyalty, ill-will, and selfishness – all of them due to the offenders’ ignorance of what is good or evil.”
― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Amusing Major, but why not address the points?

 

[bbbbbbb]

I never mentioned speaking in either.

Here's that section again.-
"Did you hear me singing last night at a Celebrating Israel event when I didn't know the Hebrew words? Lost in the crowd I just sang in tongues worshipping the Lord to the music of the Israeli band.
Whether in tongues of angels or of men matters not a jot, given that God clearly knew the words".

Thanks. I misunderstood what you had written. The bottom line seems to be that you cannot say with any certainty whether or not you were praising God or cursing Him in these tongues.

 

[swordsman1]

You introduced the word omniscient, which is completely misleading.
This is what Paul actually says.
"2And if I should have prophecy and understand all mysteries and all knowledge"
The prophetic gift merely opens up the possibility of knowing the hidden stuff that God chooses to reveal.

But no prophet has ever "understood ALL mysteries and ALL knowledge" (which IS omniscience). That is not the normal operation of prophecy. Paul was giving an exaggerated hypothetical example of prophecy - notice the IF in that verse, not when.

Moving mountains was obviously a metaphor, and believers have through application of faith moved many impossible mountains.

Yes moving mountains is a metaphor, a hyperbole in fact. Nobody has ever literally moved a mountain. Paul was giving another exaggerated hypothetical example.

History is full of people who have given their everything and their lives for the Lord.

But giving away ALL that you own or giving up your own life is not the normal operation of the gift of giving. The normal operation of the gift of giving would be someone of means unhesitatingly giving generously to those in need. Paul was giving another exaggerated hypothetical example.

And the same applies to the tongues of angels. That too is not the normal operation of tongues. It should be obvious to anyone that Paul is giving 5 parallel exaggerated hypothetical examples to make the point that having the most superlative of gifts is worthless without love.

Just where does it say, "Cornelius spoke in tongues in the same was as the disciples."

Right there in Acts 10:47 - the gentiles "received the Holy Spirit just as we did". And also in Acts 11:15 "the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning." Peter said the Holy Spirit came upon the gentile just as He came upon the disciples. The only evidence the Holy Spirit had come upon the gentiles was their speaking tongues. There was no other manifestation of the Spirit among the gentiles that led the disciples to believe they received the Spirit. So their tongues must have been exactly the same. If the gentiles spoke in non-human tongues as you suppose, then Peter was lying - the Holy Spirit did not come upon the gentiles just as He did with the disciples, He came upon them in a different manner. The fact the gentiles received the same phenomenon as the disciples was the evidence that led them to accept the gentiles as equals. If it was something different then at best they could have regarded the gentiles as a 2nd class of Christian.

In any case there is not the slightest hint in scripture the gentiles spoke in a non-human language. If they did then Luke, as an accurate historian, would have recorded that important fact. So you are making an unwarranted presupposition - an exegetical fallacy.

And the story that non human tongues was only invented in the early 20thC is such an obvious lie, given that it is written in scripture.

Where in scripture does it say tongues were non-human languages? You haven't given us any unequivocal example. And where in any Christian literature prior to the turn of the 20th century is the idea suggested?

 

[Major1]

Amusing Major, but why not address the points?

I already have my friend, several times now.

As we have all seen now, you simply just make it up as you go along.

It does not make a any sense to address any Bible trith with you. You know what you want to do and you are going to do it because IT FEELS GOOD.

That is "emotionalism" and you like.

 

[Major1]

Thanks. I misunderstood what you had written. The bottom line seems to be that you cannot say with any certainty whether or not you were praising God or cursing Him in these tongues.

It really does not matter. He will just change it to make whatever he wants to make it when cornered.

In comment #2112 you posted to Mr. Drake.........

"Just as a matter of curiosity, how did you know that you were fluent in Hebrew and not in Aramaic?"

He then said.................
"I never mentioned speaking in either."

Here's that section again.-
"Did you hear me singing last night at a Celebrating Israel event when I didn't know the Hebrew words? Lost in the crowd I just sang in tongues worshipping the Lord to the music of the Israeli band.
Whether in tongues of angels or of men matters not a jot, given that God clearly knew the words".

See?

"I never mentioned speaking in tongues".

Then,
"I just sang in tongues".

The story is very "fluid" depending on the situation it seems to me.

 

[Major1]

Excluding yourself and swordsman1 of course.

No sir, we actually do not accept or believe that speaking in tongues today is Biblical so we would be in fact excluded from your comment.

It was, and the apostles had that gift along with all the others that Jesus had. But they all died.

 

[Major1]

Just as a matter of curiosity, how did you know that you were fluent in Hebrew and not in Aramaic?

Better yet.......how does he know that it wasn't Amharic, or Tigrinya, or Tigre or even Assyrian?????

You see the problem with this that anyone can make it up as they go along and there is NO accountability to the truth.

I can stand up and talk for 30 minutes in gibberish and they say I spoke in Portuguese.

Only a person who spoke in Portuguese who would know and what are the odds of that happening????

 

[pescador]

I already have my friend, several times now.

As we have all seen now, you simply just make it up as you go along.

It does not make a any sense to address any Bible trith with you. You know what you want to do and you are going to do it because IT FEELS GOOD.

That is "emotionalism" and you like.

a) What is "trith"? Pontius Pilot
b) If you're a Christian then you should feel bad?
c) If you enjoy being without emotion, then keep it to yourself.