Do any supernatural gifts of the Spirit exist today

Dr.Strangelove said:

Looking >>>

DocBot has detected many Christians who require not physical edification but REALITY CHECK.

Click to expand...

I was talking about spiritual edification not physical edification.
I was quoting Scripture
SCRIPTURE says that the body needs to be edified.

I have detected that you require SENSUAL PHYSICAL edification by way of imagined supernatural fleshy 'show gifts'.

Click to expand...

The spritual gifts aren't fleshy.
"SPIRITUAL" sort of gives it away.

Sunlover probably associates with likeminded individuals, accounting for fact she sees the same in others.

Click to expand...

Once again you want to discuss me as a person.
Seems to be a trend around here today,

razeontherock said:

4. False miracles are something I've heard theorized as possible, but never witnessed. i prefer not to speculate on hypotheticals.

Click to expand...

Does not compute.

Is the resurrection of Jesus something you have 'heard theorized as possible'?

How about the second coming? Is that a 'hypothetical'?

>End

Dr.Strangelove said:

Does not compute.

Is the resurrection of Jesus something you have 'heard theorized as possible'?

How about the second coming? Is that a 'hypothetical'?

>End

Click to expand...

lets see a clear rebuttal to this verse, not written to apostles. Has the gift of serving and teaching stopped?

No more giving? No more exhorting? It says prophecy in there also

Gimmie a clear rebuttal..everyone, means the congregation..show me how you can just pluck out prophecy...show me....


Rom 12:3 For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. 4 For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, 5 so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. 6 Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; 7 if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching; 8 the one who exhorts, in his exhortation; the one who contributes, in generosity; the one who leads, with zeal; the one who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness.

paaaaleeease show me how you can pluck out proprhecy, that is the clear question for you...

Frogster said:

lets see a clear rebuttal to this verse, not written to apostles. Has the gift of serving and teaching stopped?

No more giving? No more exhorting? It says prophecy in there also

Gimmie a clear rebuttal..everyone, means the congregation..show me how you can just pluck out prophecy...show me....


Rom 12:3 For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. 4 For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, 5 so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. 6 Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; 7 if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching; 8 the one who exhorts, in his exhortation; the one who contributes, in generosity; the one who leads, with zeal; the one who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness.

paaaaleeease show me how you can pluck out proprhecy, that is the clear question for you...

Click to expand...

Why do I need to pluck prophecy out of the gifts that Christians have today?

I'm quite happy with Christians carrying out the prophetic office.

Original Word: προφητεία, ας, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: prophéteia
Phonetic Spelling: (prof-ay-ti'-ah)
Short Definition: prophecy
Definition: prophecy, prophesying; the gift of communicating and enforcing revealed truth.

Clarkes Commentary said:

Whether prophecy - That prophecy, in the New Testament, often means the gift of exhorting, preaching, or of expounding the Scriptures, is evident from many places in the Gospels, Acts, and St. Paul's Epistles

Click to expand...

I personally think Mr.Froggy is a prophet in the realm of communicating and enforcing the revealed truth of Justification by Faith alone apart from works.

<< CodeName : Frophet (Prophster?? nah)

The supernatural gifts seem to be much more rare than they were in the N.T. days, but the regular gifts (teaching etc) are common.

Kaitlin08 said:

The supernatural gifts seem to be much more rare than they were in the N.T. days, but the regular gifts (teaching etc) are common.

Click to expand...

So rare in fact that when I asked for a 'healer' or a 'prophet' to come forward......there is not a single one who is prepared to declare their gift of God and answer questions about said gift.

Rare like the dodo.

Of course we got plenty with the 'tongues'. Wonder why that is? So many gifted in that dept.

You know Doc, i thought about that,

because when tongues are translated, they are the same as prophecy as far as edification goes ..

so what i get from the phenomena is .

God has something to say to this generation

but they are too immature to understand it .

Michael Collum said:

You know Doc, i thought about that,

because when tongues are translated, they are the same as prophecy as far as edification goes ..

so what i get from the phenomena is .

God has something to say to this generation

but they are too immature to understand it .

Click to expand...

People from all stages of maturity operate in the gift of tongues,
You have babes all the way to old folks (spiritually)

Michael Collum said:

You know Doc, i thought about that,

because when tongues are translated, they are the same as prophecy as far as edification goes ..

so what i get from the phenomena is .

God has something to say to this generation

but they are too immature to understand it .

Click to expand...

Oh ok. Hidden knowledge then? Like Gnosticism.

Forget parables, this is the new God hotline. One person talks gibberish and some other guy makes up an interpretation and we call it prophecy?

Have you ever seen two interpreters and one tonguer who never met before and they both write down the interpretation and see if they match up.

But wait, lemme guess....every tonguer only has one guy capable of interpreting his 'tongue'.

Sunlover said:

People from all stages of maturity operate in the gift of tongues, You have babes all the way to old folks (spiritually)

Click to expand...

Yeah especially babes. They are really good at it. Comes naturally.

Dr.Strangelove said:

Oh ok. Hidden knowledge then? Like Gnosticism.

Forget parables, this is the new God hotline. One person talks gibberish and some other guy makes up an interpretation and we call it prophecy?

Have you ever seen two interpreters and one tonguer who never met before and they both write down the interpretation and see if they match up.

But wait, lemme guess....every tonguer only has one guy capable of interpreting his 'tongue'.



Yeah especially babes. They are really good at it. Comes naturally.

Click to expand...

well, you can't say i don't try .

sunlover1 said:

People from all stages of maturity operate in the gift of tongues,
You have babes all the way to old folks (spiritually)

Click to expand...

by the biblical standard, the whole body is immature because of all the divisions among us .. no matter how "mature" people may appear by human standards .

Michael Collum said:

by the biblical standard, the whole body is immature because of all the divisions among us .. no matter how "mature" people may appear by human standards .

Click to expand...

No, I wasn't talking about mature by human standards.
But there are certainly Christians who are not interested
in the divisions of men.

sunlover1 said:

No, I wasn't talking about mature by human standards.
But there are certainly Christians who are not interested
in the divisions of men.

Click to expand...

hmm the resonance seems offended . apologies .

[B said:

Mathetes the kerux[/B] ]
I hate having to do this every so often . . . but
Here is the case for what was spoke, the common "unintelligible speech" that we hear in tongue speak . . . and that the miracle was more in the hearing than in the speaking.

The first thing to consider is the usage of glwssaiV lalien(speaking in tongues) in historical context. It is widely known that the ecstatic usage of tongues was widely practiced during the time of New Testament (NT) Palestine in the whole Mediterranian due to the so-called mystery religions/cults.

The Pythian and Delphic oracles were known to spout unintelligible prophecies that needed an interpreter when the women were said to be under the influence of a supernatural entity (pagan gods). This provides the usage of profhthV and glwssaiV lalien in Koine history in association with non-human unintelligible speech.

The phrase speaking in tongues, while not necessarily connoting ecstaic speech, does certainly INCLUDE this dimension of usage. Most limited lexicons give very brief and simplisitc overviews of the Koine Greek . . . the best, recognised universally, is G. Kittle's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT). I would suggest a view of the article on glwssa.

The historical concept of the profhthV and their speech and the contrast of the mystical concept of the pnuema verses the nouV pretty much seals the deal that the speech was not of the understanding . . . but from the place within that connected with what extends beyond the understanding. This can be defined as ecstatic.

So lets define ecstatic. A compound verb from ek (out of) and estemi (to stand) making ekstasiV, or literally out of stance . . . it has the connotation of out of NORMAL stance. Hence it has been used in reference to a vision (Acts 10:10) and amazement (Mark 5:42).

Our common conception of ecstatic, someone running around bumping into walls and frothing at the mouth is NOT what is in view . . . hence to read our current colloquial usage is folly. Truly, any gifting or move of the Spirit can be ecstatic if demonstrative enough to cause amazement . . . or even the specially edowed prophetic utterances whose source is not from "normalcy" but the supernatural working of the Spirit. This usage is in view when I say "ecstatic" . . . it is thoroughly biblical and wholesome.

To the text of Acts 2:

We have already established that there is an understanding of ecstatic NON-human language in the usage of the Konie glwssaiV lalien, although not a necessary understanding. The context will have to determine our understanding.

The first concept of import is in the word eterais (other) . . . the clear concept of the word includes something that was different than their normal tongue and something that was altogether new to them. Hence, whatever it was that they spoke . . . it was NOT something that they were familiar with . . . not something that was in their history of personal usage.

The second concept is that the speech was inspired by the pnuema (Spirit). Many studies have overlooked this vital concept. The history of the word is one of mystical and other-worldy usage. It is derrived from the pn a linguistic construct that pointed to the unknown and supernatural representing the rough breath and mystery the ancients associated with breathing and air. Hence, pnuema, connotes a supernatural unknown mysterious feeling.

The connection with pnuema and speech (laleo or cognates) cannot be overemphasized . . . the history of association from Plato and others in Ancient Greek of the mystery of speech inspired by the pnuema carries into the NT with the concept of the Holy Spirit of God. This connection wasn't unqiue to the Greeks . . . Hebrews associated the same mystery as did most ancient cultures.

This background lays the foundation for a type of speech which is obviously supernatural and patently *other* worldy. At this point it may still be known foreign languages supernaturally imparted, however.

The next touchpoint is the use of fonhV (sound). It is singular . . . not plural. That means that when the masses heard what it was that they heard . . . it was ONE loud sound . . . not many variable sounds. The sound of a group not individuals. This leads to the conclusion that what they gathered to was NOT a speech, per se, procession . . . but something much more awkward . . . obtruse.

Here is where the arguement begins to take more form, and from the Greek becomes quite clear. The text will be helpful:

Acts 2:6-8
6 And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language. Acts
7 They were amazed and astonished, saying, " Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 "And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born?
NASU

NASU

The key is the singular and plural usage. "each one" ekstatoV eiV (each man singular) is the men hearing. Each individual heard them (autwn first [v. 6] plural and ekstatoV second [v. 8] SINGULAR) . . . AS A GROUP. The picture is of each man hearing them (plural) as a GROUP (singular). One hears ALL of them speaking in Parthian, while the man next to him hears THE SAME MEN (AS A GROUP) speaking in Mede AT THE SAME TIME . . . and it continues down the line.

Illustration: I am speaking in (whatever) and I have a Mexican, Russian and African all in front of me . . . the Mexican man is hearing me in Spanish, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME the Russian is hearing me in Russian WHILE AT THE SAME TIME the African is hearing me in African.

TDNT sees the sealing issue the Ioudaian (Judean's) as original (meaning it is in the original autographa). As such . . . this means that you have Judeans (local Jews) suprised to hear Judean's (the disciples) speaking Judean! BIG PROBLEMS. The resolution is that they are mystified because everyone is hearing their own dialects coming from the same men at the same time . . . which is physiologically impossible.

The case then becomes more of a miracle of hearing . . . than a miracle of speaking. The miracle is that the men gather at a strange sound, something uncommon (foreign languages are hardly uncommon) and are further dismayed as they are each able miraculously to understand this formerly strange sound in their own dialects AT THE SAME TIME AS THE MAN NEXT TO THEM from the WHOLE GROUP OF DISCIPLES.

Add to this that those who gathered and heard the noise and DID NOT understand accused the disciples of being DRUNK (ever heard a drunk man speak unintelligibly? I have) and you have a pretty solid case that the tongues of Acts 2 were ecstatic unintelligible languages who the Holy Spirit imparted understanding of to the men who would be converted.
​

Click to expand...

So what your saying is that at the miracle of Pentacost, the Apostles were talking gibberish...just like modern Pentacostals do in their church is that right?

Doc said:

What are the childish things Paul refers to in 1 Corinth 13:11

Click to expand...

[B said:

razeontherock[/B]] Not Spiritual gifts, that's for sure! You don't get them by acting childish.

Click to expand...

So what are they then in your opinion?

razeontherock said:

You pretend like you know this stuff?!? This is why you need DISCIPLESHIP:

1 Cor 14:4 He that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue edifieth himself"

Just blew all your theology full of holes. No apologies, it's good for us when it happens.

Click to expand...

Why did you only quote half of 1 Cor 14:4?

14:4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.​

Could it because if you quoted the whole verse then it would make your own theology look like a seive?

It's patently obvious that Paul is comparing the SELFISHNESS of edifying yourself by speaking a foreign language in the company of unlearned to the act of TEACHING which by defintion means to offer something to the unlearned to help them become learned which EDIFIES THEM.

Intellectual dishonesty on your part sir.

Dr.Strangelove said:

So what your saying is that at the miracle of Pentacost, the Apostles were talking gibberish...just like modern Pentacostals do in their church is that right?

Click to expand...

No, they were speaking ecstatic unintelligble speech . . . that SOUNDED like gibberish to those who wouldnt respond in faith, but rather mocked "hey they are drunk"

Those who would come to faith, new the initial sound that they heard, and were thusly FLOORED when the came near and each heard in their own tongue . . . knowing that they shouldnt be.

Dr.Strangelove said:

So rare in fact that when I asked for a 'healer' or a 'prophet' to come forward......there is not a single one who is prepared to declare their gift of God and answer questions about said gift.

Rare like the dodo.

Of course we got plenty with the 'tongues'. Wonder why that is? So many gifted in that dept.

Click to expand...

That would probably be because that is not what the text says about how the gifts work.



Thats like saying an apple isnt an apple but your really looking for an orange. Doesnt work. Your criteria is wrong and thus will never be met.

Mathetes the kerux said:

No, they were speaking ecstatic unintelligble speech . . . that SOUNDED like gibberish to those who wouldnt respond in faith, but rather mocked "hey they are drunk"

Click to expand...

So the drunk comment couldn't possibly have anything to do with the mockers trying to discredit the people who were the vessels for this astonishing miracle?

Are you high? (illustrating a point )

Barnes notes:

These men are full of new wine - These men are drunk. In times of a revival of religion men will have some way of accounting for the effects of the gospel, and the way is commonly about as wise and rational as the one adopted on this occasion. "To escape the absurdity of acknowledging their own ignorance, they adopted the theory that strong drink can teach languages" (Dr. McLelland). In modern times it has been usual to denominate such scenes fanaticism, or wildfire, or enthusiasm. When people fail in argument, it is common to attempt to confute a doctrine or bring reproach upon a transaction by "giving it an ill name."

Wesley:

"Thus natural men are wont to ascribe supernatural things to mere natural causes; and many times as impudently and unskilfully as in the present case."

New Geneva Bible:

"..and by this reproachful mocking we see that no matter how great and excellent the miracle, the wickedness of man still dares to speak evil against it."

Gill:

"...a very foolish and impertinent cavil this; there was, at this time of the year, no new wine, just pressed, or in the fat; and if there had been any, and they were full of it, it could never have furnished them with a faculty of speaking with many tongues; men generally lose their tongues by intemperance."

Does the opinion of these scholars, that make no mention of the drunk/gibberish association, hold ANY weight with you whatsoever. Any?

Mathetes the kerux said:

Those who would come to faith, new the initial sound that they heard, and were thusly FLOORED when the came near and each heard in their own tongue . . . knowing that they shouldnt be.

Click to expand...

Mate, you are reaching. They began to speak with other tongues in V4. tongues which are then LISTED in V9/10/11.

When this was 'noised abroad' means when the rumor of this transaction was spread the multitudes came together, NOT when this babble like noise was heard they came closer to hear more clearly. Sheesh man.

TBH you are making a complet mockery of the miracle that happened at Pentacos if your trying to say that the Apostles had babble spewing out of their mouths.

If Pentacostal tongues are the same as the Acts tongues...they why when the Pentes talk gibberish IT SOUNDS LIKE GIBBERISH to the listeners but when the Apostles did in Acts every man heard in their own tongue?

Dr.Strangelove said:

Why did you only quote half of 1 Cor 14:4?

14:4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.​

Could it because if you quoted the whole verse then it would make your own theology look like a seive?

It's patently obvious that Paul is comparing the SELFISHNESS of edifying yourself by speaking a foreign language in the company of unlearned to the act of TEACHING which by defintion means to offer something to the unlearned to help them become learned which EDIFIES THEM.

Intellectual dishonesty on your part sir.

Click to expand...

Not even close. You're trying to project the idea that Spiritual gifts are childish and therefore no more into the text, while at the same time you want to defend Prophecy, the Spiritual gift we're told to covet. Hypocrisy much?

You had asked where does Scripture say praying in tongues edifies yourself - I showed you.

Moving the goalposts on your part.

Look at the idea for what it is and learn that much. THEN go on to more. And don't pretend sentence structure and verse delineations are part of the text, because they are not. Deal with the info presented, rather than brushing it aside. Put it in it's proper place, and then try to add more.

(Oh and Discipleship works better in person!)