2000 silent years - why?

[ViaCrucis]

Acts 2 tongues was recognised because bi-lingual Jews from all over the known World were present. This is very unusual, unique even.
Later in Acts people still spoke in tongues, even though there was no-one else there except apostles who were trying to preach to them.

Tongues never was for preaching to people, it is talking to God, "praying in the Spirit" - see 1 Cor. 14:2, 4, 14-18.

"he that speaks in an unknown tongue speaks not unto men, but unto God: ..."


Also "the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered." (Romans 8:26)
The language(s) is unknown to the speaker.
If you have never spokken in tongues you are still carnally/fleshy minded, you CANNOT understand the things of God.

I'm not sure why the KJV adds the word "unknown" to the text. It's not in the Greek. It's seemingly pulled from no where.

The text simply says ὁ γὰρ λαλῶν γλώσσῃ, glosse meaning "language".

There's no indication in Scripture that the charism of glossolalia was ever anything other than intelligible languages.

Ecstatic gibberish is a feature in some shamanistic religions and the Pentecostal movement; but has never been a feature of Christianity, neither in apostolic times or today. It's a modern fabrication.

Making ecstatic gibberish a requisite for salvation is a rather emphatic rejection of the Gospel, it's what St. Paul would call "another gospel" which he clearly says is anathema.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[StormHawk]

I'm not sure why the KJV adds the word "unknown" to the text. It's not in the Greek. It's seemingly pulled from no where.

Nonsense!
It is obvious from the passage and the other verses I quoted that tongues is unknown to the speaker, these languages do not come from the mind of the speaker.

Science has since proven that to the non-believer.

The text simply says ὁ γὰρ λαλῶν γλώσσῃ, glosse meaning "language".

There's no indication in Scripture that the charism of glossolalia was ever anything other than intelligible languages.

Yes they are tongues of men and of angels, all intelligible by God and some by men, but they are not for teaching other people, they are to allow the HolySpirit to lead the believer in prayer according to the perfect will of God, ministering God's love and peace that passes our understanding.

Ecstatic gibberish is a feature in some shamanistic religions and the Pentecostal movement; but has never been a feature of Christianity, neither in apostolic times or today. It's a modern fabrication.

Christianity started with all members, Jew, Gentile, male, female speaking in new tongues (Mark 16:17). It was not "ecstatic" because you can control how long, loud you do it and it happens when you believe the message of Jesus & desire Him. Modern fake "christianity" doesn't have this faith and desire so it makes ignorant comments and irrelevant comparisons.

Making ecstatic gibberish a requisite for salvation is a rather emphatic rejection of the Gospel, it's what St. Paul would call "another gospel" which he clearly says is anathema.

Paul preached the gospel of Jesus Christ in Acts 19. His first question (v2) was
"Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?"

This shows 2 things:
1) he knows that just because a person believes doesn't mean they have received the Spirit

2) there must be some way of knowing that you have received the Spirit

He then learns that they only know what John the Baptist taught so he baptises them unto Jesus. After this he knows they still have not yet received the Spirit because he prays with them (laying on hands) ... and he knows precisely when they receive the Spirit - they start speaking in tongues and then they prophesy.

This is in total agreement with what the other apostles taught (Acts 2:33, 10:44-48), what I preach and you oppose it - obviously Paul would turn your words to me against you, as I do.

 

[1Feather]

Don't you find it a little odd that God has been silent for 2000 years?

According to the traditional understanding, the canon is closed, and there is no new Scripture. God hasn't given prophesy to the world (at least, not in a way the world has heard). So why?

2000 years is a LONG time, a long silent dry time. Why?

"For God does speak, now one way, now another, though man may not perceive it." Job 33:14

 

[Rawtheran]

Don't you find it a little odd that God has been silent for 2000 years?

According to the traditional understanding, the canon is closed, and there is no new Scripture. God hasn't given prophesy to the world (at least, not in a way the world has heard). So why?

2000 years is a LONG time, a long silent dry time. Why?

God has certainly not stopped talking to the world at all. If anything there are still Prophets out there in the Church, and we are seeing Bible prophecy being fulfilled even as we speak such as the return of the Jewish people to Israel.