Speak in Tongues - essential :

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

It has nothing to do with "it doesn't fit with their doctrine", after all the Lutheran Confessions quote from it regularly in regard to the importance of Baptism. The point is that the Longer Ending of Mark is considered spurious, I'm not saying that because the Ending is bothersome to my own theology (it's not, there's nothing in the Longer Ending that I find theologically objectionable); however personal opinions and feelings aside, it is generally understood that the Longer Ending is spurious. The existence of variant endings to Mark, along with the absence of any of these endings in the manuscript record, indicate that Mark likely ended at verse 8; but endings were written latter and appended to Mark because as it stands Mark seems to end very abruptly--some see in this abrupt ending an intentional abruption to leave the reader feeling a sense of awe, others have suggested that it may have been left unfinished for one reason or another. But that the Longer Ending isn't authentically Marcan is pretty well accepted given the evidence we have. This isn't the only example we have, the Pericope Adulterae is also absent from our earliest manuscripts of John, and in several cases appears in Luke's Gospel, leading many to believe that it was a free-floating tradition that existed independently of the Four Gospels that at times was incorporated into Luke, and other times into John before ultimately being included in John (this doesn't make the Pericope Adulterae false, only that it wasn't originally written by the Fourth Evangelist), other free-floating traditions exist in antiquity, though these never made it into any Gospel text, one example being the Egerton Fragment (Papyrus Egerton 2) which contains several parallels to the Canonical Gospels, but also includes an otherwise unknown miracle.

My point is simply that we should tread carefully with the Longer Ending and not hang our hat too hard on it, due to it being spurious. There's nothing theologically objectionable, but in all truth wasn't written by the Second Evangelist, and its veracity is open to question.

-CryptoLutheran

I see where you're coming from now....but if you think this is a verse I typically use or that's emphasized that's not the case. I was simply responding to the claim that JESUS never mentions speaking in tounques, whether the verse fits or not is up to anyone to believe I suppose however it's in there is what I was saying. It is one of the more controversial verses in the bible I agree...but so is acts 2:38 for example it's just how it is.

 

[Jesus4Ever]

even if you disagree with him putting a laughing response is just disrespectful. I've seen post on this website I think are just insane but I respect it and move on or address it, if you laugh at peoples arguments instead of saying why you think it's wrong you look immature anyway. For starters I agree with him not just because the bible but mainly because you become so much more powerful after a speaking in tounques experience (this is based off my experience and what i've seen from others too after it) spiritually that I don't see how you can last without the experience. You also see the impact it had on the apostles in the bible as well.

Well perhaps He should write in a coherent manner...

And I agree that speaking in tongues is a sign of the Holy Spirit but it does not say in Scripture that the Holy Spirit causes everyone to speak in tongues.

Plus he's writing about it as if we have a choice to speak in tongues. Our choice is in whether or not we will accept Jesus. Speaking in tongues is a gift bestowed by God.

 

[Strong in Him]

response to A): Well for starters JESUS hasn't died yet at this time he was sort of informing of a future event..just like when he told hte apostles about how they would receive power. The holy spirit is the spirit of christ and power that could be received as a result of his resurrection which didn't happen yet.

?? Mark 16:17 was said after the resurrection, s I don't understand that comment.

REsponse to B): Be careful with manuscript stuff....people use the same evidence to dispute Noah's Ark even being a thing, it's best to stick with your bible.

Sure, the verse is in the Bible. But if scholars say that the verses were not in original manuscripts, I have no reason to dispute that.

response to C): You simply made the claim that JESUS never told us to speak in tounques...there's no need to try to change the subject to commanding.

No, but my point remains.
He did not teach about speaking in tongues, tell us to seek it, do it, or say it would automatically happen when the Holy Spirit came. He is saying what would happen; not teaching, or commanding, that all believers do it.

Response to D): Everyone else post his resurrection did though lol.

Most appear to have done so. That doesn't mean that everyone has to, otherwise they don't have the Spirit and don't belong to God - which is what the OP says.

Also some argue he did when the disciples were trying to figure out what he was saying in the bible

"Some argue he did ...."
You want to be careful with what other people say; best just to stick to the Bible.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

Well perhaps He should write in a coherent manner...

And I agree that speaking in tongues is a sign of the Holy Spirit but it does not say in Scripture that the Holy Spirit causes everyone to speak in tongues.

Plus he's writing about it as if we have a choice to speak in tongues. Our choice is in whether or not we will accept Jesus. Speaking in tongues is a gift bestowed by God.

True paul didn't receive it speaking in tounques initially at least.

 

[Strong in Him]

i'm not promoting this verse...i'm simply responding to your claim that he never said to speak in tounques lol...

He didn't say TO speak in tongues - i.e, it was not one of his teachings that when the Spirit came, all believer would speak in tongues. In John 14 and 16, Jesus told his disciples quite a few things about the Holy Spirit; that he would teach them, glorify Jesus etc etc. He did not mention tongues, far less say that all believers had to do it.

IF Mark 16:17 is something that Jesus really said, then, yes, he MENTIONS that people will speak in tongues. I realise that; I knew of this verse before I asked.
But my point is that Jesus did not teach, before his resurrection, that believers had to speak in tongues; that this was a definite sign of new birth and would automatically be given to everyone. So he did not tell believers TO speak in tongues.

Incidentally - minor detail - please could you spell tongues correctly?

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

?? Mark 16:17 was said after the resurrection, s I don't understand that comment.



Sure, the verse is in the Bible. But if scholars say that the verses were not in original manuscripts, I have no reason to dispute that.




No, but my point remains.
He did not teach about speaking in tongues, tell us to seek it, do it, or say it would automatically happen when the Holy Spirit came. He is saying what would happen; not teaching, or commanding, that all believers do it.



Most appear to have done so. That doesn't mean that everyone has to, otherwise they don't have the Spirit and don't belong to God - which is what the OP says.



"Some argue he did ...."
You want to be careful with what other people say; best just to stick to the Bible.

1. The gospels were different views of JESUS and his actions while he walked the Earth. This was pre pentocost.


2. Scholars also dispute other sections of the bible is what i'm saying... but sure that's your choice.


3. Why would he teach something that isn't set to happen until after his resurrection??? ANd again I never said JESUS commanded all believers to speak in tounques that's where you seem to be confused here. Additionally my point remains that it's not a coincidence that that's what happened though post his death and resurrection.


4. If most do it why not do it? And if they benefited from it why not seek it? And the only reason I would say miost is because JESUS didn't but JESUS wasn't just a man. I mean you're not JESUS and neither am I, we are men like Paul and the others who did post pentecost.


5. I was just throwing out a sort of extra perspective with the argument that some others make...it's a biblical based one btw though so it's still sticking with the bible. But yeah that wasn't a serious argument was just adding an extra perspective.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

He didn't say TO speak in tongues - i.e, it was not one of his teachings that when the Spirit came, all believer would speak in tongues. In John 14 and 16, Jesus told his disciples quite a few things about the Holy Spirit; that he would teach them, glorify Jesus etc etc. He did not mention tongues, far less say that all believers had to do it.

IF Mark 16:17 is something that Jesus really said, then, yes, he MENTIONS that people will speak in tongues. I realise that; I knew of this verse before I asked.
But my point is that Jesus did not teach, before his resurrection, that believers had to speak in tongues; that this was a definite sign of new birth and would automatically be given to everyone. So he did not tell believers TO speak in tongues.

Incidentally - minor detail - please could you spell tongues correctly?

People seem to be confused by what i'm saying...i'm not saying JESUS sat down with people and taught them to speak in tounques and be baptized and repent and such. All I said was that he mentioned believers will speak in tounques. I posted this verse merely for that lol people are blowing my response out of proportion. If i was out here promoting teachings on baptism and holy spirit reception I would have used a lot more verses. I was simply addressing one claim.

 

[swordsman1]

Here it is Mark 16:17-18King James Version (KJV) And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

If Jesus in this verse is teaching that all believers would speak in tongues then it contradicts what Paul wrote in 1 Cor 12:29, Rom 12:4-6, 1 Cor 12:8-10, and 1 Cor 12:17-20 (see my previous post). One of them is lying.

Jesus also said they would pick up deadly snakes and drink poison without coming to harm. Does that also apply to all believers today?

Clearly not. It must only apply to a select few. (such as Paul when he was bitten by deadly vipers in Malta).

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

If Jesus in this verse is teaching that all believers would speak in tongues then it contradicts what Paul wrote in 1 Cor 12:29, Rom 12:4-6, 1 Cor 12:8-10, and 1 Cor 12:17-20 (see my previous post). One of them is lying.

Jesus also said they would pick up deadly snakes and drink poison without coming to harm. Does that also apply to all believers today?

Clearly not. It must only apply to a select few. (such as Paul when he was bitten by deadly vipers in Malta).

again like the others you're misunderstanding what I stated. I simply said that JESUS mentioned believers speaking in tounques...I wasn't utilizing this verse to defend that speaking in tounques is essential.

ALso I am familiar with those verses spoken by paul...but i'm not sure how they dispute his belief of speaking in tounques could you elaborate on your argument?

And tbh it depends on how you define believer if you define it as just believing in JESUS...which is reportedly almost everyone in the world...then I guess not lol.

 

[swordsman1]

ALso I am familiar with those verses spoken by paul...but i'm not sure how they dispute his belief of speaking in tounques could you elaborate on your argument?

According to Paul not everyone has the same gift. Different gifts are given to different people.

 

[Strong in Him]

People seem to be confused by what i'm saying...i'm not saying JESUS sat down with people and taught them to speak in tounques and be baptized and repent and such. All I said was that he mentioned believers will speak in tounques. I posted this verse merely for that lol people are blowing my response out of proportion. If i was out here promoting teachings on baptism and holy spirit reception I would have used a lot more verses. I was simply addressing one claim.

I know what you're saying.
My argument is that Jesus does not say in Mark 16:17, that believers are to speak in tongues; that it's something they he is instructing them to do.
There is ONE verse in the Gospels where Jesus, apparently, says, after the resurrection, that future believers will speak in tongues. He is commenting on something that will happen - not teaching that this is something that all believers have to do.
This ONE verse has the words "Jesus" and "speaking in tongues" in the same sentence - that doesn't prove that Jesus taught about speaking in tongues, its desirability or necessity.

 

[jaybird88]

Are you suggesting that JESUS never mentioned to speak in tounques at all?

He never taught to speak in an angel language.
He did teach against babbling like pagans.
Matthew 6:7
And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.

 

[Strong in Him]

The O.P says that speaking in tongues is essential, and that those who cannot do this, do not have the Spirit.
I asked him where Jesus taught that believers have to speak in tongues.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

According to Paul not everyone has the same gift. Different gifts are given to different people.

well speaking in tounques initially after the holy ghost is a sign. Also in prayer some including myself experience speaking in tounques as well when communicating with God but that's just a sign not a special gift.


The gift is mentioned in corinthians which is presenting a message from God to a congregation that needs an interpreter.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

The O.P says that speaking in tongues is essential, and that those who cannot do this, do not have the Spirit.
I asked him where Jesus taught that believers have to speak in tongues.

oh.... like I was saying I didn't know that i thought you were just saying where does JESUS even mention to speak in tounques.

But as I stated already though JESUS walking the Earth was the 5th period of time pre pentecost, pre acts 2:38 pre Joel's prophecy being fulfilled so logically JESUS wouldn't really teach believers of something that wasn't going to take place until after his death. He does foreshadow it in a way when he mentions the comforter that will teach all things and the power from on high but never mentions tounques in that statement. ALthough tounques is what we see a lot of on that day I get your point nevertheless regardless of the reasons I mention for example he doesn't sit down and teach it is the what you're pointing out.

I am curious to how the OP will respond to your question though but yeah my bad for hte misunderstanding just I didn't see "have" in your response or I missed it if it was there.

 

[Yarddog]

Absolutely !!!

Receive the Holy Ghost and the immediate outward evidence speaking in tongues as the spirit gives direct undefileable contact with GOD !

Just as in the beginning ..Acts 2v4.. included Mary the mother of Jesus....

Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (MUST)

Joh 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth....according to the word, to pray in the Spirit :

1Co 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

1Co 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

Ac 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.


the first 2 is your part...the third is Gods seal of approval !

Holy Ghost + speaking in tongues .. no tongues no Spirit..

Ro 8:9 .............Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Not to be confused with the demonstration IN THE CHURCH (max 3) to show you are who you say you are !!
when you pray..go to your closet, private place and pray...


confess Jesus Christ..his way...

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

package deal

obtain the Grace,Mercy and Faith that Jesus Christ has made avaliable to whomsoever will..

or have the adversaries religious confusion..just words no power !

You seem to be neglecting all of the scriptural verses where people were baptized and tongues were not heard.

 

[jaybird88]

Here it is Mark 16:17-18King James Version (KJV) And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

new tongues simply means new language. this was the great commission, they were going out into the world to places that spoke different languages.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

new tongues simply means new language. this was the great commission, they were going out into the world to places that spoke different languages.

Can't say I've ever heard that interpretation before from any body in in general it's uh.. how do you put it interesting to say the least though and I see the logic behind it.

 

[1stcenturylady]

A Pentecostal pastor and I were talking about speaking in tongues during lunch after church. I told him I had heard people talking in unintelligible prayer languages during Charismatic services with no one to interpret. It sounded like gibberish. I was skeptical about the value of such behavior. He told me that once in his career he had a lady in his church talking in a modern language that she had not studied before.

If I want to speak in a foreign tongue, I might have to get out my Spanish workbook and start reviewing grammar and vocabulary again. It does not seem prudent as I live in a place where most of the people speak English. I learned it without using it and I forgot it. Four year old children were able to learn a second language while in the presence of someone/people teaching the language. Some people have the talent to learn multiple languages in their lifetime. My brother teaches in a school district where the immigrant students spoke different primary languages. He used Google translate for class handouts. I imagine translation software will become more advanced with artificial intelligence. This need for God to have people who could speak more than one language is required for the teaching of the Gospel to all nations. I think God instructed some people to learn languages, others to study medicine, etc.

You don't need to know what is being said if someone is praying to God by themselves and you overhear them. That is the sign of tongues of Mark 16:17. It is only the gift of tongues from 1 Cor. 12 that someone might be gifted in to stand up and proclaim a message FROM God in tongues that has to be interpreted.

Speaking in tongues is not learning more than one language.

 

[Strong in Him]

oh.... like I was saying I didn't know that i thought you were just saying where does JESUS even mention to speak in tounques.


I am curious to how the OP will respond to your question though but yeah my bad for hte misunderstanding just I didn't see "have" in your response or I missed it if it was there.

It's fine; I probably didn't explain myself properly.

Basically, I know that in Mark 16:17, Jesus appeared to his disciples and told them that signs would follow those who believed. Speaking in tongues was one of them; others include drinking poison. There is some controversy over whether Jesus himself said this, or if it was a comment that was added later. But even if Jesus did say it; commenting on something that was going to happen, is not the same as sitting down with his disciples to teach about speaking in tongues.
I know you didn't say that it was, but the OP appears to be saying this - and that tongues is essential for salvation.

I'm interested to see how he responds too.