Speaking in Tongues and (Google) interpretation

[now faith]

I met a guy who's gift of interpretation would operate for people praying in tongues. It's quite rare for it to operate that way I think, since it is mostly associated with interpreting the spoken tongue in the assembly, but all 3 of the inspirational gifts are able to be stepped out and operated at will, but most only learn to operate their prayer tongue.

Amen, We edify ourselves praying in a unknown tongue.
The Gift of prophesy in a unknown tongue is special, yet the same Holy Spirit.
To have a interpretation is needed, unfortunately today it is rare.
Of all the Gifts it is the most critized, oddly enough medical science has proven tongues are not easy to fake.
MRI shows the part of the brain shuts down that is responsible for cognitive thought while praying in tongues.

 

[now faith]

not trying to be skeptical but i thought speaking in tongue is a gift from God i didnt know one can do it at will....

We Pray in tongues for our understanding, We also sing in the Spirit.
Give God The praise he deserves praise the lord till you get happy, because when we praise God He looks upon us.
You may feel down praise God.
in everything give God the glory, and watch your joy increase in His presence.
I have been through some tough times this past year, Christ has never left or forsaken me.
I may not feel the presence of God yet I know He's with me.
He has delivered my family and myself from sickness quickly.
Yes it was hard, yes I wondered if the pain would ever stop.
I never doubted that our Lord would deliver me.
He Did now my Daughter is going through it, I tell her Joy will come in the morning, and it will.

 

[Disciple_mike]

I have just finished watching a cessationist video where the speaker said that tongues is preaching the gospel in understandable world languages. He said that when the disciples on the Day of Pentecost spoke in tongues they were preaching the gospel to the crowd who heard them in their own languages, and when Peter got up to speak, he continued to address them in tongues.

So, let's look at the Acts references to tongues and see what the Bible actually says.
Acts 2:1-15:


Here they started to speak in tongues. Note that it says "as the Spirit gave them utterance". This means that they didn't make it up. The Spirit enabled them to speak languages they had never learned.


The people in the crowd were bewildered, because each heard the disciples speaking in his own language. They were amazed because they knew that the speakers were Galileans, who they knew would not have any way of knowing all the regional languages the disciples were speaking. Ordinary Galileans would be able to speak Aramaic and Greek, and would not be likely to have been able to speak Hebrew, because it was the educated Jews who could do that.


Note that they were speaking the mighty works of God. There is no mention that they were preaching the Gospel. Therefore the view that they were preaching the Gospel in tongues to the crowd is adding something into the text that isn't there.


Now Peter gets up and explains to the crowd what the tongues meant, and goes on to preach the Gospel to them. There is nothing in the text that he continued in tongues when he started preaching. It is quite probable that he preached in either Aramaic or Greek and the crowd, knowing both languages would have understood. He didn't need to preach in tongues. So the idea that he preached in tongues is also reading into the text something that isn't there at all.

Let's look at what happened to Cornelius and his family:


Notice in this passage, Peter preaches the Gospel to them. He doesn't preach to them in tongues. He used Greek, because he was preaching to a Gentile who probably knew Greek better than Aramaic.



It was after Peter preached the Gospel to them that the Holy Spirit fell and they spoke in tongues. But they weren't speaking the Gospel at all. They were praising and extolling God for His wonderful works just like the disciples at Pentecost. Peter told the Apostles at Jerusalem later on that "the Holy Spirit fell on them in the same way He fell on us."

Let's now look at the Ephesus disciples:



Notice here that Paul preached the Gospel to these disciples in the Greek language, and then baptised them in the name of Jesus. He did not preach to them in tongues. It was after he preached that the Holy Spirit fell on these men. There is no mention in the text that they preached the Gospel when they spoke in tongues and prophesied.

So what we see in these three references to tongues in Acts, that the Scripture as it is written, does not support anyone preaching the Gospel in tongues. The cessationist view that tongues was used to preach the Gospel is a product of eisegesis not exegesis. They are reading into the text what is not there. Therefore the teaching that tongues is used to preach the Gospel is false, and there is no evidence that tongues were ever used to preach the Gospel anywhere. The teaching that when Paul spoke in tongues more than all the Corinthians, he was using tongues to preach the Gospels wherever he went is totally false.

hi, the problem with the Cessationist view and subsequent teaching on this particular topic .Is that it has to be based in unbelief .That mindset that says ."I don't beleive it can be so, therefore it is not so. Any teaching that comes from that stance is going to be full of Holes. (and that can equally occur in the opposite extreme of what I call Sensationalism also) I find it difficult to accept their teachings (on this topic) as sincere when they ignore so much scripture to arrive at their conclusions.
One of the Major points ignored is the "diversity" of tongues Paul speaks of . there are tongues for differing times and purposes . one being that prayer language as we like to call it in lack of a better reference . Paul states, "when a man speaks in an UNKNOWN tongue he speaks to God and NOT to men for no man understands him . That in itself displays so plainly that there is a type of tongues that is not "speaking language" to other people and is also not for interpretation as that spoken out loud in the context of a gathering .It is scriptural points like this that discredit the Cessationist on this topic .

 

[john the youngest]

Paul states, "when a man speaks in an UNKNOWN tongue he speaks to God and NOT to men for no man understands him . That in itself displays so plainly that there is a type of tongues that is not "speaking language" to other people and is also not for interpretation as that spoken out loud in the context of a gathering .It is scriptural points like this that discredit the Cessationist on this topic .

How does this follow, if a man speaks in an unknown, Stygian language that no one there at that place understands, he is still speaking to God.

Also, the cessationists vs (common) gifts camps have something like a false dichotomy between them, which tends to occur when two sides claim they are the only two sides that exist, and create a false thing between them. There are other views, and I'm sure I agree with neither of these.

ps, there is no word unknown in the greek here, that is why the kjb puts it in italics, one of the few bible versions that uses unknown here - most of the list of translations I'm looking at right now do not. For the purpose of edification and clearer discussion by defining what's in Bible.
fyi 1 Corinthians 14:2 Greek Text Analysis

 

[john the youngest]

not trying to be skeptical but i thought speaking in tongue is a gift from God i didnt know one can do it at will....

I wonder whether "grace" not gift is a better translation. Grace seems like it could be a translation of the greek, and grace is how I understand gifts to operate. By the grace God gives me.

 

[john the youngest]

But how do you know it comes from God and not a counterfeit?

This is a serious question. First, is the grace even biblical. If you claim to God by His grace answers your prayers on healing, and you call healing wacking a person on the head so their flesh can be sore so their spirit is healed, is this what the bible calls healing (and alas, an argument about discipline could even keep that argument going about it being healing). So does the bible say that thing is.

Second, is it from God. Something can seem to be true in a physical sense, miraculous, and yet not be the right spirit or from God and still be false. I've seen someone give me a prophecy that seemed to occur (and not one I wanted - I don't want prophecies from someone (and here something else) when I pray, I just want to wait for God to answer), it happened as far as it went for the next 12 years, and yet it was obviously the wrong spirit and false in the end.

A waste of time, meant as discouragement, and possible to delay me from praying more - who knows what the devil was thinking, but I know what I am praying about it now.

 

[john the youngest]

1Co 14:14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.

Are you reading this as your understanding is fruitful in yourself - in which case understanding gives fruit to additional understanding just by itself - seems subjective. Or are you reading this as your understanding bears fruit in someone else, because he now understands? The surrounding paragraph seems to mean the latter. 16Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

How does this follow, if a man speaks in an unknown, Stygian language that no one there at that place understands, he is still speaking to God.

Also, the cessationists vs (common) gifts camps have something like a false dichotomy between them, which tends to occur when two sides claim they are the only two sides that exist, and create a false thing between them. There are other views, and I'm sure I agree with neither of these.

ps, there is no word unknown in the greek here, that is why the kjb puts it in italics, one of the few bible versions that uses unknown here - most of the list of translations I'm looking at right now do not. For the purpose of edification and clearer discussion by defining what's in Bible.
fyi 1 Corinthians 14:2 Greek Text Analysis

Common sense would tell us that the reference to an unknown tongue would apply to a language unknown to the speaker but known to God, because the verse says that the person speaking in the language to God. Therefore just because the language is unknown to others, it does not mean that it is unknown to God as well. When I first read the post I wondered if the member believes that God is not a real person who understands language unknown to anyone else.

 

[john the youngest]

I have just finished watching a cessationist video where the speaker said that tongues is preaching the gospel in understandable world languages.

So if I go to a language school and learn german, it's tongues? Also, how does someone know if they didn't learn it some other way. Or, and here is a big one, is any of the languages spoken actually one they didn't already know.

One language mentioned in Acts isn't miraculous. Judean - why shouldn't a Jew speak as a Jew? A couple don't seem to be languages but types of people, and many are countries without distinct or completely distinct languages, so latin, greek, and various forms of Hebrew, Aramaic, Syrian - ie Semitic languages. We know Jesus had a lot of disciples who would have known a lot of languages, and even the apostles like Matthew would have known greek, latin, and a few dielects by his previous job as a tax collector. And the disciples wrote in Greek, and often times quoted the Greek Septuagint.

What the people were amazed at is they seemed to hear people from other countries praise God (even though pagans aren't suppose to know God), that is what was miraculous to them, like 1 Corinthians 14 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. It's a prophecy, and thus a sign to see.

" we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God". Praise to me is what I look at. Praise that won't come from the unsaved, and is a miracle to see - and which people often notice about someone after they are saved, they are acting and talking different.

 

[ARBITER01]

This is a safe house forum for those members who believe that the sign gifts are still active today. Criticizing or mocking members who hold that view is not allowed. If you wish to debate whether or not the sign gifts are still active today, please start a thread in the General Theology forum.

 

[Disciple_mike]

How does this follow, if a man speaks in an unknown, Stygian language that no one there at that place understands, he is still speaking to God.

Also, the cessationists vs (common) gifts camps have something like a false dichotomy between them, which tends to occur when two sides claim they are the only two sides that exist, and create a false thing between them. There are other views, and I'm sure I agree with neither of these.

ps, there is no word unknown in the greek here, that is why the kjb puts it in italics, one of the few bible versions that uses unknown here - most of the list of translations I'm looking at right now do not. For the purpose of edification and clearer discussion by defining what's in Bible.
fyi 1 Corinthians 14:2 Greek Text Analysis

thankyou for the info about the word unknown being in italics . i hadn't picked up on that one . good to know . but i think it stil does not change the meaning in any way .i would suggest they put the word unknown to define it as tongues as a gift from the holy spiirt rather then just plain human language . because as Paul makes clear , the tongues that comes by baptism in the holy Spirit ,is not always a human language .

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

This is a serious question. First, is the grace even biblical. If you claim to God by His grace answers your prayers on healing, and you call healing wacking a person on the head so their flesh can be sore so their spirit is healed, is this what the bible calls healing (and alas, an argument about discipline could even keep that argument going about it being healing). So does the bible say that thing is.

Seeing that Jesus is our example for someone ministering to the sick, do you see anywhere that Jesus whacked anyone on the head to heal them? Just because some extremist religious "healers" do outlandish things to minister their version of healing doesn't mean that what they are doing is right or Biblical.

Second, is it from God. Something can seem to be true in a physical sense, miraculous, and yet not be the right spirit or from God and still be false.

If the person is actually healed (which rarely happens in healing crusades) then it has to be of the Spirit of God, because the devil doesn't work against his own kingdom as Jesus demonstrated in His answer to the Pharisees who accused Him of casting demons out by the prince of demons.

In terms of healing, if the person is actually he I've seen someone give me a prophecy that seemed to occur (and not one I wanted - I don't want prophecies from someone (and here something else) when I pray, I just want to wait for God to answer), it happened as far as it went for the next 12 years, and yet it was obviously the wrong spirit and false in the end.

A waste of time, meant as discouragement, and possible to delay me from praying more - who knows what the devil was thinking, but I know what I am praying about it now.

Most prophecies given are by people who believe they are hearing from God by "faith" with no actual proof that they are actually hearing from Him. All you have to do is read Jeremiah 23 to see what God says about that. If you ask anyone who prophesies if they know for sure that it is God speaking to them, they will tell you that they are not quite sure but they step out "in faith" trusting that the word they give is from God. But if you read how the word of God came to His prophets in the Old Testament, they didn't have to guess, but they knew beyond doubt that God was speaking to them. Even Balaam, who was a pagan diviner who was expecting to be able to give a false prophecy cursing Israel, was interrupted by Yahweh who told him what to say or else. He didn't have to get a word "by faith", because Yahweh got him by the scruff of the neck and forced him to say the words He was giving him for Israel.

 

[john the youngest]

This is a safe house forum for those members who believe that the sign gifts are still active today. Criticizing or mocking members who hold that view is not allowed. If you wish to debate whether or not the sign gifts are still active today, please start a thread in the General Theology forum.

Oh, did someone say I violated this rule. I do believe the graces (gifts) are valid today, and I'm not a cessionists.

I agreed with the rules, but it is not clear what they mean, because people define "gifts" differently. Some believe they are a foreign language (I don't necessarily), and some believe it is a private prayer language (I don't necessarily either).

I haven't brought any of that discussion onto this thread, which are several posts deep now, nor am I aware to have committed to any view - other than saying I'm not either. I asked a bunch of questions for people to clarify what they meant - on posts they already tried defining things in.

I apologize if asking questions for people to clarify what they mean is viewed as debating - but I don't have an interest to push as far as a debate goes.

It go far if by "tongues" the faq said which tongues belief they meant we have to support. There's several mentioned on this thread - and no I didn't bring them up first or starting discussing.

 

[john the youngest]

thankyou for the info about the word unknown being in italics . i hadn't picked up on that one . good to know . but i think it stil does not change the meaning in any way .i would suggest they put the word unknown to define it as tongues as a gift from the holy spiirt rather then just plain human language . because as Paul makes clear , the tongues that comes by baptism in the holy Spirit ,is not always a human language .

Yes, I didn't know that once either - and I think my version didn't italicize it - it might have been in computer print and left it out. I'm not saying it will in the end be that useful, but it might help clarify talking about it.

I don't believe tongues is just a human language (although at this point Paul may have meant that be way of example), however, I believe Christians baptized by the Holy Spirit speak differently, even if using their own language, because they are speaking spiritual - this is quite aside from foreign languages of men, or private praying. A small point as an example - "Acts 2 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?... and in Judaea, " "we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God." This was in their own language, and yet considered tongues.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

So if I go to a language school and learn german, it's tongues? Also, how does someone know if they didn't learn it some other way. Or, and here is a big one, is any of the languages spoken actually one they didn't already know.

Tongues is an unlearned language inspired by the Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 14:2 says that no one understands the language but the person is praying to God mysteries in the Spirit. This is not the same as learning several languages like someone learning Chinese, Japanese and Korean and being able to speak four languages (including English) fluently. Tongues language is not usually understandable, but sometimes God, for His own reasons, may cause a person to speak an understandable language (unlearned) to speak to someone in the group who understands that language.

One language mentioned in Acts isn't miraculous. Judean

What's "Judean"? I don't see that language in the New Testament. I see Aramaic, Greek. Hebrew, and Latin, but no "Judean".

- why shouldn't a Jew speak as a Jew? A couple don't seem to be languages but types of people, and many are countries without distinct or completely distinct languages, so latin, greek, and various forms of Hebrew, Aramaic, Syrian - ie Semitic languages. We know Jesus had a lot of disciples who would have known a lot of languages, and even the apostles like Matthew would have known greek, latin, and a few dielects by his previous job as a tax collector. And the disciples wrote in Greek, and often times quoted the Greek Septuagint.

The crowd identified the disciples as being "unlearned Galileans". So they would have known that their first language was Aramaic or at the best Greek. They would not have known Hebrew or Latin, the former being the formal language of educated Jews, and the latter being the language of Rome which no Jew would ever have learned. The other languages heard were the regional languages of the different pilgrims who have travelled to Jerusalem for the festival, in the same way that Scottish people speak Gaelic, and Welsh people speak Welsh, although the official language of those countries is English.

What the people were amazed at is they seemed to hear people from other countries praise God (even though pagans aren't suppose to know God),

The ones praising God in tongues were Galileans, not pagans from other countries. Have you ever actually read Acts 2??

that is what was miraculous to them, like 1 Corinthians 14 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. It's a prophecy, and thus a sign to see.

What happened in Acts 2 was the sign.

" we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God". Praise to me is what I look at. Praise that won't come from the unsaved, and is a miracle to see - and which people often notice about someone after they are saved, they are acting and talking different.

The praise came from the 120 disciples who were just filled with the Holy Spirit. They weren't pagans. It beats me how you can read that the ones praising God were pagans from the text of Acts 2. You can't just make stuff up and expect us to believe it. I think we are more intelligent than that.

 

[john the youngest]

Seeing that Jesus is our example for someone ministering to the sick, do you see anywhere that Jesus whacked anyone on the head to heal them? Just because some extremist religious "healers" do outlandish things to minister their version of healing doesn't mean that what they are doing is right or Biblical.

I was trying to make this up on the fly as an example of something that clearly isn;t what the bible says is a gift because it doesn't define healing that way, and started to think that is too realistic of an example, and couldn't think why. Now I remember, I did hear someone describe doing that as healing - eeehhh. I was thinking of a metaphor of people hitting someone with an argument for their own good - but yea the other happens.

If the person is actually healed (which rarely happens in healing crusades) then it has to be of the Spirit of God, because the devil doesn't work against his own kingdom as Jesus demonstrated in His answer to the Pharisees who accused Him of casting demons out by the prince of demons.

Most prophecies given are by people who believe they are hearing from God by "faith" with no actual proof that they are actually hearing from Him. All you have to do is read Jeremiah 23 to see what God says about that. If you ask anyone who prophesies if they know for sure that it is God speaking to them, they will tell you that they are not quite sure but they step out "in faith" trusting that the word they give is from God. But if you read how the word of God came to His prophets in the Old Testament, they didn't have to guess, but they knew beyond doubt that God was speaking to them.

I asked how he knew, and how God told him - thinking he was going to say something like he divined it from something, and he said he couldn't / wouldn't tell me. I didn't actually believe him at the time because of some moral and spirit problems, plus a lack of belief that someone who couldn't discern everyday walking well was going to that. Plus, I didn't want to hear it, and fact I specifically said I didn't want to -- I think things like this can harm my simple faith - maybe not someone else, but mine. If I pray for God to do something good, I don't need a sign for it. Anyone, it was forced on me, and I said I'd wait to see if it happened.

It happened, and wasn't very vague like a lot of false ones were, but it wasn't good or from God. I suppose it was enemy interference, and I'm sorry I said I'd wait and see even though it didn't seem like there was any harm in it at the time.

The only thing it did for me was to keep in mind that there is a real devil working miracles.

 

[john the youngest]

What's "Judean"? I don't see that language in the New Testament. I see Aramaic, Greek. Hebrew, and Latin, but no "Judean".

"8And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? 9Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, 10Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 11Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God."

"The crowd identified the disciples as being "unlearned Galileans".

The crowd was obviously wrong when you read the rest of the gospel. also, "Galilean isn't a separate language.

"So they would have known that their first language was Aramaic or at the best Greek. They would not have known Hebrew or Latin, the former being the formal language of educated Jews, and the latter being the language of Rome which no Jew would ever have learned."

Jesus knew Hebrew, also called uneducated. The title on the cross was written in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin for the people to read. Matthew would have needed Latin to work as a tax collector.

"The other languages heard were the regional languages of the different pilgrims who have travelled to Jerusalem for the festival, in the same way that Scottish people speak Gaelic, and Welsh people speak Welsh, although the official language of those countries is English."

Which doesn't make it really a miracle to also speak an accent of your language.

"The ones praising God in tongues were Galileans, not pagans from other countries. Have you ever actually read Acts 2??"

That's flaming me, while saying the disciples were all from Galilean, and uneducated, neither of which is true - just what the crowd thought.

"What happened in Acts 2 was the sign."

And Paul said "21In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord". which is a sign, and the context of why I posted this and which you are moving off of. The jews thought of other people praising God as a sign from the prophecy Paul mentioned.

"The praise came from the 120 disciples who were just filled with the Holy Spirit. They weren't pagans. It beats me how you can read that the ones praising God were pagans from the text of Acts 2."

I just quoted it from 1 Corinthians 14:21. The context of what I said. "With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people;" is what they saw. I'm not impossible to change the opinion of, if you can prove otherwise, without flaming me, or putting things in that aren't really necessarily there, I can listen - but so far you haven't even said why 1 Corinthians 14:21-22, isn't the same as thing as Acts 2:8-10.

You can't just make stuff up and expect us to believe it. I think we are more intelligent than that.

I think what you said should be rejected just on the spirit of it. I think you flamed me three times, and said I was making stuff up for quoting scripture. Really, bad behavior.

What you are arguing doesn't even make sense for what you said you believe. You said I think you aren't a cessation, and you don't think it is foreign languages. And I said I wasn't a cessationist, and tried to explain why I didn't think it was foreign languages - that only speaking in foreign languages is not remarkable in a group of diverse people. So I think you spent most of the time building up cessasionists arguments that its foreign languages, while claiming you don't believe that.

If you don't like how I explain things, especially when it can support part of what you believe, then maybe you should be happy with what you believe. For me 1 Corinthians 14:21-22 and Acts 2:8-10 go together, and it wasn't just foreign languages - that could have happened naturally, but they spoke through God about the wonderful works of God.

""The praise came from the 120 disciples who were just filled with the Holy Spirit. They weren't pagans. It beats me how you can read that the ones praising God were pagans from the text of Acts 2."

Can you quote the text that says there were 120 disciples in Acts 2, or any other place in the Bible? I don't think it says, and if you can quote this I would be grateful. I think there was more than that.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I was trying to make this up on the fly as an example of something that clearly isn;t what the bible says is a gift because it doesn't define healing that way, and started to think that is too realistic of an example, and couldn't think why. Now I remember, I did hear someone describe doing that as healing - eeehhh. I was thinking of a metaphor of people hitting someone with an argument for their own good - but yea the other happens.





I asked how he knew, and how God told him - thinking he was going to say something like he divined it from something, and he said he couldn't / wouldn't tell me. I didn't actually believe him at the time because of some moral and spirit problems, plus a lack of belief that someone who couldn't discern everyday walking well was going to that. Plus, I didn't want to hear it, and fact I specifically said I didn't want to -- I think things like this can harm my simple faith - maybe not someone else, but mine. If I pray for God to do something good, I don't need a sign for it. Anyone, it was forced on me, and I said I'd wait to see if it happened.

It happened, and wasn't very vague like a lot of false ones were, but it wasn't good or from God. I suppose it was enemy interference, and I'm sorry I said I'd wait and see even though it didn't seem like there was any harm in it at the time.

The only thing it did for me was to keep in mind that there is a real devil working miracles.

The devil does heal people, and does not give power to cast out demons. The signs and wonders that the devil does is mainly smoke and mirrors in the same way that Simon the sorcerer did among the Samaritans. A good example of a false sign and wonder is the leg lengthening parlour trick, and another is getting a word of knowledge about someone having cancer and then being healed of it, and although the medical report shows no cancer, there is no medical report to show that there was one in the first place. And what about the preacher getting words of knowledge about people while holding his iPad getting their information from social media? These are the lying signs and wonders which are not signs and wonders at all.

But when someone with a real heart condition or cancer is healed, and validated by medical reports, then these are genuine healings by the Spirit of God. And when a person genuinely suffering from the influence of a demon, and knowing it, and it is cast out, setting the person totally free (and we are not talking about someone having a "word of knowledge" about a believer having a demon that needs to be cast out), then we know that the freedom is gained by the Spirit of God.

Anyone can come up with bovine scatology accusing Charismatics of having false signs and wonders without having substantive proof that the healings and deliverances are false if they actually happen, but they are usually scraping the bottom of the barrel to come up with reasons to justify their opposition to those who believe in and practices the gifts of the Spirit today.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

"8And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? 9Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, 10Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 11Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God."

"The crowd identified the disciples as being "unlearned Galileans".

The crowd was obviously wrong when you read the rest of the gospel. also, "Galilean isn't a separate language.

"So they would have known that their first language was Aramaic or at the best Greek. They would not have known Hebrew or Latin, the former being the formal language of educated Jews, and the latter being the language of Rome which no Jew would ever have learned."

Jesus knew Hebrew, also called uneducated. The title on the cross was written in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin for the people to read. Matthew would have needed Latin to work as a tax collector.

"The other languages heard were the regional languages of the different pilgrims who have travelled to Jerusalem for the festival, in the same way that Scottish people speak Gaelic, and Welsh people speak Welsh, although the official language of those countries is English."

Which doesn't make it really a miracle to also speak an accent of your language.

"The ones praising God in tongues were Galileans, not pagans from other countries. Have you ever actually read Acts 2??"

That's flaming me, while saying the disciples were all from Galilean, and uneducated, neither of which is true - just what the crowd thought.

"What happened in Acts 2 was the sign."

And Paul said "21In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord". which is a sign, and the context of why I posted this and which you are moving off of. The jews thought of other people praising God as a sign from the prophecy Paul mentioned.

"The praise came from the 120 disciples who were just filled with the Holy Spirit. They weren't pagans. It beats me how you can read that the ones praising God were pagans from the text of Acts 2."

I just quoted it from 1 Corinthians 14:21. The context of what I said. "With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people;" is what they saw. I'm not impossible to change the opinion of, if you can prove otherwise, without flaming me, or putting things in that aren't really necessarily there, I can listen - but so far you haven't even said why 1 Corinthians 14:21-22, isn't the same as thing as Acts 2:8-10.



I think what you said should be rejected just on the spirit of it. I think you flamed me three times, and said I was making stuff up for quoting scripture. Really, bad behavior.

What you are arguing doesn't even make sense for what you said you believe. You said I think you aren't a cessation, and you don't think it is foreign languages. And I said I wasn't a cessationist, and tried to explain why I didn't think it was foreign languages - that only speaking in foreign languages is not remarkable in a group of diverse people. So I think you spent most of the time building up cessasionists arguments that its foreign languages, while claiming you don't believe that.

If you don't like how I explain things, especially when it can support part of what you believe, then maybe you should be happy with what you believe. For me 1 Corinthians 14:21-22 and Acts 2:8-10 go together, and it wasn't just foreign languages - that could have happened naturally, but they spoke through God about the wonderful works of God.

""The praise came from the 120 disciples who were just filled with the Holy Spirit. They weren't pagans. It beats me how you can read that the ones praising God were pagans from the text of Acts 2."

Can you quote the text that says there were 120 disciples in Acts 2, or any other place in the Bible? I don't think it says, and if you can quote this I would be grateful. I think there was more than that.

I wasn't flaming you at all. Your treatment of Acts 2 was so off base that I sincerely expressed my doubt whether you had read Acts 2 very closely. You need to be careful on this forum, because it is a protect forum for those who believe that they way modern Pentecostals and Charismatics use the gift of tongues is genuine and Biblical.

From what I am reading of your posts, you are saying that tongues is not miraculous, or inspired by the Holy Spirit, but are normal understandable languages and that what was spoken on the day of Pentecost was mainly Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew or Latin, languages that you said were probably known by the speakers anyway.

You must have missed that the crowd were not pagans but devout Jews from the different regions who had come for the festival, and that they were amazed to hear their regional dialects seeing that the ones who were speaking were uneducated Galileans who would not have known those dialects.

So, my questioning your misuse and lack of comprehension in your treatment of Acts 2 and wondering if you have actually read it closely, is certainly not flaming you at all.

My advice to you is to go back and read Acts 1 and 2 closely, and you will see that there were 120 people in that upper room. In the original there are no chapter divisions, and so the narrative of who were in the upper room, including Mary and other women, along with the disciples, 120 in all, carries right on through to when the Holy Spirit fell on them. They didn't leave the upper room at any time until the Holy Spirit came, and therefore the Spirit fell on all of the 120 and not just the 12 disciples. This is why it is so important to read the whole narrative passage in context to make sure that you see what is really happening in the narrative.

I could report you for violating the forum rules, but I think it is best to encourage you first to see what the Scripture actually says and to comprehend it appropriately, with the assumption that you do have a teachable spirit.

 

[john the youngest]

The devil does heal people, and does not give power to cast out demons. The signs and wonders that the devil does is mainly smoke and mirrors in the same way that Simon the sorcerer did among the Samaritans. A good example of a false sign and wonder is the leg lengthening parlour trick, and another is getting a word of knowledge about someone having cancer and then being healed of it, and although the medical report shows no cancer, there is no medical report to show that there was one in the first place. And what about the preacher getting words of knowledge about people while holding his iPad getting their information from social media? These are the lying signs and wonders which are not signs and wonders at all..

I think my main point is, although the wicked often pretend to do miracles that are completely illusion, the devil is real, and can do what actually seem miraculous, and it is still a lie because it is not from God.

I've seen a perfectly valid prophecy, not vague and not believable any other way - then perhaps extremely large conspiracy, organization behind works, higher power or satan, and yet it was not God, because it was not good, and did not give him the glory. And I'm sure there is examples in the bible I can pull out just like that - but it is too late for it.

So although most fake miracles are just simple lies, an extra ordinary thing can occur and still not be from the Lord. It ought to be detectable because it is the wrong spirit, not because it didn't happen.

I saw a person once in a false church say he was saved because the preacher said he could get money if he gave money (or something like that), and he got it next week and he believed - that is when he was saved. Jut like a money candle being lit.

You can say that was just a simple man And coincidence, but I'm not sure. I've seen enough genuinely satan stuff coming from this group that I can easily believe it was satan so someone would be tempted and fall. A almost supernatural thing - but not from God, from the devil. It's the spirit, and that it goes contrary to the bible that shows it to you, not whether it happens or not.