Speaking in tongues

[1stcenturylady]

This might come as a surprise to you, but there is more to the Holy Spirit than speaking in tongues.

The Holy Spirit is fully active in our lives. He regenerates us. We are baptized in Him. He places us in the body of Christ. He indwells us. He seals us. He convicts us. He sanctifies us. He teaches us, guides us, comforts us, intercedes for us, helps us interpret scripture, controls us if we are yielded to Him, produces fruit in us, and last but not least bestows spiritual gifts (but no longer all those listed).

Who told you they no longer exist? Where is it written? And why did you fall for it?

 

[swordsman1]

Who told you they no longer exist? Where is it written?

History tells us. And so does scripture. 1 Cor 13:8.

 

[1stcenturylady]

History tells us. And so does scripture. 1 Cor 13:8.

Don't you know WHEN they shall cease according to 1 Cor. 13:8? Read to the end, in context this time. They will end when we see Jesus FACE TO FACE. Jesus is the PERFECT. If you say the Bible is the perfect, you've been brainwashed.

We are part of the "history" of the church and what happened in the first century, and what is happening now are the early and latter rain outpourings of the Holy Spirit. Most of "history" during the dark ages was the long dry summer. We are in the last days.

 

[swordsman1]

Don't you know WHEN they shall cease according to 1 Cor. 13:8?

It doesn't say when tongues would cease, it just says they would cease some time after Paul's writing. But it tells us when the gifts of prophecy and words of knowledge would cease...."For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears."

Read to the end, in context this time. They will end when we see Jesus FACE TO FACE. Jesus is the PERFECT.

No it doesn't say that. Read it again. Jesus is never mentioned in this passage.

If you say the Bible is the perfect, you've been brainwashed.

The "perfect", or "completeness" as the NIV better translates it is "teleon" in the Greek. Completeness is the counterpart to that which is "in part". What is "in part"? Partial revelation from the revelatory gifts (v9). What is now complete? God's completed revelation to man, the canon. Nowhere in scripture is "teleon" used to describe Jesus or the 2nd coming. But the word is used to describe scripture:

James 1:24-25 "Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. But whoever looks intently into the perfect [teleon] law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do."​

Notice the comparison with a mirror in both passages.

 

[1stcenturylady]

It doesn't say when tongues would cease, it just says they would cease some time after Paul's writing. But it tells us when the gifts of prophecy and words of knowledge would cease...."For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears."



No it doesn't say that. Read it again. Jesus is never mentioned in this passage.



The "perfect", or "completeness" as the NIV better translates it is "teleon" in the Greek. Completeness is the counterpart to that which is "in part". What is "in part"? Partial revelation from the revelatory gifts (v9). What is now complete? God's completed revelation to man, the canon. Nowhere in scripture is "teleon" used to describe Jesus or the 2nd coming. But the word is used to describe scripture:

James 1:24-25 "Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. But whoever looks intently into the perfect [teleon] law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do."​

Notice the comparison with a mirror in both passages.

I had a feeling you thought it was the canon. Oh well. I tried.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Who said cessationists don't believe in healing or winning souls to Christ?

We are called to pray for the sick and if it is God's will for them to be healed, he will heal them. Praying for the sick is not the same thing as having the spiritual gift of healing, as they had in the 1st century. The disciples then didn't pray for the sick, they healed people instantly and completely with a command or a touch. If people have to pray for the sick today, it is a sure sign they don't have the gift of healing. Same for miracles - we can pray for them, and God may grant them, but we do not have the ability to perform them ourselves as the disciples did.

But according to Cessationist theory, there are no miracles in today's church because we have the Bible. So what's the use of praying for the sick when you know they are not going to get healed any other way than through medical intervention? Anyone who prays and asks God to heal someone is asking God for a miracle that cannot come through medicine. A sincere Cessationist would ask God to guide the doctor or surgeon to give the right medicine or perform a successful operation so that healing would come that way.

You have to have entire cessation or entire continuance. You can't pick and choose. If you are saying that God can heal someone through a miracle, say, if a person has terminal cancer and been given up by the medical profession, then you cannot say you are a Cessationist. The moment you pray for a sick person and they are immediately healed, you have destroyed your cessationist theory, and yet you say that God can do exactly that sometimes.

Also, I will take the opportunity to share with you something I was thinking about on the way home:

You know that Paul said that no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit? Yes you do.

Now, I know from my years with the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements that the Lordship of Christ is one of their strongest and principal doctrines. Not only do they say that Jesus is Lord with their mouths but they believe it in their hearts as well and they live their lives according to that. So, if that is the case, they have to be motivated by the Holy Spirit in the way they live and worship God, don't you agree? Because if you say that Pentecostals and Charismatics are false and do not worship and live by the Holy
Spirit, then they cannot value the truth that Jesus Christ is Lord, and they cannot say it from their hearts. That is, unless Paul is mistaken or lying. Right?

And what if a Pentecostal or Charismatic gives a prophecy in church and it has the underlying theme that Jesus is Lord, wouldn't you have to say it was inspired by the Holy Spirit, because the prophet could not prophesy that Jesus is Lord unless he is motivated by the Holy Spirit.

And what if a person gives a tongues message and the interpretation declares the Lordship of Christ, then wouldn't you have to concede that both the tongues and interpretation are inspired by the Holy Spirit?

If a Cessationist declares from his heart that Jesus is Lord, then he is doing that by inspiration of the Holy Spirit too. This is because Cessationism is an error of the head and not of the heart.

Something for you to ponder on and to keep this excellent debate going!

 

[1stcenturylady]

I had a feeling you thought it was the canon. Oh well. I tried.

I'll try again. Let's see the word.

8 Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.

11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.

We won't know God fully as He know us fully, until we see Him FACE TO FACE.

Good grief, if you could know God in all His glory just by knowing every word in the Bible, He wouldn't need to come back.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

It doesn't say when tongues would cease, it just says they would cease some time after Paul's writing. But it tells us when the gifts of prophecy and words of knowledge would cease...."For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears."

The "perfect", or "completeness" as the NIV better translates it is "teleon" in the Greek. Completeness is the counterpart to that which is "in part". What is "in part"? Partial revelation from the revelatory gifts (v9). What is now complete? God's completed revelation to man, the canon.

So, you are saying that the perfect has now come. This means that you know as you are known. This begs the question - whom do you know as you are known, and by whom are you known? Does this mean that you now have perfect knowledge pertaining to all things to do with the kingdom of God, that you know Jesus as He knows you?

Is the Church now fully complete? Is God's complete plan of salvation totally finished and that Jesus has come again? Because if everything is complete then Jesus has come again already. The fact that the church is not complete but still is factionised and imperfect means that it is not perfect yet.

Also, Paul had no idea of any canon of scripture when he wrote to the Corinthians. Actually the canon of the New Testament was determined by a council of men who decided what writings was New Testament Scripture and what was not. And what translation are you going to use to base the perfection of Scripture on? The original Greek, which we no longer have the original manuscripts. Also the Greek ones we have contain errors. Whoops! They are not perfect?

And if the New Testament that we have is the perfect revelation of God, then why are there so many interpretations put forward by so many different Bible teachers, of whom are sincere born again Christians?

How come John Wesley, an Arminian by doctrine, had the same success at winning souls for Christ and had 250 recorded instant healings throughout his ministry? And yet George Whitefield, a Calvinist, had the same results. How come Martin Luther who was Roman Catholic and never departed from the Church in his heart and continued to hold to its main doctrines, won thousands to Christ? What about Jonathan Edwards who had powerful revivals, and was a strict Calvinist who believed in Election, and Charles Finney who believed in free choice, and also had powerful revivals?

All these had differing interpretations of Scripture and yet God used them powerfully. If the New Testament was the perfect revelation of the things of God, wouldn't they all believe the same thing?

I think that the theory that the canon of the New Testament is the perfect that Paul was talking about is sheer nonsense thought up by some deranged fellow who tried to find some excuse why his church was so dead and was not prepared to admit that the deadness of his church was because of the lack of holiness, love and faith of the members.

 

[1stcenturylady]

So, you are saying that the perfect has now come. This means that you know as you are known. This begs the question - whom do you know as you are known, and by whom are you known? Does this mean that you now have perfect knowledge pertaining to all things to do with the kingdom of God, that you know Jesus as He knows you?

Is the Church now fully complete? Is God's complete plan of salvation totally finished and that Jesus has come again? Because if everything is complete then Jesus has come again already. The fact that the church is not complete but still is factionised and imperfect means that it is not perfect yet.

Also, Paul had no idea of any canon of scripture when he wrote to the Corinthians. Actually the canon of the New Testament was determined by a council of men who decided what writings was New Testament Scripture and what was not. And what translation are you going to use to base the perfection of Scripture on? The original Greek, which we no longer have the original manuscripts. Also the Greek ones we have contain errors. Whoops! They are not perfect?

And if the New Testament that we have is the perfect revelation of God, then why are there so many interpretations put forward by so many different Bible teachers, of whom are sincere born again Christians?

How come John Wesley, an Arminian by doctrine, had the same success at winning souls for Christ and had 250 recorded instant healings throughout his ministry? And yet George Whitefield, a Calvinist, had the same results. How come Martin Luther who was Roman Catholic and never departed from the Church in his heart and continued to hold to its main doctrines, won thousands to Christ? What about Jonathan Edwards who had powerful revivals, and was a strict Calvinist who believed in Election, and Charles Finney who believed in free choice, and also had powerful revivals?

All these had differing interpretations of Scripture and yet God used them powerfully. If the New Testament was the perfect revelation of the things of God, wouldn't they all believe the same thing?

I think that the theory that the canon of the New Testament is the perfect that Paul was talking about is sheer nonsense thought up by some deranged fellow who tried to find some excuse why his church was so dead and was not prepared to admit that the deadness of his church was because of the lack of holiness, love and faith of the members.

Ever since that thesis was published, this corrupt theory has been spoon fed to seminary students for decades. That guy even became a professor at Dallas Theology Seminary. But it spread to other seminaries as well.

James said, "My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment.

I like my own analogy of this thesis that we have no need of the gifts and instructions on their use now that the canon is published. "A famous chef wrote a cookbook of all this favorite recipes. People looked forward to receiving it. Once they bought it they said, "Wow, now I don't have to eat anymore."

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Jack Deere, a former Dallas Seminary Professor and a Cessationist had an unique experience with God and wrote a book "Surprised By The Power of the Spirit." I found this a very enlightening and interesting book about how a determined Cessationist was taken in hand by the Holy Spirit and completely changed his view. If you have not read this book I am sure you can find it on Amazon.

 

[swordsman1]

But according to Cessationist theory, there are no miracles in today's church because we have the Bible. So what's the use of praying for the sick when you know they are not going to get healed any other way than through medical intervention? Anyone who prays and asks God to heal someone is asking God for a miracle that cannot come through medicine. A sincere Cessationist would ask God to guide the doctor or surgeon to give the right medicine or perform a successful operation so that healing would come that way.

I don't know any cessationists who believe that. A cessationist is someone who believes that certain spiritual gifts are no longer operating today (ie the gifts of apostleship, tongues, prophecy, miracles and healing). God healing in response to prayer is not somebody having the gift of healing.

Now, I know from my years with the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements that the Lordship of Christ is one of their strongest and principal doctrines. Not only do they say that Jesus is Lord with their mouths but they believe it in their hearts as well and they live their lives according to that. So, if that is the case, they have to be motivated by the Holy Spirit in the way they live and worship God, don't you agree? Because if you say that Pentecostals and Charismatics are false and do not worship and live by the Holy
Spirit, then they cannot value the truth that Jesus Christ is Lord, and they cannot say it from their hearts. That is, unless Paul is mistaken or lying. Right?

I never said that. All born again believers, charismatic or non-charismatic, are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. That doesn't mean they everyone gets their doctrine of the Holy Spirit right.

And what if a Pentecostal or Charismatic gives a prophecy in church and it has the underlying theme that Jesus is Lord, wouldn't you have to say it was inspired by the Holy Spirit, because the prophet could not prophesy that Jesus is Lord unless he is motivated by the Holy Spirit.

They might call it a prophecy, but it isn't. Unless those words are actually the Lord's words, rather than something that popped into their minds, then it was not a prophecy.

And what if a person gives a tongues message and the interpretation declares the Lordship of Christ, then wouldn't you have to concede that both the tongues and interpretation are inspired by the Holy Spirit?

The 'interpreter' might have said doctrinally correct words, but that doesn't mean they are "inspired by the Holy Spirit".

 

[swordsman1]

11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.

We won't know God fully as He know us fully, until we see Him FACE TO FACE.

Good grief, if you could know God in all His glory just by knowing every word in the Bible, He wouldn't need to come back.

Read it again. It doesn't say we will see Him face to face. 'Face to face' is to do with the analogy of a mirror. Mirrors in Paul's time were not like the mirrors of today. They were pieces of metal polished as best they could. Revelations from the gift of prophecy were like seeing in a mirror dimly. But when completeness comes, when we have Gods full revelation, it is like seeing face to face.

'Know in part' is referring to the revelatory gift of words of knowledge (v8), not a general knowledge of God.

 

[swordsman1]

So, you are saying that the perfect has now come. This means that you know as you are known. This begs the question - whom do you know as you are known, and by whom are you known? Does this mean that you now have perfect knowledge pertaining to all things to do with the kingdom of God, that you know Jesus as He knows you?

'Knowing' in this passage is referring to the spiritual gift of words of knowledge (v8), not a general knowledge of God. The revelatory knowledge that gift brought was "in part" until "completeness" came after which we had full knowledge of God's revelation to man. We will never possess perfect general knowledge as God does, even in Heaven.

Is the Church now fully complete? Is God's complete plan of salvation totally finished and that Jesus has come again? Because if everything is complete then Jesus has come again already. The fact that the church is not complete but still is factionised and imperfect means that it is not perfect yet.

No, God's revelation to man is now complete.

Also, Paul had no idea of any canon of scripture when he wrote to the Corinthians. Actually the canon of the New Testament was determined by a council of men who decided what writings was New Testament Scripture and what was not.

Paul knew he was writing scripture, and knew that scripture could only be written by an Apostle of Christ (or someone under their authority). He knew that the work of the apostles make up the foundation of the church (Eph 2:20) and one day that foundation would be complete. The councils only met to decide which books had apostolic authorship and which didn't.

And what translation are you going to use to base the perfection of Scripture on? The original Greek, which we no longer have the original manuscripts. Also the Greek ones we have contain errors. Whoops! They are not perfect?

"Completeness" (as the NIV and others versions renders it) is a better translation of teleion, rather than "that which is perfect".

Mounce Lexicon:
τέλειος (teleios)
brought to completion; fully accomplished, fully developed, Jas. 1:4a; fully realized, thorough, 1 Jn. 4:18; complete, entire, as opposed to what is partial and limited, 1 Cor. 13:10; full grown of ripe age, 1 Cor. 14:20; Eph. 4:13; Heb. 5:14; fully accomplished in Christian enlightenment, 1 Cor. 2:6; Phil. 3:15; Col. 1:28; perfect in some point of character, without shortcoming in respect of a certain standard, Mt. 5:48; 19:21; Col. 4:12; Jas. 1:4b; 3:2; perfect, consummate, Rom. 12:2; Jas. 1:17, 25; compar. of higher excellence and efficiency, Heb. 9:11​

Friberg Lexicon:
26442 τέλειος, εία, ον complete, perfect; (1) with its chief component as totality, as opposed to partial or limited; (a) of thingsin full measure, undivided, complete, entire (RO 12.2); substantivally τὸ τέλειον the finish, completeness (1C 13.10); comparative τελειότερος, τέρα, ον more complete or perfect (HE 9.11); (b) of persons complete, perfect (MT 5.48; 19.21); (2) with its chief component being full development as opposed to immaturity; (a) of persons full grown, mature (1C 14.20); substantivally οἱ τέλειοι adults, mature persons; used of spiritually mature persons (1C 2.6); (b) of things fully developed, complete (JA 1.4; 1J 4.18); (3) with its chief component being full preparation or readiness complete, perfect (CO 1.28; JA 3.2); in all its meanings τ. carries the component of a purpose that has been achieved

Gingrich Lexicon:
6356 τέλειος
τέλειος, α, ον having attained the end or purpose, complete, perfect—1. of things Js 1:4a, 17, 25; Hb 9:11; 1 J 4:18. τὸ τέλειονwhat is perfect Ro 12:2; 1 Cor 13:10.—2. of persons—a. full-grown, mature, adult adj. 1 Cor 14:20; Eph 4:13; subst. Hb 5:14. For 1 Cor 2:6 the sense may be adult, or it may belong under b below.—b. the initiate into mystic rites, perh. 1 Cor 2:6 (see a above); probably Phil 3:15; Col 1:28.—c. perfect, fully devel

UBS Lexicon:
6023 τέλειος , α , ον complete, perfect, whole ( ἔργον τ. full effect, successful results Jas 1.4); full-grown, mature (of persons); τελειότερος more perfect (He 9.11)

LEH Lexicon:
8823 τέλειος
τέλειος,-α,-ον+ - A 3-9-1-4-2-19
Gn 6,9; Ex 12,5; Dt 18,13; JgsB 20,26; 21,4
perfect, entire, without spot or blemish (of sacrificial victims) Ex 12,5; perfect (in his kind; of pers.) Gn 6,9; perfect, complete, expert 1 Chr 25,8; complete Jer 13,19; absolute Ps 138(139),22
Cf. DANIEL, S. 1966, 287-288.295-296; WEVERS 1993, 81; ïNIDNTT; TW

LSJ Lexicon (Abridged):
42280
τέλειος and τέλεος, α (Ion. η) , ον, in Att. also ος, ον: (τέλος):-having reached its end, finished, complete, Il., etc.:​

 

[swordsman1]

Jack Deere, a former Dallas Seminary Professor and a Cessationist had an unique experience with God and wrote a book "Surprised By The Power of the Spirit." I found this a very enlightening and interesting book about how a determined Cessationist was taken in hand by the Holy Spirit and completely changed his view. If you have not read this book I am sure you can find it on Amazon.

You might want to also read the response to that book, "Satisfied by the Promise of the Spirit" (also on Amazon) by Thomas Edgar, professor of New Testament Literature and Exegesis at Capital Bible Seminary, where he exegetically refutes Deere's ideas point by point.

 

[1stcenturylady]

You might want to also read the response to that book, "Satisfied by the Promise of the Spirit" (also on Amazon) by Thomas Edgar, professor of New Testament Literature and Exegesis at Capital Bible Seminary, where he exegetically refutes Deere's ideas point by point.

Well, swordsman, I can see how deeply ingrained you are into your belief that God's gifts to man in the first century, are denied us. Debating will not change the mind of you, or Oscar and me. So let's just brush the dust off our feet from each other and be edifying on another post. Good bye, and God bless.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I don't know any cessationists who believe that. A cessationist is someone who believes that certain spiritual gifts are no longer operating today (ie the gifts of apostleship, tongues, prophecy, miracles and healing). God healing in response to prayer is not somebody having the gift of healing.

No one actually owns these gifts. They are tools which the Holy Spirit has provided to the Church to strengthen it and make it effective in the preaching of the gospel. A person needing the involvement of the Holy Spirit in a particular situation has access to the best tool that suits the purpose. We know that the Holy Spirit has not been withdrawn from the Church, so the tools that come with Him are still there to be used as well. If someone asserts that he "owns" the gift of healing or anything that he can use any time, I conclude that he is wrong and is more likely to misuse the gift because he may think that he is somehow special, while we know that God is no respecter of persons. The problem with a person saying he has a gift of healing or prophecy, when the healing doesn't come or the prophecy has errors in it (which is quite common), then the person is blamed. If the person says they don't actually have the gift but is having access to a particular Holy Spirit tool, then if a healing doesn't come, then the sovereignty of God in that He does things the way He wants is the important factor. Then the people need to go to God and further seek Him to find out what He intends to do in that situation. The same with errors in prophecy. A person uses prophecy in faith, and if there are errors, there are good men there who can judge it and give good guidance to show the person where he went wrong. That's what Paul taught about the use of prophecy.

I never said that. All born again believers, charismatic or non-charismatic, are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. That doesn't mean they everyone gets their doctrine of the Holy Spirit right.

Quite right. We have the treasure in earthen vessels. None of us are perfect. We make errors because we do not know the entire truth about anything. We know that the New Testament has been given to us by the Holy Spirit and we ask the Holy Spirit to make it clear to us when we need it. I never assert that my interpretation of Scripture is always the right one, and if I give a prophecy in church I would never say "Thus says the Lord", because I don't really know if He is speaking or not. I often say, "If Jesus is here, He might say this to you." This communicates that I am saying that I think this is what the Lord might be saying, and if it rings true to you then you can accept it as such, but if it doesn't, then it is just my guess, and the Lord may not have spoken through me. I know that this is not common in Pentecostal circles and could be seen by them as a lack of faith, but there it is. This is what I think is the right thing to do to be consistent with Paul's teaching.

They might call it a prophecy, but it isn't. Unless those words are actually the Lord's words, rather than something that popped into their minds, then it was not a prophecy.

I jumped the gun in my last response. I think that the impact of of prophecy is not for the person giving it. It is for the person receiving it. If you go back in CF to read my previous posts on prophecy, you will get more comprehensive view on what I think of prophecy. You might have to go back aways. You might be able to isolate my posts from others. You may not agree with me about them, but you will see what I say prophecy is and is not from my point of view.

The 'interpreter' might have said doctrinally correct words, but that doesn't mean they are "inspired by the Holy Spirit".

This is why all prophecy should be judged. It is never to be taken at face value. The problem with too many prophetic words is that they have been taken as the direct word of God without being evaluated and judged. Just because the guy giving a prophecy is a well-known ministry with an excellent reputation, it doesn't mean that his prophecies are automatically accurate.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

You might want to also read the response to that book, "Satisfied by the Promise of the Spirit" (also on Amazon) by Thomas Edgar, professor of New Testament Literature and Exegesis at Capital Bible Seminary, where he exegetically refutes Deere's ideas point by point.

I have a statement for you:

"Ihidbakinegs fbrekki itkortatihate stdifharf pisdsex n'flinch hdfushnchups."

Is this tongues, gibberish, or understandable language?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Well, swordsman, I can see how deeply ingrained you are into your belief that God's gifts to man in the first century, are denied us. Debating will not change the mind of you, or Oscar and me. So let's just brush the dust off our feet from each other and be edifying on another post. Good bye, and God bless.

While waiting for the bus this morning I thought of the debates that we having been having with swordsman. The fundamental difference between us is, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, is that we believe that the gifts are available to us today, and he doesn't.

Because, I can say that the gifts are there for us to use, but some Pentecostal and Charismatic groups misuse them and make it appear that they are using them falsely.

He might say that the gifts are not available today and the Pentecostal and Charismatic groups that he has encountered is using them falsely for that reason.

So, if we read his posts closely, he is saying much the same things that we would say, but for different reasons.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I wonder why swordsman doesn't answer my question about the seeming obscure statement I made a couple of posts ago? Does he have an answer?

 

[swordsman1]

I have a statement for you:

"Ihidbakinegs fbrekki itkortatihate stdifharf pisdsex n'flinch hdfushnchups."

Is this tongues, gibberish, or understandable language?

It doesn't look like a foreign language, so it's not NT tongues.
It doesn't have simple strings of syllables typical of modern glossolalia.
It doesn't even look pronounceable, so its probably not anything spoken at all.
A coded sentence perhaps?
It's obviously a trick question, so go on then spill the beans.