Tongues..a sign.

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The entire Paul's letters are just appendix to the gospel books.

That is supposition on your part. Most Bible teachers would say that it supplements and completes the Gospels. Jesus gave his teaching to unconverted Jews under the Mosaic Law. Paul gave his teaching to born-again Gentile Christians. There is a major difference. Paul remained consistent with the teaching of Jesus, but qualified it for converted Christians.

I don't agree that spiritual gifts have ceased. I don't consider Bible to be perfect since it has been manipulated, mistranslated, misquoted, added, deleted, etc.

Which parts? I have compared most versions with my interlinear Greek New Testament and I don't see any major differences. I have a friend who has a PHd in classical Greek and, being an expert in the field, she wouldn't agree with you. So, unless you are a Greek scholar like she is, your comment is pretty unreliable.

Yes, speaking in unknown tongue is not supported by any another book or author in the entire Bible. Do you imitate Paul or Jesus. Paul will not sanction salvation for you

You seem to slide out of any arguments supporting the use of tongues by asserting that Paul is sometimes right and at other times speculative. It seems to me that Paul is speculative only in the areas where you don't agree with him.

For example, Paul's statement that there is no condemnation to those in Christ was never said by Jesus anywhere. Does that mean that Paul is wrong there? New Testament prophecy as described by Paul is not mentioned anywhere else either. Old Testament prophecy was entirely different and for a different purpose - to warn Israel about their faithfulness to God. But Paul said that New Testament prophecy needs to be judged by others. Old Testament prophecy did not have that, so nowhere else in the Bible is judgement of prophecy supported. Does that mean that it is wrong to judge prophecy? Or that prophecy is not for our churches, because it is not supported anywhere else in the New Testament in the same way that Paul taught it in 1 Corinthians?

Consistency, thou art a jewel!!

 

[Alithis]

The entire Paul's letters are just appendix to the gospel books.



I don't agree that spiritual gifts have ceased. I don't consider Bible to be perfect since it has been manipulated, mistranslated, misquoted, added, deleted, etc.




Yes, speaking in unknown tongue is not supported by any another book or author in the entire Bible. Do you imitate Paul or Jesus. Paul will not sanction salvation for you

Sadly you just don't make sense

 

[Righttruth]

Sadly you just don't make sense

Philippians 2
12 So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling;

 

[Righttruth]

Paul gave his teaching to the Corinthians because they were misusing the gift and using their private prayer language out loud in public without interpretation. Paul says that way of using tongues is useless in the public meeting because no one can understand what is being said. So he says that if a person wants to pray in tongues, let him do it to himself and to God and not out loud. I make a distinction between praying in tongues (private) and speaking in tongues (public), although Paul uses "speaking" for both, and this can be a bit confusing to some. Speaking in tongues in a public meeting must be followed by an interpretation.

You know, Corinthian church was very notorious and caused much heartaches to Paul. He had to use all possible craftiness by giving a long rope to divert them from mocking at spiritual gift of tongues. KJV inserts the word 'unknown' to distinguish the person's spirit utterances.

You will notice that Paul does not give this teaching in any of the other churches. This is often interpreted as tongues not be used in the other churches. I believe that it is because the gifts are being manifested correctly and the problem with people praying in tongues out loud in public meetings did not rise in the other churches.

That I call over protective presumption. It has never been raised anywhere else in the Bible(Unknown tongue stuff).

If the assertion that tongues and prophecy were absent from the other churches (although Paul mentions prophecy to the Roman Christians), then we must say that the Resurrection and the attributes of Love were missing too, because Paul does not go into any length about either in the other churches as he did with the Corinthians.

Paul was writing specifically to certain congregations with problems, so to universalize that is improper. It is like liking to relapse to the worse over again even after gaining maturity!

Paul did not have any idea that his letters were going to be treated as Holy Scripture.

Precisely. To make it so is meaningless. I read all writings including apocryphal, but rely on the Holy Spirit to discern the truth as preached by Jesus.

I resolved not to pray publicly and only spoke out in tongues when there were interpreters present.

How do you know there are going to be interpreters in any congregation? Let us assume that you spoke an unknown tongue and there is no interpreter. So what happens? It becomes a waste of your breath. Anything God says or the Holy Spirit utters cannot go waste. That proves that unknown tongue is not related to the Holy Spirit.

course I can't pray out loud in tongues in my present church because it is Presbyterian and we don't do that there. I think that it is God's wisdom for me that he put me in that church! And He gave me a wife who is not Charismatic to keep my feet on the ground! [/quote}

That is godly wisdom!

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

You know, Corinthian church was very notorious and caused much heartaches to Paul. He had to use all possible craftiness by giving a long rope to divert them from mocking at spiritual gift of tongues. KJV inserts the word 'unknown' to distinguish the person's spirit utterances.

Not supported by any accredited Bible teacher I know.

That I call over protective presumption. It has never been raised anywhere else in the Bible(Unknown tongue stuff).

You don't have enough knowledge for this to be a credible comment.

Paul was writing specifically to certain congregations with problems, so to universalize that is improper. It is like liking to relapse to the worse over again even after gaining maturity!

You are ignoring Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 1 that he was writing not only to the Corinthians but to all believers everywhere. Also, he said that the Corinthians came behind in no spiritual gift. Also, his letter is in response to questions and concerns from a member of the church. This suggests to me that the majority of the members were doing everything correctly and it was the "lunatic fringe" (which exists in any church) who were giving the problems. Picking and choosing parts of the letter while ignoring other parts always leads to wrong conclusions.

Precisely. To make it so is meaningless. I read all writings including apocryphal, but rely on the Holy Spirit to discern the truth as preached by Jesus.

You are ignoring that Jesus told His disciples that there was much more to be taught, and that the Holy Spirit to come will do that. This is why The Holy Spirit inspired Paul, Peter, John, Jude, and the writer to the Hebrews to give us that extended truth. Jesse Penn-Lewis in her book "War on the Saints" wrote that nine out of every ten impressions and voices come from the world, flesh and the devil. So it could be an error to rely on what Jesus taught to unconverted Jews in the Gospels, and ignore what the other Apostles wrote.

How do you know there are going to be interpreters in any congregation? Let us assume that you spoke an unknown tongue and there is no interpreter. So what happens? It becomes a waste of your breath. Anything God says or the Holy Spirit utters cannot go waste. That proves that unknown tongue is not related to the Holy Spirit.

That would possibly true in your church, and so no one would dare speak out in tongues because the same thing would happen as you describe. However, in churches where tongues and interpretation are accepted and taught, and are regularly manifested, one becomes familiar who in the congregation able to interpret tongues. In all the years that I have been associated with Charismatic churches I have never heard a tongues message not interpreted. In churches that have these gifts operating, it does not happen. So, your comment falls down like a lead zeppelin.

 

[Righttruth]

Sadly you just don't make sense

Unfortunately, that is truth

 

[Righttruth]

Not supported by any accredited Bible teacher I know.

Many Protestant Bible teachers are trained in 'knowledge factories' and are totally unqualified to interpret the writings.

You don't have enough knowledge for this to be a credible comment.

But I can see mountain made out of a molehill of Paul's letter.

You are ignoring Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 1 that he was writing not only to the Corinthians but to all believers everywhere. Also, he said that the Corinthians came behind in no spiritual gift. Also, his letter is in response to questions and concerns from a member of the church. This suggests to me that the majority of the members were doing everything correctly and it was the "lunatic fringe" (which exists in any church) who were giving the problems. Picking and choosing parts of the letter while ignoring other parts always leads to wrong conclusions.

What way to analyse! Paul's letters are like hearing a one sided conversation over the phone and producing fables and allowing figments of imaginations run wild with his self-proclaimed prescriptions!

You are ignoring that Jesus told His disciples that there was much more to be taught, and that the Holy Spirit to come will do that. This is why The Holy Spirit inspired Paul, Peter, John, Jude, and the writer to the Hebrews to give us that extended truth. Jesse Penn-Lewis in her book "War on the Saints" wrote that nine out of every ten impressions and voices come from the world, flesh and the devil. So it could be an error to rely on what Jesus taught to unconverted Jews in the Gospels, and ignore what the other Apostles wrote.

The Holy Spirit reminds us Jesus' words (John 14:26). Anything added contradicting His words are to be disregarded. Paul was not an apostle, so also Jude, James and author of Hebrews. Truthfully, the latter did not claim apostleship spuriously.

That would possibly true in your church, and so no one would dare speak out in tongues because the same thing would happen as you describe. However, in churches where tongues and interpretation are accepted and taught, and are regularly manifested, one becomes familiar who in the congregation able to interpret tongues. In all the years that I have been associated with Charismatic churches I have never heard a tongues message not interpreted. In churches that have these gifts operating, it does not happen. So, your comment falls down like a lead zeppelin.

It is spectacle to hear different versions when they get a chance!

 

[Righttruth]

Repeated

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Many Protestant Bible teachers are trained in 'knowledge factories' and are totally unqualified to interpret the writings.



But I can see mountain made out of a molehill of Paul's letter.



What way to analyse! Paul's letters are like hearing a one sided conversation over the phone and producing fables and allowing figments of imaginations run wild with his self-proclaimed prescriptions!




The Holy Spirit reminds us Jesus' words (John 14:26). Anything added contradicting His words are to be disregarded. Paul was not an apostle, so also Jude, James and author of Hebrews. Truthfully, the latter did not claim apostleship spuriously.



It is spectacle to hear different versions when they get a chance!

The canon of the New Testament was decided after very comprehensive research and scrutiny by the best Christian minds of the time. It is interesting that James, Hebrews, and Revelation were not approved at first and it was only after a long time of debate and discussion that these books were included. The stringent test was that the authorship of the books had to be either an Apostle, or someone closely associated with an Apostle. It is interesting that Luke was a very exacting researcher, as indicated at the start of his Gospel, and that when he wrote Acts, he totally approved of Paul's apostleship and accompanied him on most of his missionary journeys. So, if the Church council of the 2nd Century A.D. (while the Early Church was the closest to God ever) approved of Paul's letters and viewed them as an important part of the New Testament canon, that's good enough for me.

To be really consistent with your views, you would have to ignore every Christian writer, your pastor's messages, any advice from your church leaders, the Old Testament because it is mainly the history of Israel and prophecies by men (whom you have no trust); also, you can't fully trust the Gospels because they were written by men many years after the events; and you have already indicated that you don't trust the letters of the Apostles that made up the rest of the New Testament. So you might as well put your Bible back on the shelf (actually, you don't trust it because of all the different translations anyway), and trust the disembodied voice inside you that will teach you everything you know. Then you can join the ranks of the JWs, Mormons, and Christian Scientists, because that was what their founders did.

 

[Righttruth]

The canon of the New Testament was decided after very comprehensive research and scrutiny by the best Christian minds of the time. It is interesting that James, Hebrews, and Revelation were not approved at first and it was only after a long time of debate and discussion that these books were included.

Martin Luther wanted them to be removed in Protestants' abridged version. The reason being that they oppose the many convenient concepts weaved based solely on Paul's epistles.

The stringent test was that the authorship of the books had to be either an Apostle, or someone closely associated with an Apostle.

Paul no way comes near this requirement.

It is interesting that Luke was a very exacting researcher, as indicated at the start of his Gospel, and that when he wrote Acts, he totally approved of Paul's apostleship and accompanied him on most of his missionary journeys.

He is the only Gentile writer in the entire Bible. He did not speculate as Paul did. He recorded what he heard from others. He was also not aware of the Jesus' objective of picking only 12 apostles. It appears he also deserted Paul at later stages.

So, if the Church council of the 2nd Century A.D. (while the Early Church was the closest to God ever) approved of Paul's letters and viewed them as an important part of the New Testament canon, that's good enough for me.

The word 'Scripture' in the NT refers to only OT. Even a gap of one hundred years is sufficient to dilute the words of any teacher.

To be really consistent with your views, you would have to ignore every Christian writer, your pastor's messages, any advice from your church leaders, the Old Testament because it is mainly the history of Israel and prophecies by men (whom you have no trust);

I don't ignore any writings. Henry Ford once said that history is a bunk. We are not qualified to interpret prophecies. Now all kinds of Tom, Dick and Harry are doing it without an iota of sacrifice and suffering for the sake of the Gospel.

also, you can't fully trust the Gospels because they were written by men many years after the events;

I believe God deliberately gave four books of the Gospel for clarity. I trust them in this order: John, Matthew, Mark and Luke.

and you have already indicated that you don't trust the letters of the Apostles that made up the rest of the New Testament.

I see a tail wagging the body. Appendix being treated as a main body. I see many highly knowledgeable with Paul and very much ignorant of the words of Jesus. Not only that Paul's speculations overrides Jesus' words for their cozy theology.

So you might as well put your Bible back on the shelf (actually, you don't trust it because of all the different translations anyway), and trust the disembodied voice inside you that will teach you everything you know. Then you can join the ranks of the JWs, Mormons, and Christian Scientists, because that was what their founders did.

You seem to forget the role of the Holy Spirit. Trusting a book without understanding the spiritual aspect is book idolatry. Catholics gave the Bible, but they don't give much importance to the Books.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Martin Luther wanted them to be removed in Protestants' abridged version. The reason being that they oppose the many convenient concepts weaved based solely on Paul's epistles.
Paul no way comes near this requirement.
He is the only Gentile writer in the entire Bible. He did not speculate as Paul did. He recorded what he heard from others. He was also not aware of the Jesus' objective of picking only 12 apostles. It appears he also deserted Paul at later stages.
The word 'Scripture' in the NT refers to only OT. Even a gap of one hundred years is sufficient to dilute the words of any teacher.
I don't ignore any writings. Henry Ford once said that history is a bunk. We are not qualified to interpret prophecies. Now all kinds of Tom, Dick and Harry are doing it without an iota of sacrifice and suffering for the sake of the Gospel.
I believe God deliberately gave four books of the Gospel for clarity. I trust them in this order: John, Matthew, Mark and Luke.
I see a tail wagging the body. Appendix being treated as a main body. I see many highly knowledgeable with Paul and very much ignorant of the words of Jesus. Not only that Paul's speculations overrides Jesus' words for their cozy theology.
You seem to forget the role of the Holy Spirit. Trusting a book without understanding the spiritual aspect is book idolatry. Catholics gave the Bible, but they don't give much importance to the Books.

Although I have enjoyed our exchanges, I think we have reached an impasse. You and I are at different points of the spectrum about these things and I don't think that we will ever come to an agreement on these issues. So, we will just have to agree to disagree.

I will say, that if we depended only on the teaching of Jesus and not of Paul, we would still have to become Jews in order to be Christians, and be circumcised and keep the Mosaic Law, because that was what the 12 Apostles believed until Peter had his experience with the vision and the falling of the Holy Spirit upon the household of Cornelius. Peter had to work very hard to convince them, and even then a number of Jewish believers went to the Galatian churches and demanded that they be circumcised and keep the Mosaic Law in order to be truly Christian. Even Peter got sucked in and Paul had to reprove him.

I guess I am stirring up another aspect for discussion, which I am going to enjoy!

 

[Righttruth]

Although I have enjoyed our exchanges, I think we have reached an impasse. You and I are at different points of the spectrum about these things and I don't think that we will ever come to an agreement on these issues. So, we will just have to agree to disagree.

I will say, that if we depended only on the teaching of Jesus and not of Paul, we would still have to become Jews in order to be Christians, and be circumcised and keep the Mosaic Law, because that was what the 12 Apostles believed until Peter had his experience with the vision and the falling of the Holy Spirit upon the household of Cornelius. Peter had to work very hard to convince them, and even then a number of Jewish believers went to the Galatian churches and demanded that they be circumcised and keep the Mosaic Law in order to be truly Christian. Even Peter got sucked in and Paul had to reprove him.

I guess I am stirring up another aspect for discussion, which I am going to enjoy!

You are right. Messianic Jews generally don't like Paul's letter to Galatians of all his works. Definitely Paul was right on this which I also indicated earlier. But that does not mean that he was all the time right in sharing the Gospel which was limited. Perhaps, the published book 'Did Saint Paul Deviate From the Gospel?' may help in knowing some of the Paul's deviations. And these deviations worked well with godless and ignorant Gentiles. Really Paul worked hard to push his agenda by assuming apostleship and using his craftiness as admitted by him. Please remember Jesus' words fetches salvation, not please-all strategy and ritualism of Paul.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

You are right. Messianic Jews generally don't like Paul's letter to Galatians of all his works. Definitely Paul was right on this which I also indicated earlier. But that does not mean that he was all the time right in sharing the Gospel which was limited. Perhaps, the published book 'Did Saint Paul Deviate From the Gospel?' may help in knowing some of the Paul's deviations. And these deviations worked well with godless and ignorant Gentiles. Really Paul worked hard to push his agenda by assuming apostleship and using his craftiness as admitted by him. Please remember Jesus' words fetches salvation, not please-all strategy and ritualism of Paul.

I'll look it up and have a read of it. My favorite Christian second hand bookshop might have it.

 

[Righttruth]

I'll look it up and have a read of it. My favorite Christian second hand bookshop might have it.

I think it is available in Kindle version too

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I think it is available in Kindle version too

I've now downloaded it from Amazon Kindle, so I will have a read of it and let you what I think.

 

[Righttruth]

I've now downloaded it from Amazon Kindle, so I will have a read of it and let you what I think.

Ok

 

[LinkH]

Again that's not a bible based doctrine it's a carnal based opinion.
Since its not of us but of the holy spirit that tongues comes.to say a spirit filled person cannot speak in tongues is to say the holy spirit cannot speak in tongues.

That is a faulty argument. The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit distribute gift as He wills. We are not in control of the Holy Spirit.

Paul asks, not all speak in tongues, do they?

His terminology does not create separate categories for prayer langauge and speaking in tongues int he assembly.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

That is a faulty argument. The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit distribute gift as He wills. We are not in control of the Holy Spirit.

Paul asks, not all speak in tongues, do they?

His terminology does not create separate categories for prayer langauge and speaking in tongues int he assembly.

You've never experienced what it is like to pray directly to God in tongues, in private, and have the outcomes happen to you that I have over the last 50 years. It's one thing speaking from a foundation of theory and it is quite another after 50 years of actual practice and involvement. It is like talking about playing a musical instrument without ever learning to play one, when someone who has been playing, say, a violin for 50 years can speak convincingly about the technique of the instrument.

 

[LinkH]

You've never experienced what it is like to pray directly to God in tongues, in private, and have the outcomes happen to you that I have over the last 50 years. It's one thing speaking from a foundation of theory and it is quite another after 50 years of actual practice and involvement. It is like talking about playing a musical instrument without ever learning to play one, when someone who has been playing, say, a violin for 50 years can speak convincingly about the technique of the instrument.

Why make such assumptions Oscarr, that I don't speak in tongues. I first spoke in tongues when I was 11 or so. That's over 30 years.

Paul spoke in tongues 'more than ye all', he wrote the Corinthians. Yet he also asked, 'Not all speak in tongues, do they?'

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Why make such assumptions Oscarr, that I don't speak in tongues. I first spoke in tongues when I was 11 or so. That's over 30 years.

Paul spoke in tongues 'more than ye all', he wrote the Corinthians. Yet he also asked, 'Not all speak in tongues, do they?'

I stand corrected. I think that Paul was referring the use of the gift of tongues in the public church context. Not everyone has the gift of speaking in the specific tongues that is designed to be interpreted.

But when Paul speaks of speaking to one's self and to God instead of speaking out loud in tongues in church, he is talking about the use of tongues that is for the personal prayer life of the believer. I believe he was referring to that type of tongues when he said that he spoke in tongues more than them all, but in the church he would rather prophesy in a language that everyone understood so they could be built up and encouraged. Paul said that when a person spoke in tongues they spoke to God with mysteries in the Spirit that only God understood. While he discouraged folks from speaking out loud in tongues during church services, he said not to forbid the speaking of tongues in general. I think the whole point of his speaking about tongues in the chapter is to give a distinction between personal tongues and tongues spoken out loud in church. What was confusing the Corinthians was that they could not make that distinction and needed to know when was the right place to speak in tongues.

If you have been speaking in tongues since you were 11 or so, what is the problem? Why say, "Do all speak in tongues?" with the possible implication that you might be discouraging people to receive tongues, when you are using that facility yourself?

Of course (and I am guessing), that you might not see the significance and power of using tongues as an enhancement to personal prayer when you sense a burden on your heart, but don't have the words to express it. I find that when I pray in tongues, I am able to express that burden. Now my tongues is not a monotone "ra ba ba sha ba na shababa" type of tongue. I speak an expressive, articulate language that, although I don't understand what I am saying, is flowing out of my and fully expresses the burden of my heart and it comes with a definite assurance that God is hearing and understanding the prayer. I learned from a good pastor that we need to pray from our hearts in tongues and not just with the mouth. The tongues has to come from right inside of us and to express the burden of our hearts, or our desire to praise and glorify Him. Then the language becomes meaningful and expressive and is spoken with a definite purpose, and not for speaking in tongues for the sake of it.

I find that when I have a burden of intercession for someone, that the language changes, sometimes dramatically, and I sense the intense presence of God, which gives me joy when I get in my spirit, "I heard that and you have the victory." Sometimes when I have been intercessing in tongues, I have felt like I am pushing against a brick wall. Suddenly that "brick wall" gives way and I have a sense of breaking through, and I sense the victory. Then I can stop praying because I know that God has heard and answered the prayer. Once, the sense of victory was so intense, when I was praying on a lonely beach, that I ran along the beach shouting "Yahooo!"

So you can see why the ability to pray and intercede in tongues is so precious and meaningful to me, and why I argue assertively with people who try to forbid people receving the gift through misquotes of out-of-context scriptures. Once, when I helped a person receive the gift, he started speaking such a beautiful and expressive language that all of us in the room just laughed with intense joy. It was an unforgettable experience.