Featured Seeking truth about "tongues"...

Guys awaken is an unrepentant plagiarizer. She needs to come clean and stop it. She cannot really make her own arguments for the most part so she has to copy and paste from others and pass it off as her own so as to seem to know what she is talking about.

 

It is a sign to the unbeliever! What sign is it to the unbeliever?

 

I see that THIS is referring back to vs. 11! So what is it referring to in vs. 11?
11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

 

Unbelieving is unbelieving in Christ! Those Jews already believed in Christ!

Acts 10 states that they were praising God just like Acts 2! Acts 10 says they were magnifying God! THe sign was to the Jews that the Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit just as they did! The sign was tongues! NOthing is irrelevant in the Word of God!

 

The prophets had laid down the word of the Lord about the coming messiah line upon line, precept upon precept here a little, there a little but THEY REJECTED THE PROPHETIC Word from THEIR OWN PROPHETS in their OWN NATIVE LANGUAGE.

So God is going to bring the same doctrine, the same teaching but not through the JEWISH TONGUE or JEWISH PROPHETIC HEBERW WRITINGS but through GENTILE LANGUAGES - the gift of tongues. Yet, even from this new way "they will not hear" and destruction will be the consequence.

 

Unbelief has many forms. You demonstrate that on this forum.
Peter had a problem with unbelief. In fact he denied our Lord.
What is Peter's problem here:

Acts 10:13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

Peter had a problem with unbelief. What do you think the Lord was trying to teach him here?
Why did Peter take some Jews (those of the circumcision) with him?
It was a sign for the Jews, for all of them, for the nation of Israel as a whole.
This is where you get into trouble not understanding how the Book of Acts is a transitional book, a book of history. These Jews still thought that salvation was only for the Jews. Thus there was unbelief. Did not Jesus die for the sins of the world--apparently not--if only Jews could be saved. They were stuck in their unbelief and thus the purpose of tongues.

Demonstrate where those speaking in tongues were actually praising God.
They were "speaking forth the wonderful works of God." Period!

Now you agree that it was a sign to the Jews; make up your mind!!
It was irrelevant to Peter as he recounted the entire episode in chapter 11.
It was the least "relevant" gift to Paul as he lists it last, of least importance in 1Cor.12:28, where he lists all the gifts in order. But tongues is listed at the bottom of the list almost as if it has no relevance at all compared to the other gifts. He then says to seek those that are greater (not tongues).

 

So now tongues is "Gentile Languages"....where do you get this stuff from?

Vs. 12 is referring back to vs. 11!

 

Acts 10 says they were magnifying God. My Bible says magnifying is the same as praise. THey received the Holy Spirit just like Acts 2...

What kind of sign was it to the Jews? It was sign that they had received the Holy Spirit just like in Acts 2.

Every manifestation of the Holy Spirit is relevant!
You forgot the word EXCEPT in vs. 5! Tongues with the interpretation is edifying to the church!

 

I got my 3 points...I will try to be more careful!

 

Isaiah did not say they would speak to Jewish people in their OWN language but with "ANOTHER" language. Do you think "ANOTHER" means the same as their OWN language?????? If I told you that somebody is going to speak to you in "ANOTHER" language would you think that included your own????

On Pentecost they did not hear Hebrew but the dialects in the countries LISTED in which they were 'born." I can point out the obvious but I can't help with common sense.

 

I thought they spoke Galilean? vs. 7
I also thought it was Jews that gathered for Pentecost!

Either way another tongue just means one that you did not learn or know. What tongue did the Gentiles start speaking in Acts 10? Was it "Gentile languages?"

 

No such language. That is a location with Israel just as there no such langauge as Judean as that is a location within Israel also. In the time of Isaiah the native langauge was hebrew. In the time of Christ the native language was Aramaic. The point is they did not speak to the Jewish dispersion in their own language (Aramaic) but in the native language wherein these dispersia Jews had been born. The fact that they were Galileans was proof this was a supernatural phenomena that had no natural explanation.

That was the optimum time for such a prophecy is it not?


Look, you are so committed to your error that you can't even exercise common sense. You jump from one irrational argument to another in desperation to justify something that the Bible and common sense does not justify, so what use it to continue this discussion?

 

Obfuscating Scripture is wrong. I consider it sin.
Acts 2 was on the Day of Pentecost, and in Jerusalem.
Acts 10, eight chapters later, was in Caesarea, fifty-five miles northwest of Jerusalem, on the Mediterranean, just south of Mount Carmel; and so named by Herod, who rebuilt it, in honor of Cæsar Augustus, according to Jamieson, Faucett and Brown.
The two events are entirely different. Just because they were "magnifying God" in Acts 10 does not mean they were doing exactly the same thing in Acts 2. They were two different events. Why do you continue to read into the Scriptures things that are not there.
In Acts two the audience was Jewish.
In Acts ten the audience was Gentile.
They were two different events; two different times; two different peoples; two different reactions.

Why did Peter take so much care in taking Jews with him?
Every time tongues were spoken Jews were present.
Tongues is a sign to the Jews and to them that believe not.
Every time tongues are spoken Jews are present.

It is the least of all the gifts.

 

Just trying to show you it was not just a "Gentile language." We do agree that it was supernatural!

 

Baloney you did it again in post 161

 

They received the same gift for the same purpose! To praise God..
"If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand say "Amen" to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying?" (1 Corinthians 14:16)

But it is still a gift and it is from God!
Again, the sign was tongues and it was a sign that they had received the Holy Spirit just like Acts 2.
What was the sign in Acts 19 that they had received the Holy Spirit? Tongues and Prophecy!

 

That was the one I was speaking of!

 

You are throwing common sense out the window! If the writer is jewish (Isaiah) and he is writing to Jews ("Jerusalem") and tells them that God will speak to them in "ANOTHER" language other than what the prophets have been speaking to them (their own native langauge) then that is a GENTILE langauge because all people on earth are either JEWISH or GENTILE there are no other options!

That is the point of noticing they were "galileans" or those whose language was the JEWISH native language. They were speaking in "ANOTHER" language other than the native JEWISH langauge. There are only two kinds of people in the world - JEWS or GENTILES and they were not speaking in the JEWISH language so that leaves GENTILE langauges and those gentiles nations are listed for you to read in black and white:

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

These are GENTILE nations and "our own dialect where we were born" are GENTILES dialects.

So you are wrong, thoroughly wrong - they were speaking in "ANOTHER" dialect than then the JEWISH dialect.

If they spoke in the JEWISH dialect IT WOULD BE NO MIRACLE AT ALL as they were trained in that dialect - You lack spiritual discerment in the simplest things.

 

I ask you again...what did they speak in Acts 10 when the Gentiles started speaking in tongues?