tongue speakers please answer

Sorry, but you have not won any debate. You can belittle the gifts of the spirit all you want and deny them until the cows come home but you will never ever remove the truth that they do exist.

They were not just for Jews and you have been given proof of this by others but just because there were Jews present you claim that proves your point but may I remind you that Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles and he spoke in tongues as her said more than anyone else.

Those who deny these gifts deny the very power of God. You take scriptures and you twist them to fit your beliefs even though the scriptures prove you wrong. You cessanants try to use a scripture in I Corinthians and when people see the absurdity of what you are saying you try to change it again.

The Japanese woman did not know French but she spoke in the language. The French woman did not know Japanese but she spoke in that language.
This was supernatural and denying it won't change that this happens.

When you read about tongues in the book of Acts there is only one reference to the people speaking in languages the people around could understand. This happened on the day of Pentecost. Those in the upper room did not know the languages they were speaking. This was a sign to the unbelievers. This in itself is a miracle.

Jesus himself said that signs would follow believers and when you say this all ended you are calling the Lord a liar. He did not state these signs would follow believers until the bible came into existence. This is something you add to the scriptures. Not even the scripture in I Corinthian states this but people will harp on this as being the case. He that perfect comes is not the Bible. Paul who wrote this letter probably had no idea that his writings would be put into a complete book called the Bible.

The Bible says God is still God and won't ever change but cessanants cannot accept that.
You limit God. You try to take the God of the Bible and make him into a impotent God but it won't work. He is still God and he does not change and you can argue until you turn blue but you won't change him.

What is really funny to me is that Baptist and Methodist and Presbyterian forefathers spoke in tongues but everyone wants to shut that up.
There are plenty of books that state this happened in the 1600's, 1700's and 1800's. At brush arbor meetings and camp meetings.

 

Brian, I strongly disagree with you. On the day of Pentecost, the tongues that were spoken were not used to tear down a language barrier So they could understand what was being said.

Now when this was noised abroad the multitude came together and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language, and they were all amazed and marvelled saying one to another Behold are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? And they were all amazed and were in doubt saying [bone to another[/b] What meaneth this?

Notice Peter spoke in one Language to address the unbelieving crowd that morning. Acts 2:14 But Peter standing up witht the eleven, lifted up his voice and said unto them. Ye men of Judaea and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you and hearken to my words......

Peter preached on the day of Pentecost in one language. If tongues were given to break a language barrier, than Peter would not have been able to speak to the multitude all at once.

God bless

 

1 Corinthians :25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

What if we've fallen to the bottom of the well, thinking we have risen to the top of the mountain, What if were knocking at the gates of hell thinking we are heaven bound? What if we spend our lives thinking of ourselves WHen we should have been thinking of each other. What if we reached up and touched the ground to find we're living life upside down.

That song is by truth if anyone wants to know. Has a lot of meaning.

Godspeed

 

Oneness (Brian), I understand your point about what Peter said. If that was the only verse we had to go by I might even agree with you but we have to look at whole sections of scripture, the Bible as a whole and individual meanings of words. Walguy talked about the laguage/dialect thing earlier so I won't re-post that. Anyway read this: Acts:
"2:22: Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:"

Brian, look at who the real audience is here. Who was Peter really addressing? Those who needed to hear what he was saying could understand and that is who he was talking to. Now the point to take seriously is how well this addressing of the Jews goes along with what Paul wrote later, which I explained in my earlier post.

Think about it Brian, you haven't been able to refute my explanation of Paul's use of the word "sign" If there is nothing you can say Biblically against what I say, could it be that what the verses say are what they actually say and I in fact, got it right?

Your explanation of what Peter said was good if you only look at that verse. I am asking, in Christian love, that you broaden your thinking to the scripture as a whole.

Brian, keep searching and if in the end you don't change your mind at the very least change your name ;) :D :D :D

In a great God,
Brian

[ June 18, 2002, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: The Briguy ]

 

Hrhema wrote: "They were not just for Jews and you have been given proof of this by others but just because there were Jews present you claim that proves your point but may I remind you that Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles and he spoke in tongues as her said more than anyone else."

I am not sure what to make of this. Paul called tongues a sign, I just brought it up. Paul quoted Isaiah about the Jews hearing the "tongues of strangers", I just reminded you to look.

Tell me HR, If you were traveling lands where you didn't speak the language, would the gift of tongues (as I describe) be a good thing? Of course it would be a huge help, thus Paul spoke more tongues then anyone, see how that works, the greatest evangelist of the time speaking the most tongues, just makes plain simple sense.

In Christ,
Brian

 

9. In the light of 1Cor.14:34,35, do women speak
in tongues in your church? Do you realize this is
absolutely forbidden by God? It is unscriptural.
Is it a practice of your church?
DHK, you have taken this scripture out of
context. It's not talking about women speaking in tongues. Yes we women do speak in tongues. How else would we know that we have received the Baptism of the Holy Ghost? Even Mary, the mother of Jesus, spoke in tongues. She was in the upper room, on the Day of Pentecost, when the Holy Ghost was poured out for the first time. Acts 1:13-14.

DHK, the above is the answer to your question. Maybe you missed it. Also, I answered the other eight.

MEE

 

Did Mary speak in tongues? I've never had the courage to ask anyone about this, but to me, it would contradict the women keep silent verse. I've pondered over this issue so much (why would Mary be allowed to speak in tongues, if women are forbidden elsewhere). From my own thoughts: Acts 1, I read that some abode there in the upper room & I believe only the apostles had the gifts. I believe the filling of the Spirit is commanded for every believer, but the gift of tongues is not. In Acts 2, I see no one praying for gift of tongues; they were sitting & waiting. In v.1,'was fully come' refers to v.15(the third hour of the day) and 'all with one accord'refers to v.14(the apostles, not the 120). In v.8, 'hear we every man'(NOT women); also, v.13, "These men.."(NOT women). In Acts 4:31, they were filled with the Holy Ghost, but did not speak in tongues.

So, I can accept that women are to keep silent by the way I understand these scriptures; otherwise, having Mary speak, seems like contradiction.

[ June 18, 2002, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: GrannyGumbo ]

 

If nothing more, i have got a good laugh off this topic today. Who ever wrote the thing about the special olympics, that almost gave me a hernia. LOL. that was great. Dont worry, I will try to change my Name but I want make ne promises.

 

I find it very funny when people throw the woman's issue into other issues. IT seems strange to me that Jesus allowed women to follow him and that Jesus had many interactions with women.

Who did Jesus tell to go tell his disciples when he arose? A woman. Boy she sure was not silent.
What about Mary and Martha, and Susanna, and even his own mother Mary.

Anyone who knows Jewish customs and history knows exactly why Paul said what he said. The men and women sat separately. In the middle of services women would holler out to their husbands questioning things. Paul was telling the women to ask their husbands at home.

Look at I Corinthians 11>

"But a woman dishonors her husband if she PRAYS OR PROPHESIES without a covering on her head."

Guys it does not sound like the women in Corinth was too quiet nor does it sound like Paul expected them to be to me.

 

Maybe its not a contridiction to what the bible teaches but to what you believe.

You need to look at that verse in context. Why did Paul tell them to keep silent? Did it mean they could not say a word or make a sound? No not at all he said "Let your women keep silence in the churches for it is not permitted unto them to speak but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law, and if they learn anything let them ask their husbands at home."

Lets face it guys its not about women praising God or calling on his Name in worship, Its about order. If a woman stands up and asks her husband something during church and causes a distraction then yes, it is out of order.

Notice Paul said. I would that ye ALL apake with tongues. And Paul said I speak with tongues more than ye ALL.

And yes Mary did speak in tongues on the day Pentecost.

GOd bless

 

Revolt wrote:
"""Wow you guys are great you managed to chase everyone away. Guess what winning a internet argument is alot like winning the special olypics. Even if you win youre still retarted.

(ok dont get made I dont hate hanycapped people i have even done volunteer work to help handycapped people I am just making a point)"""

Revolt, with spelling and grammar like yours, you should not be saying anything about the mental abilities of others. :D :D :D

-Brian

[ June 18, 2002, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: The Briguy ]

 

that was funny :D :D :D

i know I have bad spelling and grammer

:D :D :D :D

koh-me shaw ma kah needah mah tobey
(bad spelling or typing in tongues you be the judge)

 

If these verses meant what you and other 'tongues' speakers claim they do, Paul would have been blatantly contradicting himself, since in chapter 12 he clearly said that different people have different gifts, and not all speak in tongues. So either there's another way to interpret chapter 12 (not likely, since it is very clear in its meaning), or there's another way to interpret verses 14:5 and 14:18 (the verses you referenced).
Let's first look at the second of those two verses.
The Greek for 'you all' is slightly different here than in verse 5, literally meaning 'all of you.' This gives us the crucial clue as to what Paul means by this phrase. He's speaking of the assembly as a whole. He's not referring to individual activity. When we think about this, the fact that Paul was saying that he alone spoke in tongues more than the entire Corinthian assembly indicates that not everyone in the assembly was speaking in tongues by a long shot, AND PAUL WAS THANKING GOD THAT THIS WAS THE CASE. Quite different from the interpretation 'tongues' speakers try to put on this verse.
In verse 5, the key to understanding the true meaning lies in the word 'want.'
There are two basic words in the original NT Greek used for 'want' or 'desire.' One of them, BOULOMAI, usually indicates an exercise of will or an intellectual resolve. The other, THELO, tends to indicate a more emotionally based desire, or an impulse.
There is one verse in the NT that contains both of these words, and is quite instructive in the difference between them.

The word translated 'willing' in this verse is THELO. The word translated 'resolved' is BOULOMAI. Joseph was not willing to put Mary to shame because of his emotional feelings toward her, because he loved her. Therefore, he made the intellectual, carefully considered decision to divorce her quietly.
Returning to I Corinthians 14:5, the word that Paul did NOT use here is just as important as the one he did use. The word translated 'want' is the emotional, impulsive word THELO. Paul was NOT saying that it was his intellectual will that all the Corinthian believers speak in tongues. He was saying that it was his instinctive emotional desire that all of them speak in tongues as he did, because used correctly it WAS a true manifestation of the Holy Spirit and a good thing to be able to do.
However, the verse - in fact, the SENTENCE - doesn't stop there. The entirety of I Corinthians 14:5 reads:

It's interesting how modern 'tongues' speakers always seem to leave out the second half of Paul's thought in this sentence. He was saying it was also his instinctive emotional desire that all the Corinthians prophesy, and that he 'desired' that for them even more.
Now clearly Paul did not intend for all the Corinthian believers to both speak in tongues AND prophesy. So he wasn't speaking in verse 5 of a real, intellectual desire or plan for their Church. He was speaking of his emotional desire for all of them to have many visible manifestations of the Holy Spirit. BUT, as he had made clear in chapter 12, God's plan is that different gifts are distributed to different believers, so that the Church as a whole has all the bases covered. Only some were to prophesy, only some were to heal, only some were to teach, AND ONLY SOME WERE TO SPEAK IN TONGUES. This is God's carefully considered desire for His Churches. Everyone speaking in tongues would violate this. Therefore, Paul was NOT saying that all the Corinthians were SUPPOSED TO speak in tongues, only that he instinctively wished this was possible, and wished even MORE that they all could prophesy. The true meaning of 14:5 is thus in complete harmony with his earlier discourse in chapter 12.
(The fact that the sign gifts have passed away, and that in the modern Church NOBODY is supposed to speak in tongues has already been documented by myself and others in this thread, so I won't go into that again here.)
Unfortunately, I don't expect that this analysis will satisfy the 'tongues' speakers, since you guys are so addicted to your emotional 'high.' But hopefully it will serve to educate those sincere seekers who may be reading this, and help them avoid falling into a non-Biblical practice.

 

Thanks brother, I mean brother Walguy. As always you provide clear accurate teaching which is hard to refute. I for one appreciate the depth of your posts, keep them a coming :D

In Christ,
Brian

 

If these verses meant what you and other 'tongues' speakers claim they do, Paul would have been blatantly contradicting himself, since in chapter 12 he clearly said that different people have different gifts, and not all speak in tongues. So either there's another way to interpret chapter 12 (not likely, since it is very clear in its meaning), or there's another way to interpret verses 14:5 and 14:18 (the verses you referenced).
Let's first look at the second of those two verses.</font>[/QUOTE].

Contridiction???? Perhaps it is a contridiction with the way you interpret it. Is he speaking of the unknown tongue or is he speaking of the gift of tongues?

I know i would rather prophesy than speak in tongues.

So let me ask you this. If no one is speaking in tongues at your church is anyone prophesying?

 

Yes they do. Walguy and I go to the same church so I can answer this for him. Prophecy, in 1 Cor. 12 to 14 means "to speak before". Not before something happens but "before" or better said "in front of" people. Therefore this gift is an ability to effectively proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ to others. Hope this helps!

In Love and Truth,
Brian

 

Last post on the subject: Oneness, you don't have to speak in tongues to prophesy.

When Jesus was being beaten by the guards, what did they challenge Him to do? "Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?"

They weren't asking Him to speak in tongues; they were demanding of Him to "reveal."

The gift of prophesy is not a direct result of the gift of tongues, although the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Otherwise, Paul would not have written "I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues."

Only when tongues are interpreted is that gift equal to the gift of prophesy.

 

Well then if what you are saying is the "Gift of Prophesy" Than anyone could have "That gift"

I beg to differ with you there is a diffrence in the two.

Don you are right, you do not have to speak in tongues to prophesy, but prophesy can come through tongues.