1 Corinthians 12-14

[awaken]

mysteryman,
Who were the 120 believers talking to when they spoke in tongues? I see them all together in one place, then they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and they all began speaking in tongues. Since they were all speaking in foreign languages, they could not have understood each other. Therefore, they were not talking to one another, but notice that there was no-one else around at this point for them to be talking to. It was not until the noised abroad..did the multitude come together. They were speaking before they came, right? I see them praising Him in tongues in the Holy Spirit, which is one of the primary purposes for tongues:
"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)
On the day of Pentecost the disciples were talking to God in the Holy Spirit. They were praying in the Spirit.

The disciples were praising God in the Holy Spirit. Bible teachers talk about different types of prayer, such as the prayer of repentance, the prayer of consecration, the prayer of thanksgiving, the prayer of praise, and so on. The disciples were giving God the prayer of praise in the Holy Spirit. They were praying in the Spirit.

Notice that the purpose for tongues at Pentecost was not for sharing the Gospel with foreigners in their native languages. In fact, nowhere does the New Testament say that speaking in tongues is for witnessing to foreigners.

 

[Mysteryman]

mysteryman,
Who were the 120 believers talking to when they spoke in tongues? I see them all together in one place, then they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and they all began speaking in tongues. Since they were all speaking in foreign languages, they could not have understood each other. Therefore, they were not talking to one another, but notice that there was no-one else around at this point for them to be talking to. It was not until the noised abroad..did the multitude come together. They were speaking before they came, right? I see them praising Him in tongues in the Holy Spirit, which is one of the primary purposes for tongues:
"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)
On the day of Pentecost the disciples were talking to God in the Holy Spirit. They were praying in the Spirit.

The disciples were praising God in the Holy Spirit. Bible teachers talk about different types of prayer, such as the prayer of repentance, the prayer of consecration, the prayer of thanksgiving, the prayer of praise, and so on. The disciples were giving God the prayer of praise in the Holy Spirit. They were praying in the Spirit.

Notice that the purpose for tongues at Pentecost was not for sharing the Gospel with foreigners in their native languages. In fact, nowhere does the New Testament say that speaking in tongues is for witnessing to foreigners.

Hi awaken

There is a misconception about the 120 speaking in tongues. The 120 did not speak in tongues. Only the 12 spoke in tongues in the house where they were sitting. Then when the multitude came together, because it had been noised abroad. The 12 spoke in tongues again < this was the second time they spoke in tongues. So yes, as a witness, but also as a "sign" and especially as a "wonder" - John 4:48

The wonder was that they heard them speak in their native language. ARE not all these that speak Galilaeans ? < Acts 2:6 & 7

A witness is one who observes. Those whom heard them speak in their native language were the witnesses.

Peter stood up and shared the gospel by his own native language, which of course is not speaking in tongues. He spoke, and told them that this was, what was spoken by the prophet Joel. So this was a witness of the prophesy of Joel coming to pass. Then in Acts 2:41 - they were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, received the gift of the Holy Spirit upon them, and about three thousand souls spoke in tongues.

Since the day of pentecost passsing, is speaking in tongues a witness ? Yes, it is a witness , and is for a sign and wonder, unto those who believe not ( John 4:48). But not in a public setting. Which means , not in a setting where there are believers and unbelievers. But first let me explain this. What is a believer and an unbeliever ?

A believer can be an unbeliever. They can believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, but do not believe on the baptism of the Holy Spirit. A total unbeliever is one who does not believe on Jesus Christ, so they will never believe on the gift of the Holy Spirit. A believer who does believe on Jesus Christ, yet does not know or does not believe on the gift of the Holy Spirit, can be an unbeliever of the manifestations .

This was the case in Acts 19, those who were baptized with John's baptism, had not heard that there even be a Holy Spirit. Paul expounded the word unto them, then layed hands on them, and they spoke in tongues. < This was not a witness ! Nor was this a sign and wonder ! They were believers that just didn't know and understand. They believed by the laying on of hands (revelation from God to do so) and they received the gift of the Holy Spirit and manifested.

Acts 10 these were gentiles, not jews. Gentiles were never baptized with John's baptism. These gentiles were only baptized with the Holy Spirit and all of them spoke in tongues. < This was a witness as well as a sign and wonder. It was a witness and a sign and wonder unto those Jews who were with Peter.

Bless - MM

 

[awaken]

mysteryman,
Who were the 120 believers talking to when they spoke in tongues? I see them all together in one place, then they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and they all began speaking in tongues. Since they were all speaking in foreign languages, they could not have understood each other. Therefore, they were not talking to one another, but notice that there was no-one else around at this point for them to be talking to. It was not until the noised abroad..did the multitude come together. They were speaking before they came, right? I see them praising Him in tongues in the Holy Spirit, which is one of the primary purposes for tongues:
"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)
On the day of Pentecost the disciples were talking to God in the Holy Spirit. They were praying in the Spirit.

The disciples were praising God in the Holy Spirit. Bible teachers talk about different types of prayer, such as the prayer of repentance, the prayer of consecration, the prayer of thanksgiving, the prayer of praise, and so on. The disciples were giving God the prayer of praise in the Holy Spirit. They were praying in the Spirit.

Notice that the purpose for tongues at Pentecost was not for sharing the Gospel with foreigners in their native languages. In fact, nowhere does the New Testament say that speaking in tongues is for witnessing to foreigners.

Hi awaken

There is a misconception about the 120 speaking in tongues. The 120 did not speak in tongues. Only the 12 spoke in tongues in the house where they were sitting. Then when the multitude came together, because it had been noised abroad. The 12 spoke in tongues again < this was the second time they spoke in tongues. So yes, as a witness, but also as a "sign" and especially as a "wonder" - John 4:48

The wonder was that they heard them speak in their native language. ARE not all these that speak Galilaeans ? < Acts 2:6 & 7

A witness is one who observes. Those whom heard them speak in their native language were the witnesses.

Peter stood up and shared the gospel by his own native language, which of course is not speaking in tongues. He spoke, and told them that this was, what was spoken by the prophet Joel. So this was a witness of the prophesy of Joel coming to pass. Then in Acts 2:41 - they were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, received the gift of the Holy Spirit upon them, and about three thousand souls spoke in tongues.

Since the day of pentecost passsing, is speaking in tongues a witness ? Yes, it is a witness , and is for a sign and wonder, unto those who believe not ( John 4:48). But not in a public setting. Which means , not in a setting where there are believers and unbelievers. But first let me explain this. What is a believer and an unbeliever ?

A believer can be an unbeliever. They can believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, but do not believe on the baptism of the Holy Spirit. A total unbeliever is one who does not believe on Jesus Christ, so they will never believe on the gift of the Holy Spirit. A believer who does believe on Jesus Christ, yet does not know or does not believe on the gift of the Holy Spirit, can be an unbeliever of the manifestations .

This was the case in Acts 19, those who were baptized with John's baptism, had not heard that there even be a Holy Spirit. Paul expounded the word unto them, then layed hands on them, and they spoke in tongues. < This was not a witness ! Nor was this a sign and wonder ! They were believers that just didn't know and understand. They believed by the laying on of hands (revelation from God to do so) and they received the gift of the Holy Spirit and manifested.

Acts 10 these were gentiles, not jews. Gentiles were never baptized with John's baptism. These gentiles were only baptized with the Holy Spirit and all of them spoke in tongues. < This was a witness as well as a sign and wonder. It was a witness and a sign and wonder unto those Jews who were with Peter.

Bless - MM

I can understand and agree with most of what you have written. I was one of those believers that did not believe..until God open my mind and spirit to the truth.

But...I have understood that there were more than the 12 that spoke in tongues that day. I read that there were 120 in the upper room.

 

[Mysteryman]

Quote awaken: "But...I have understood that there were more than the 12 that spoke in tongues that day. I read that there were 120 in the upper room."

Hi awaken

Yes, I also was kept in the dark about the ability and necessity of speaking in tongues. It was because of my denominational upbringing.

There were more than 12 in the upper room. But when they first spoke in tongues on the day of pentecost, they were not in the upper room. They were in the house where they were sitting - Acts 2:2

The upper room was a meeting place. The house where they were staying in was where the 12 were staying when the day of pentecost was fully come. The word "they" in Acts 1:1 are the twelve only.

Bless

 

[awaken]

Quote awaken: "But...I have understood that there were more than the 12 that spoke in tongues that day. I read that there were 120 in the upper room."

Hi awaken

Yes, I also was kept in the dark about the ability and necessity of speaking in tongues. It was because of my denominational upbringing.

There were more than 12 in the upper room. But when they first spoke in tongues on the day of pentecost, they were not in the upper room. They were in the house where they were sitting - Acts 2:2

The upper room was a meeting place. The house where they were staying in was where the 12 were staying when the day of pentecost was fully come. The word "they" in Acts 1:1 are the twelve only.

Bless

Be patient with me on this one...Before I accept a different teaching I have to ask 100 questions..haha

In verse 26 of chapter 1 "And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Mattheas; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles." The word their here...is this just the 12 or is the 120?

 

[Mysteryman]

Quote awaken: "But...I have understood that there were more than the 12 that spoke in tongues that day. I read that there were 120 in the upper room."

Hi awaken

Yes, I also was kept in the dark about the ability and necessity of speaking in tongues. It was because of my denominational upbringing.

There were more than 12 in the upper room. But when they first spoke in tongues on the day of pentecost, they were not in the upper room. They were in the house where they were sitting - Acts 2:2

The upper room was a meeting place. The house where they were staying in was where the 12 were staying when the day of pentecost was fully come. The word "they" in Acts 1:1 are the twelve only.

Bless

Be patient with me on this one...Before I accept a different teaching I have to ask 100 questions..haha

In verse 26 of chapter 1 "And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Mattheas; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles." The word their here...is this just the 12 or is the 120?

Hi awaken

Patients is my middle name -

Kidding aside --- It is just the 12 in verse 26

Between verses 22 and 23 there is a time frame. Prior to verse 23 Peter was speaking to the many who were in the upper room. But with verse 23 there were just the eleven and these other two - Joseph called Barsabas who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. The lot fell on Mattias and he was numbered with the eleven. So now there were 12 apostles.

 

[mondar]

8 Love never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall be done away; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall be done away. (ASV)

When will or did tongues cease of themselves. I add the words "of themselves" but it is actually in the greek text in the tense of the word "?????????." I believe that is a middle tense verb and compared to the passive related to the words "done away."

9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part;
10 but when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away.
If I can add a comment about the passive verbs related to prophecy and knowledge. Prophecy and knowledge are done away with by the perfect (see verse 10). In verse 9, Paul does not include tongues. He does not add "we speak in tongues in part." So then, when in verse 10, that which is in part that is done away with.... since tongues is not "in part" the "perfect" does not do away with it.

So then, does tongues cease before prophecy and knowledge?

Finally, in I cor 14....
22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to the unbelieving: but prophesying is for a sign, not to the unbelieving, but to them that believe.
What is tongues a sign of? If it is given for the purpose of being a sign to unbelievers, who are the unbelievers? What is the relationship between tongues and the text given to us in verse 21?
21 In the law it is written, By men of strange tongues and by the lips of strangers will I speak unto this people; and not even thus will they hear me, saith the Lord.
And this is at best a quote from Isaiah. Why does Paul say "in the law it is written?"

Is it true that tongues is for a sign to unbelievers? Then why is it practiced in the prayer closet? or in church?

 

[awaken]

Hi awaken

Patients is my middle name -

Kidding aside --- It is just the 12 in verse 26

Between verses 22 and 23 there is a time frame. Prior to verse 23 Peter was speaking to the many who were in the upper room. But with verse 23 there were just the eleven and these other two - Joseph called Barsabas who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. The lot fell on Mattias and he was numbered with the eleven. So now there were 12 apostles.

Peter addressed the 120 about replacing Judas..so when they voted the rest of them left? How do you come up with that?

 

[awaken]

8 Love never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall be done away; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall be done away. (ASV)

When will or did tongues cease of themselves. I add the words "of themselves" but it is actually in the greek text in the tense of the word "?????????." I believe that is a middle tense verb and compared to the passive related to the words "done away."

9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part;
10 but when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away.
If I can add a comment about the passive verbs related to prophecy and knowledge. Prophecy and knowledge are done away with by the perfect (see verse 10). In verse 9, Paul does not include tongues. He does not add "we speak in tongues in part." So then, when in verse 10, that which is in part that is done away with.... since tongues is not "in part" the "perfect" does not do away with it.

So then, does tongues cease before prophecy and knowledge?

Finally, in I cor 14....
22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to the unbelieving: but prophesying is for a sign, not to the unbelieving, but to them that believe.
What is tongues a sign of? If it is given for the purpose of being a sign to unbelievers, who are the unbelievers? What is the relationship between tongues and the text given to us in verse 21?
21 In the law it is written, By men of strange tongues and by the lips of strangers will I speak unto this people; and not even thus will they hear me, saith the Lord.
And this is at best a quote from Isaiah. Why does Paul say "in the law it is written?"

Is it true that tongues is for a sign to unbelievers? Then why is it practiced in the prayer closet? or in church?

Interesting!!! I never notice that before! Tongues is not mentioned in verse 9!
Let me study this out in light of this..maybe someone else will answer your questions.
I think Mysteryman answered this better than I can explain..let me find his reply..

 

[Mysteryman]

Hi awaken

Patients is my middle name -

Kidding aside --- It is just the 12 in verse 26

Between verses 22 and 23 there is a time frame. Prior to verse 23 Peter was speaking to the many who were in the upper room. But with verse 23 there were just the eleven and these other two - Joseph called Barsabas who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. The lot fell on Mattias and he was numbered with the eleven. So now there were 12 apostles.

Peter addressed the 120 about replacing Judas..so when they voted the rest of them left? How do you come up with that?

Hi awaken

Yes , Peter addressed the many that were there in the upper room about the need to ordain one to replace Judas. But in verse 15 we see that Peter was only talking specifically to the disciples.

These two were among the many that were there in the upper room. Notice I keep saying many, and not 120. That is becasue the information about there being 120 is in parenthesis < added by the translators. We have no idea exactly how many there were. But my best educated knowledge tells me that there were originally 16 named disciples, and without Judas , there were now only 15 named disciples there in Acts 1:15.

But this appointment was not done openly within the upper room. The 11 took these two and prayed over them. So it was the 13 of them that left the upper room. The casting of lots in the OT only pertained to those concerned. Be it when Jonah was on the boat and they cast lots, and the lot fell on Jonah. Or when Aaron cast lots upon the two goats - Lev. 16:8.

This means that two other disciples were not chosen to be a part of the casting of lots. Eleven cast lots, so there had to be a number that would make the lot fall upon one of the two.

Now I know this does not seem like alot of information to go on. But this is the way I see it happening. Those to whom it was concerned, were there when they prayed and when the lots were cast. And no one else was there but the 13, and the eleven cast their lots. Why just the eleven ? Because they were more than just disciples, they were apostles , as noted in Acts 1:26. These 11 are named in verse 13. These 11 prayed over these two, to see which the lot would fall upon.

Bless - MM

 

[Mysteryman]

8 Love never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall be done away; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall be done away. (ASV)

When will or did tongues cease of themselves. I add the words "of themselves" but it is actually in the greek text in the tense of the word "?????????." I believe that is a middle tense verb and compared to the passive related to the words "done away."

9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part;
10 but when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away.
If I can add a comment about the passive verbs related to prophecy and knowledge. Prophecy and knowledge are done away with by the perfect (see verse 10). In verse 9, Paul does not include tongues. He does not add "we speak in tongues in part." So then, when in verse 10, that which is in part that is done away with.... since tongues is not "in part" the "perfect" does not do away with it.

So then, does tongues cease before prophecy and knowledge?

Finally, in I cor 14....
22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to the unbelieving: but prophesying is for a sign, not to the unbelieving, but to them that believe.
What is tongues a sign of? If it is given for the purpose of being a sign to unbelievers, who are the unbelievers? What is the relationship between tongues and the text given to us in verse 21?
21 In the law it is written, By men of strange tongues and by the lips of strangers will I speak unto this people; and not even thus will they hear me, saith the Lord.
And this is at best a quote from Isaiah. Why does Paul say "in the law it is written?"

Is it true that tongues is for a sign to unbelievers? Then why is it practiced in the prayer closet? or in church?

Interesting!!! I never notice that before! Tongues is not mentioned in verse 9!
Let me study this out in light of this..maybe someone else will answer your questions.
I think Mysteryman answered this better than I can explain..let me find his reply..

Hi

Tongues is a "form" of prophecy. On the day of pentecost they spoke in tongues. Those hearing them , heard this in their own language, as "if" it was prophecy. Interpretation of tongues and prophecy are the same. Both bring about comfort, exhortation and edification. Tongues is of men or of angels. On the day of pentecost, their tongues were of men. "heard them speak the wonderful works of God"

Bless

 

[awaken]

THis is how I came to the conclusion of it being more than the 11....

Acts 1:15 tells us that there were a total of about 120 believers, and from Acts 1:15 to Acts 2:1 the words "they" and "them" most likely refer to the 120 believers. Thoughout scripture there were many average, ordinary Christians who spoke in tongues in the New Testament, so there's no reason to assume that only the apostles spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost.

Sometimes people point out that Acts 2:7 in the NIV says, "Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans?," and Acts 2:14 says, "These men are not drunk." This seems to imply that only men were speaking in tongues, which would mean that all of the disciples did not speak in tongues because some of the disciples were women. However, if you look up those verses in other translations of the Bible then you'll discover that the word "men" does not appear in those verses in the original Greek.

In Acts 2:9 I see a list of specific groups of people who heard their own languages being spoken, and I can see that there are more than 12 languages listed. This is perfectly reasonable if more than 12 people (i.e. more than the 12 apostles) were speaking in tongues. Someone might argue that each apostle could have spoken in multiple languages, but nowhere does the New Testament ever say that anyone spoke a message in tongues in multiple languages. Certainly it might be possible, but the point here is that it would be an assumption that such a thing happened in the first century, and it would be an assumption that this is what happened at Pentecost (based on the assumption that only the apostles were speaking in tongues at Pentecost). So that argument would be based on assumptions built on top of assumptions, which is not very strong evidence.

In Acts 1:2 I see Luke talking about the apostles, and Luke refers to them as "they" and "them" through Acts 1:14. In Acts 1:14 I see other people besides the apostles, all joined together constantly in prayer. In Acts 1:15 the focus shifts, beginning with "In those days." The focus is now on "the believers," and we're told that they were a group numbering about 120. Peter stood up among them as a spokesperson and said that a new apostle must be chosen from among them (obviously not from among the remaining 11 apostles, but from among the rest of the believers). Then Acts 2:1 says, "When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place," which is referring back to a group that had previously been mentioned. What group was the focus of the preceding passages? The 120 believers. The 120 believers were all together in one place, and they all spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost.

In Acts 2:14, Peter explained the phenomenon of tongues by quoting from the prophet Joel, who said that in the last days God will pour out His Spirit on all people, both men and women (Acts 2:16-18). We know that some of the 120 believers were women ( Acts 1:14), and therefore Peter's statement fits with the view that all of the believers spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost.

In addition, a number of Bible commentaries agree that probably all 120 believers spoke in tongues on that day, as in these examples:
"They were all . . . in one place. Not only the apostles, but the hundred and twenty disciples." (People's New Testament commentary, Acts 2:1)

"3. cloven tongues, like as of fire, &c.--"disparted tongues," that is, tongue-shaped, flame-like appearances, rising from a common center or root, and resting upon each of that large company" (Jamiesson, Faussett, Brown commentary, Acts 2:3, emphasis added)

"They were all with one accord in one place - So here was a conjunction of company, minds, and place; the whole hundred and twenty being present." (Wesley's commentary, Acts 2:1)

"They were all - Probably not only the apostles, but also the 120 people mentioned in Act_1:15." (Barnes' commentary, Acts 2:1)

"They were all with one accord in one place - It is probable that the All here mentioned means the one hundred and twenty spoken of Act_1:15" (Clarke's commentary, Acts 2:1)

"Though this need not be restrained to the twelve apostles, but may be understood of the hundred and twenty" (Gill's commentary, Acts 2:1)
What it boils down to is that all of the Scriptural evidence is consistent with the view that all 120 believers spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost.

 

[Mysteryman]

THis is how I came to the conclusion of it being more than the 11....

Acts 1:15 tells us that there were a total of about 120 believers, and from Acts 1:15 to Acts 2:1 the words "they" and "them" most likely refer to the 120 believers. Thoughout scripture there were many average, ordinary Christians who spoke in tongues in the New Testament, so there's no reason to assume that only the apostles spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost.

Sometimes people point out that Acts 2:7 in the NIV says, "Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans?," and Acts 2:14 says, "These men are not drunk." This seems to imply that only men were speaking in tongues, which would mean that all of the disciples did not speak in tongues because some of the disciples were women. However, if you look up those verses in other translations of the Bible then you'll discover that the word "men" does not appear in those verses in the original Greek.

In Acts 2:9 I see a list of specific groups of people who heard their own languages being spoken, and I can see that there are more than 12 languages listed. This is perfectly reasonable if more than 12 people (i.e. more than the 12 apostles) were speaking in tongues. Someone might argue that each apostle could have spoken in multiple languages, but nowhere does the New Testament ever say that anyone spoke a message in tongues in multiple languages. Certainly it might be possible, but the point here is that it would be an assumption that such a thing happened in the first century, and it would be an assumption that this is what happened at Pentecost (based on the assumption that only the apostles were speaking in tongues at Pentecost). So that argument would be based on assumptions built on top of assumptions, which is not very strong evidence.

In Acts 1:2 I see Luke talking about the apostles, and Luke refers to them as "they" and "them" through Acts 1:14. In Acts 1:14 I see other people besides the apostles, all joined together constantly in prayer. In Acts 1:15 the focus shifts, beginning with "In those days." The focus is now on "the believers," and we're told that they were a group numbering about 120. Peter stood up among them as a spokesperson and said that a new apostle must be chosen from among them (obviously not from among the remaining 11 apostles, but from among the rest of the believers). Then Acts 2:1 says, "When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place," which is referring back to a group that had previously been mentioned. What group was the focus of the preceding passages? The 120 believers. The 120 believers were all together in one place, and they all spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost.

In Acts 2:14, Peter explained the phenomenon of tongues by quoting from the prophet Joel, who said that in the last days God will pour out His Spirit on all people, both men and women (Acts 2:16-18). We know that some of the 120 believers were women ( Acts 1:14), and therefore Peter's statement fits with the view that all of the believers spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost.

In addition, a number of Bible commentaries agree that probably all 120 believers spoke in tongues on that day, as in these examples:
"They were all . . . in one place. Not only the apostles, but the hundred and twenty disciples." (People's New Testament commentary, Acts 2:1)

"3. cloven tongues, like as of fire, &c.--"disparted tongues," that is, tongue-shaped, flame-like appearances, rising from a common center or root, and resting upon each of that large company" (Jamiesson, Faussett, Brown commentary, Acts 2:3, emphasis added)

"They were all with one accord in one place - So here was a conjunction of company, minds, and place; the whole hundred and twenty being present." (Wesley's commentary, Acts 2:1)

"They were all - Probably not only the apostles, but also the 120 people mentioned in Act_1:15." (Barnes' commentary, Acts 2:1)

"They were all with one accord in one place - It is probable that the All here mentioned means the one hundred and twenty spoken of Act_1:15" (Clarke's commentary, Acts 2:1)

"Though this need not be restrained to the twelve apostles, but may be understood of the hundred and twenty" (Gill's commentary, Acts 2:1)
What it boils down to is that all of the Scriptural evidence is consistent with the view that all 120 believers spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost.

Hi awaken

Everything you said might be true, if it were not for one basic truth. There were no women apostles that Jesus chose. Read Acts 1:2 and tell me what you "see" - And then read Acts 1:5 - 8 and tell me with your spiritual eyes as to whom Jesus was speaking too.

I will await your response.

Bless - MM

 

[awaken]

Hi awaken

Everything you said might be true, if it were not for one basic truth. There were no women apostles that Jesus chose. Read Acts 1:2 and tell me what you "see" - And then read Acts 1:5 - 8 and tell me with your spiritual eyes as to whom Jesus was speaking too.

I will await your response.

Bless - MM

Sorry it took so long to get back...I work out of my home..had to tend to business..

He was talking to the apostles in those scriptures. But the apostles were with the others in the upper room.
In the gospels at the ascension...he did not say apostles..he called them disciples. There were others there at the ascension because in Acts 1:22 they picked among those that were at the ascension, right?

They had to pick from among some...wouldn't that be among the 120 or so that were there?

 

[mondar]

Hi

Tongues is a "form" of prophecy. On the day of pentecost they spoke in tongues. Those hearing them , heard this in their own language, as "if" it was prophecy.

What verse does it say it was "as if it was prophecy?"

Interpretation of tongues and prophecy are the same.

Where in the Bible does it speak of "interpretation of prophecy?" There is discerning of prophecy, but the concept of interpretation is different.

Both bring about comfort, exhortation and edification.

Interesting. In 1 Corinthians 14:3-4 Paul complains that tongue edify anyone but only self. This is compared to prophecy which edifies others.
3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men edification, and exhortation, and consolation. 4 He that speaketh in a tongue edifieth himself;
This is why in verse 1 he suggests that one should desire to prophesy.

Tongues is of men or of angels. On the day of pentecost, their tongues were of men. "heard them speak the wonderful works of God"

Bless

The bottom line is that the suggestion of tongues and prophecy being the same thing would necessitate an ongoing revelation. If modern day prophets are still prophesying, then we can record them and put what they say down after the last prophet, the apostle John.

I guess I will have to pass on such prophets. I will stick to the scriptures already written by the prophets and apostles.

 

[Mysteryman]

Hi

Tongues is a "form" of prophecy. On the day of pentecost they spoke in tongues. Those hearing them , heard this in their own language, as "if" it was prophecy.

What verse does it say it was "as if it was prophecy?"

Interpretation of tongues and prophecy are the same.

Where in the Bible does it speak of "interpretation of prophecy?" There is discerning of prophecy, but the concept of interpretation is different.

Both bring about comfort, exhortation and edification.

Interesting. In 1 Corinthians 14:3-4 Paul complains that tongue edify anyone but only self. This is compared to prophecy which edifies others.
3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men edification, and exhortation, and consolation. 4 He that speaketh in a tongue edifieth himself;
This is why in verse 1 he suggests that one should desire to prophesy.

Tongues is of men or of angels. On the day of pentecost, their tongues were of men. "heard them speak the wonderful works of God"

Bless

The bottom line is that the suggestion of tongues and prophecy being the same thing would necessitate an ongoing revelation. If modern day prophets are still prophesying, then we can record them and put what they say down after the last prophet, the apostle John.

I guess I will have to pass on such prophets. I will stick to the scriptures already written by the prophets and apostles.

Tongues are of men or of angels. If someone had the tongue of a German, and there was a german in the assembly. This german speaking person would not need this persons tongues interpreted, correct ? But the rest of the assembly would, if they were not german speaking. Unto the known language of the one speaking in tongues , those will hear words of comfort, exhortation , and edification.

 

[Mysteryman]

Hi awaken

Everything you said might be true, if it were not for one basic truth. There were no women apostles that Jesus chose. Read Acts 1:2 and tell me what you "see" - And then read Acts 1:5 - 8 and tell me with your spiritual eyes as to whom Jesus was speaking too.

I will await your response.

Bless - MM

Sorry it took so long to get back...I work out of my home..had to tend to business..

He was talking to the apostles in those scriptures. But the apostles were with the others in the upper room.
In the gospels at the ascension...he did not say apostles..he called them disciples. There were others there at the ascension because in Acts 1:22 they picked among those that were at the ascension, right?

They had to pick from among some...wouldn't that be among the 120 or so that were there?

Hi awaken

Disciples became apostles, but not all disciples are apostles. Only 11 became apostles even though there were 12 and that one was Judas. Read Acts 1:17 - "part of this ministry"

Acts 1:4 Jesus speaking to his apostles - "And being assembled together with them (apostles - 11) commanded them ( 11 ) that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which ye have heard of me"

verse 5 - "ye shall be baptized with Holy Spirit not many days hence" = ye apostles

Verse 8 is spoken directly to these eleven, and none else !

Lets not forget that men and women spoke in tongues on the day of pentecost as well. Acts 2:38 - 41

I wanted to add, that in Acts 1:22 people read into this verse something that is not there. The word 'unto' here does not include that day he ascended. This verse is saying up "until" his ascention. The end of verse 22 is telling us that one would be included as a witness of his resurrection. These were there as witnesses of his resurrection. But not at his ascention.

But the first to speak in tongues were the 12 apostles only ! Then the 12 spoke in tongues again to the multitude. Then later , the approx three thousand souls were added - as many as the Lord shall call.

 

[awaken]

So then, does tongues cease before prophecy and knowledge?

Finally, in I cor 14....
22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to the unbelieving: but prophesying is for a sign, not to the unbelieving, but to them that believe.
What is tongues a sign of? If it is given for the purpose of being a sign to unbelievers, who are the unbelievers? What is the relationship between tongues and the text given to us in verse 21?
21 In the law it is written, By men of strange tongues and by the lips of strangers will I speak unto this people; and not even thus will they hear me, saith the Lord.
And this is at best a quote from Isaiah. Why does Paul say "in the law it is written?"

Is it true that tongues is for a sign to unbelievers? Then why is it practiced in the prayer closet? or in church?

Just curious..when do you think tongues ended? And what do you think the purpose of tongues is for?
I see the public message given and interpreted in tongues for the unbeliever. Don't we still have unbelievers today? So why would God take that away from us...
I see at least two purposes for tongues..

A person delivers a public message in tongues from God to a group of people (such as a church congregation), which is then interpreted through the Holy Spirit either by the speaker or by someone in the congregation. The Bible refers to this as the "gift" of tongues, and it's used in combination with the gift of interpretation. Bible scholars sometimes refer to this as the "public" use of tongues.


A person prays in the Holy Spirit to God. When a person prays in the Spirit, this does not need to be interpreted into the local language because God always understands what the Holy Spirit is saying (although sometimes God gives us the interpretation of what we said in order to edify us and instruct us). The Bible refers to this as "praying in a tongue" (see 1 Corinthians 14:14), "praying with my spirit" (see 1 Corinthians 14:15), "praying in the Spirit" (see Ephesians 6:18), and "praying in the Holy Spirit" (see Jude 1:20). Bible scholars sometimes refer to this as the "private" use of tongues

 

[glorydaz]

Peter stood up and shared the gospel by his own native language, which of course is not speaking in tongues. He spoke, and told them that this was, what was spoken by the prophet Joel. So this was a witness of the prophesy of Joel coming to pass. Then in Acts 2:41 - they were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, received the gift of the Holy Spirit upon them, and about three thousand souls spoke in tongues.

Please show me from the Word where the three thousand spoke in tongues.

 

[Mysteryman]

Peter stood up and shared the gospel by his own native language, which of course is not speaking in tongues. He spoke, and told them that this was, what was spoken by the prophet Joel. So this was a witness of the prophesy of Joel coming to pass. Then in Acts 2:41 - they were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, received the gift of the Holy Spirit upon them, and about three thousand souls spoke in tongues.

Please show me from the Word where the three thousand spoke in tongues.

I took a picture with my polaroid camera. I will send you a picture. :rolling <verse 38 >