The False vs True Gift Of Tongues

[Free]

I don't understand why this is controversial. The topic of this thread is "false vs true gift of tongues", and I'm simply telling you that the answer lies within the contents, not the form. You think the devil couldn't lie through a foreign language, or a seemingly "mysterious heavenly" language? That should be more suspicious than native language.

It’s only controversial because I asked you to follow the quotes. Each quote I give addresses a different point; that is the whole reason I break up my responses to a single post. You have been responding to a specific point of yours I was addressing by bringing in other arguments that don’t address my responses to your original point.

But by the definition you provided, that's prophesying, for Joel 2 was an unknown mystery to the crowd until Peter explained its fulfillment.

No. Prophecy would relate to everyone, particularly the one prophesying. Most biblical teaching is teaching what is unknown to the hearers.

I did address that. 2:4 did not say the 120 disciples were "blabbing unintelligent with no understading". The crowd heard them praising God's mighty work (2:11), that's why they knew it's divine utterance given by the Holy Spirit. I'm not using 2:11 to contradict 2:4, quite the contrary, 2:11 is the proof of 2:4.

This clearly isn’t going anywhere as you’re not following each specific argument.

Isn't that a gathering of believers in the Lord's name? If so, that's a small congregation. You can go with another term you prefer, that doesn't matter.

Again, what does the text say? I asked you a few questions, and I don’t ask questions just for fun.

Again, where does it say “congregation”? Again, what does the text say in Acts 19:1-7? Who are the twelve men?

I'm not here to debate with you on the text of 2:4, we're here to discuss the topic proposed by the OP - "false vs true gift of tongues", and how can we tell the true from the false. What you're doing is avoiding this topic and instead hammering me with this one verse just because of our slight disagreement.

But, what you’re arguing disagrees with what tongues is, so it seems that you’re not actually addressing tongues at all. You’re arguing that the miracle in Acts 2 was the hearing and speaking specific content, but that is not at all what tongues is.

In both occasions the Holy Spirit fell upon the gentiles, they were accepted into the sheepfold, that's the real miracle which the Jews marveled at. Previously they thought God was exclusively theirs, a Jewish God, but now God's grace was extended to the Gentiles, it was no longer their own privilege.

Exactly. Tongues was a sign to confirm to the early Jewish Christian leaders that the Gentiles were included in God’s plan of salvation.

You're missing the whole point by focusing on "tongues".

No, that is the point, at least of what we have been discussing.

 

[Free]

Again, I'm not here to have a dabate with you on the text of 2:4. I'm simply telling you that this meaning doesn't necessarily apply to 10:46 or 19:6. You erroneously assumed that the same miracle must have been reproduced at these two occasions, and you're being adamant on it. In Acts 2 it was the 3000 Jews who were baptized, in 10 the Gentiles, in 19 John the Baptists' disciples, this shows that God's church is growing, the Holy Spirit only started with the 120, from there on, "the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved." (2:47)

And, again, the text of 2:4 is central to understanding what the “gift of tongues” means. That defines its use in the subsequent passages in the NT.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

And, again, the text of 2:4 is central to understanding what the “gift of tongues” means. That defines its use in the subsequent passages in the NT.

No it's not. If that's the case, then you're implying that the same miracle must be reproduced over and over again in every gathering, which is not necessary.

No, that is the point, at least of what we have been discussing.

But that's not the point of this thread, and "tongues" is not the one and only gift of God. Moses was tongue tied, he surely didn't have this gift, but was he not blessed? Was he not chosen?

Exactly. Tongues was a sign to confirm to the early Jewish Christian leaders that the Gentiles were included in God’s plan of salvation.

But they didn't marvel at that sign alone like the crowd did in Acts 2, they marveled at God's plan of salvation and its implications.

But, what you’re arguing disagrees with what tongues is, so it seems that you’re not actually addressing tongues at all. You’re arguing that the miracle in Acts 2 was the hearing and speaking specific content, but that is not at all what tongues is.

That specific contents validates the source of tongues, which is the Holy Spirit. It also invalidates false tongues from the devil.

Again, what does the text say? I asked you a few questions, and I don’t ask questions just for fun.

Again, where does it say “congregation”? Again, what does the text say in Acts 19:1-7? Who are the twelve men?

What's your definition of "congregation"? How many in your opinion counts as a "congregation"? Those twelve men were John the Baptist's disciples, that much is clear; and as two or more gather in the name of the Lord, He is in their midst, therefore this was qualified as a congregation - there were at least twelve, and Paul baptized them in Jesus's name.

This clearly isn’t going anywhere as you’re not following each specific argument.

It’s only controversial because I asked you to follow the quotes. Each quote I give addresses a different point; that is the whole reason I break up my responses to a single post. You have been responding to a specific point of yours I was addressing by bringing in other arguments that don’t address my responses to your original point.

Your arguments are distractions, I'm responding to the specific topic of this thread. You're arguing the definition of "tongues", I'm arguing the VALIDITY of "tongues".

No. Prophecy would relate to everyone, particularly the one prophesying. Most biblical teaching is teaching what is unknown to the hearers.

You don't know that. According to Joel 2:23, Hosea 6:3 and James 5:7, there's an early rain and there's a latter rain. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit on that Pentecost was the early rain, in the end there will be a latter rain, that's when this miracle will truly be reproduced. If you take that into consideration, then Peter was surely prophesying.

 

[Corinth77777]

No it's not. If that's the case, then you're implying that the same miracle must be reproduced over and over again in every gathering, which is not necessary.

Agreed

But that's not the point of this thread, and "tongues" is not the one and only gift of God.

true that too

Moses was tongue tied, he surely didn't have this gift, but was he not blessed? Was he not chosen?

But they didn't marvel at that sign alone like the crowd did in Acts 2, they marveled at God's plan of salvation and its implications.

Interesting thought, that is highly possible....good pt.

That specific contents validates the source of tongues, which is the Holy Spirit. It also invalidates false tongues from the devil.

What's your definition of "congregation"? How many in your opinion counts as a "congregation"? Those twelve men were John the Baptist's disciples, that much is clear; and as two or more gather in the name of the Lord, He is in their midst, therefore this was qualified as a congregation - there were at least twelve, and Paul baptized them in Jesus's name.


Your arguments are distractions, I'm responding to the specific topic of this thread. You're arguing the definition of "tongues", I'm arguing the VALIDITY of "tongues".

You don't know that. According to Joel 2:23, Hosea 6:3 and James 5:7, there's an early rain and there's a latter rain. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit on that Pentecost was the early rain, in the end there will be a latter rain, that's when this miracle will truly be reproduced. If you take that into consideration, then Peter was surely prophesying.

I came in on the discussion late-

I'VE heard pieces of that somewhere before - SOMETHING LIKE -HE DID NOT PROPHECY ALL THAT WAS TAKING PLACE THEN- BUT Some. WHAT SCRIPTURE REFERENCEs might YOU HAVE FOR THAT SO THAT I can learn.

If this be true might we say Peter was saying what was taking place and what would take place ?

But is one of your points that From the Spirit coming over People they also Prophecy?

 

[Corinth77777]

No it's not. If that's the case, then you're implying that the same miracle must be reproduced over and over again in every gathering, which is not necessary.

But that's not the point of this thread, and "tongues" is not the one and only gift of God. Moses was tongue tied, he surely didn't have this gift, but was he not blessed? Was he not chosen?

But they didn't marvel at that sign alone like the crowd did in Acts 2, they marveled at God's plan of salvation and its implications.

That specific contents validates the source of tongues, which is the Holy Spirit. It also invalidates false tongues from the devil.

What's your definition of "congregation"? How many in your opinion counts as a "congregation"? Those twelve men were John the Baptist's disciples, that much is clear; and as two or more gather in the name of the Lord, He is in their midst, therefore this was qualified as a congregation - there were at least twelve, and Paul baptized them in Jesus's name.


Your arguments are distractions, I'm responding to the specific topic of this thread. You're arguing the definition of "tongues", I'm arguing the VALIDITY of "tongues".

You don't know that. According to Joel 2:23, Hosea 6:3 and James 5:7, there's an early rain and there's a latter rain. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit on that Pentecost was the early rain, in the end there will be a latter rain, that's when this miracle will truly be reproduced. If you take that into consideration, then Peter was surely prophesying.

Ok I think I get what you were saying to her from this passage:

After all of this I will pour out my Spirit on all kinds of people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy. Your elderly will dream dreams; your young men will see revelatory visions. Even on male and female servants I will pour out my Spirit in those days (Joel 2:28, 29 NET).

So in pouring out His Spirit what is Peter prophesy?
Beggs the question. What does it mean to prophesy-

NETBible: Strong -- 4395

I like: 1C

For the reason that no one can say Jesus is Lord without divine revelation from the Holy Spirit.

So prophecy can be revelatory

 

[Free]

No it's not. If that's the case, then you're implying that the same miracle must be reproduced over and over again in every gathering, which is not necessary.

Please show logically how what I said would imply “that the same miracle must be reproduced . . . in every gathering.” You say that is the case, but you haven't shown that to be the case, and I don’t see how you can come to that conclusion.

But that's not the point of this thread, and "tongues" is not the one and only gift of God.

I never said it was, so why are you making that argument?

Moses was tongue tied, he surely didn't have this gift, but was he not blessed? Was he not chosen?

How is this relevant to the discussion?

But they didn't marvel at that sign alone like the crowd did in Acts 2, they marveled at God's plan of salvation and its implications.

That "they didn't marvel" is not relevant, as the context is totally different. The point, which we seem to agree on, is that the Holy Spirit fell on the Gentiles in the same way as the Jews, which revealed God’s plan of salvation. The evidence of God's grace toward the Gentiles was them speaking in tongues and prophesying.

That specific contents validates the source of tongues, which is the Holy Spirit. It also invalidates false tongues from the devil.

Sure, but the contents are not the gift itself. Why does Acts 19:6 say they were "speaking in tongues and prophesying," if they are one and the same? Why do you think Paul differentiates between prophecy and speaking and interpreting tongues? Why would he say, "Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy," it they are one and the same thing? They are clearly distinct gifts.

What's your definition of "congregation"?

You brought it up first without providing a definition, but from the way you used it, it implied a gathering of believers, a Christian church. And that is how I have defined it as far as our discussion goes.

How many in your opinion counts as a "congregation"? Those twelve men were John the Baptist's disciples, that much is clear; and as two or more gather in the name of the Lord, He is in their midst, therefore this was qualified as a congregation - there were at least twelve, and Paul baptized them in Jesus's name.

You're conflating two different things--being a disciple of John and being a follower of Christ. If the definition above is what you meant, and it sure seems it does, then how is the gathering of twelve disciples of John a congregation? Also, this was prior to there being a church in Ephesus.

Your arguments are distractions, I'm responding to the specific topic of this thread. You're arguing the definition of "tongues", I'm arguing the VALIDITY of "tongues".

Your first sentence in this thread gave your definition of tongues, which isn't the biblical definition given in Acts. You first stated:

"The way I see it, the gift of tongue is the talent of communicating and preaching, it's the confidence, the courage and the skill to speak out what God has put on your mind."

And that is what we have been discussing ever since, since that is not the biblical definition.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Please show logically how what I said would imply “that the same miracle must be reproduced . . . in every gathering.” You say that is the case, but you haven't shown that to be the case, and I don’t see how you can come to that conclusion.

You insist that speaking in tongues means speaking in a strange language unknown to the speaker, the language itself makes it an utterance from the Holy Spirit, but that's not necessarily what happened in these other instances in Acts, nowhere in Acts 10:44-48 or 19:1-7 specifically says they spoke in foreign tongues, and there was no interpretation, the audience instantly knew they were "magifying God" and "prophesying", respectively.

How is this relevant to the discussion?

How is playing word games relevant to the discussion?

That "they didn't marvel" is not relevant, as the context is totally different. The point, which we seem to agree on, is that the Holy Spirit fell on the Gentiles in the same way as the Jews, which revealed God’s plan of salvation. The evidence of God's grace toward the Gentiles was them speaking in tongues and prophesying.

Every knee will bow and every tongue shall confess that Christ is Lord.

Sure, but the contents are not the gift itself. Why does Acts 19:6 say they were "speaking in tongues and prophesying," if they are one and the same? Why do you think Paul differentiates between prophecy and speaking and interpreting tongues? Why would he say, "Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy," it they are one and the same thing? They are clearly distinct gifts.

That's why contents matters. Speaking in tongues is just speaking, whatever language you're speaking in, it's just mere words; prophesying requires a reality check, it must be precise prediction. If not, then it's not a gift from the Holy Spirit.

And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken?’— when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him. (Deut. 18:21-22)

You're conflating two different things--being a disciple of John and being a follower of Christ. If the definition above is what you meant, and it sure seems it does, then how is the gathering of twelve disciples of John a congregation? Also, this was prior to there being a church in Ephesus.

"Congregation" means an assembly of religious worshippers, a religious community, it doesn't have to be a Christian gathering, which didn't exist until the worshippers were baptized in Jesus's name. I don't understand why this one word irritates you so much.

And that is what we have been discussing ever since, since that is not the biblical definition.

That's why Moses's case is relevant to the discussion, because that fits this definition.

 

[Corinth77777]

Please show logically how what I said would imply “that the same miracle must be reproduced . . . in every gathering.” You say that is the case, but you haven't shown that to be the case, and I don’t see how you can come to that conclusion.


I never said it was, so why are you making that argument?


How is this relevant to the discussion?


That "they didn't marvel" is not relevant, as the context is totally different. The point, which we seem to agree on, is that the Holy Spirit fell on the Gentiles in the same way as the Jews, which revealed God’s plan of salvation. The evidence of God's grace toward the Gentiles was them speaking in tongues and prophesying.


Sure, but the contents are not the gift itself. Why does Acts 19:6 say they were "speaking in tongues and prophesying," if they are one and the same? Why do you think Paul differentiates between prophecy and speaking and interpreting tongues? Why would he say, "Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy," it they are one and the same thing? They are clearly distinct gifts.

Tongues with the S in the kjv is the true Gift according to McAuthor's point of view..

When children argue over a toy. IF THEY ALL HAD THE SAME TOY THEY'D STOP ARGUING.

THE WHOLE KEY IS BRINGING ORDER

You brought it up first without providing a definition, but from the way you used it, it implied a gathering of believers, a Christian church. And that is how I have defined it as far as our discussion goes.


You're conflating two different things--being a disciple of John and being a follower of Christ. If the definition above is what you meant, and it sure seems it does, then how is the gathering of twelve disciples of John a congregation? Also, this was prior to there being a church in Ephesus.


Your first sentence in this thread gave your definition of tongues, which isn't the biblical definition given in Acts. You first stated:

"The way I see it, the gift of tongue is the talent of communicating and preaching, it's the confidence, the courage and the skill to speak out what God has put on your mind."

And that is what we have been discussing ever since, since that is not the biblical definition.

 

[Free]

You insist that speaking in tongues means speaking in a strange language unknown to the speaker, the language itself makes it an utterance from the Holy Spirit, but that's not necessarily what happened in these other instances in Acts, nowhere in Acts 10:44-48 or 19:1-7 specifically says they spoke in foreign tongues, and there was no interpretation, the audience instantly knew they were "magifying God" and "prophesying", respectively.

The point is that the "gift of tongues" is first defined in Acts 2, which means that is what it means in the other instances, especially because it is not given another definition in any other passage. Just because those verses mention speaking in tongues, does it follow that their magnifying God and prophesying were in tongues also? If so, why should we conclude that there were no others around who understood what was being said?

However, your response doesn't address what you quoted from me:

Please show logically how what I said would imply “that the same miracle must be reproduced . . . in every gathering.” You say that is the case, but you haven't shown that to be the case, and I don’t see how you can come to that conclusion.

Please address that.

How is playing word games relevant to the discussion?

Don't go down this path. I asked you a simple question about something you had said: "Moses was tongue tied, he surely didn't have this gift, but was he not blessed? Was he not chosen?"

I have no idea what this has to do with the discussion and I'm asking why you think it is relevant.

Every knee will bow and every tongue shall confess that Christ is Lord.

And, what does this have to do with what you quoted from me?

That's why contents matters. Speaking in tongues is just speaking, whatever language you're speaking in, it's just mere words; prophesying requires a reality check, it must be precise prediction. If not, then it's not a gift from the Holy Spirit.

And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken?’— when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him. (Deut. 18:21-22)

Okay, but once again I have to ask how this addresses what you quoted from me, which was:

Sure, but the contents are not the gift itself. Why does Acts 19:6 say they were "speaking in tongues and prophesying," if they are one and the same? Why do you think Paul differentiates between prophecy and speaking and interpreting tongues? Why would he say, "Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy," it they are one and the same thing? They are clearly distinct gifts.

You're saying that tongues must be prophecy, yet in Acts and in Paul's writings, the two are kept distinct. You still don't seem to understand that the gift of tongues is the Holy Spirit given ability to speak in a language unknown to the speaker, which is why there is also the corresponding gift of interpretation. That's it; that is the definition of tongues.

That's four quotes in a row where you have avoided answering the questions I was asking.

"Congregation" means an assembly of religious worshippers, a religious community,

In its broadest sense, yes.

it doesn't have to be a Christian gathering, which didn't exist until the worshippers were baptized in Jesus's name. I don't understand why this one word irritates you so much.

The word doesn't irritate me at all. It's that you first used it in a way that implies only Christian churches, but then applied it to a group of twelve men. I'm trying to understand your initial argument:

"If you truly agreed that "speaking in unknown foreign language" is not necessary to be reproduced in every congregation, as you did in #6, then why must it be reproduced in this occasion?"

None of that makes sense to me; I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

That's why Moses's case is relevant to the discussion, because that fits this definition.

So, Moses's case is relevant because it fits your definition of tongues and not the biblical one? Why not just stick to the biblical definition instead of making one up and causing all sorts of confusion?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Please show logically how what I said would imply “that the same miracle must be reproduced . . . in every gathering.” You say that is the case, but you haven't shown that to be the case, and I don’t see how you can come to that conclusion.

Please address that.

Please show me in what logic must the newly baptized Christians speak in foreign tongues or an “unknown heavenly tongue” in those two occasions when there was no foreign visitors present. Paul instructed that strange tongues must be interpreted, please show me where was the interpretation in Acts 10 and Acts 19.

I have no idea what this has to do with the discussion and I'm asking why you think it is relevant.

I explained to you at the end of my last post, that was a biblical precedent.

And, what does this have to do with what you quoted from me?

Again, CONTENTS of tongues, must be praise of the Lord.

That's four quotes in a row where you have avoided answering the questions I was asking.

That’s because your definition, “the Holy Spirit given ability to speak in a language unknown to the speaker,” is a loaded statement limited to the Pentecost in Acts 2. How do you know that such a language is really “unknown” to the speaker? And how do you know it’s from the Holy Spirit? Again, I’m talking about modern applications, and these are legitimate questions, you don’t just listen and marvel, you process the input and ask the validity of it, that’s what the quote from Deut. 18 is talking about. You should ask yourself why you’ve been derailing the OP with these “four quotes in a row”.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

None of that makes sense to me; I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

It makes no sense to me why they must speak in foreign tongues in that particular occasion when there was no foreign visitor around - just to show off? Or to fit your definition?

So, Moses's case is relevant because it fits your definition of tongues and not the biblical one? Why not just stick to the biblical definition instead of making one up and causing all sorts of confusion?

Seriously, did I make up Moses’s case? Is that not recorded in Ex. 3? If you dismiss that as irrelevant, ok, take a look at Peter; when Jesus was arrested, he denied three times, he couldn’t even face a servant girl; then, empowered by the Holy Spirit, he was boldly proclaiming Lord Jesus to the 3000, then to the religious elites. If you don’t have the courage and confidence to speak in your native tongue, how on earth could you speak in a foreign tongue? How is that confusing? I’m putting the definition in the context instead of distorting the context to fit the definition, man.

 

[Free]

Please show me in what logic must the newly baptized Christians speak in foreign tongues or an “unknown heavenly tongue” in those two occasions when there was no foreign visitors present. Paul instructed that strange tongues must be interpreted, please show me where was the interpretation in Acts 10 and Acts 19.

I have asked you twice to provide clarification and twice you have deflected. Why? Please provide the answer to what I asked for or this conversation is done.

I explained to you at the end of my last post, that was a biblical precedent.

First, you made a claim and said nothing about a biblical precedent. Second, what is your reference to Moses a precedent for, exactly? It isn’t for the gift of tongues, because that is first defined in the Bible in Acts 2.

Again, CONTENTS of tongues, must be praise of the Lord.

That’s fine, but you quoted Phil 2:11 in response to me, for which I have to again ask: what does this have to do with what you quoted from me?

That’s because your definition, “the Holy Spirit given ability to speak in a language unknown to the speaker,” is a loaded statement limited to the Pentecost in Acts 2.

That is the very instance in the whole of Scripture where the gift of tongues is defined. How is that loaded? If that is how tongues is defined, then that is what it means elsewhere.

How do you know that such a language is really “unknown” to the speaker? And how do you know it’s from the Holy Spirit?

Because I’m reading the text, which I have given previously:

Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Act 2:5 Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven.
Act 2:6 And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language.
Act 2:7 And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans?
Act 2:8 And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? (ESV)

I honestly don’t know how anyone can dispute this, apart from reading other ideas into the text. First, the Holy Spirit filled the 120 believers. Second, the 120 believers “began to speak in other tongues,” that is, foreign or different from the speakers’ native tongues. Third, the speaking of other tongues was because “the Spirit gave them utterance.” Fourth, that these “other tongues” were other languages is made very clear by verses 6-8.
The text could not make it any more clear that the speaking of “other tongues” was speaking in languages unknown to the 120 speakers as enabled by the Holy Spirit.

Again, I’m talking about modern applications,

What do you mean “again”? This is the first time in our discussion you have mentioned “modern” or “applications.”

and these are legitimate questions, you don’t just listen and marvel, you process the input and ask the validity of it, that’s what the quote from Deut. 18 is talking about.

Once again, how does that address what I asked? This is just one of the things I have been trying to get you to address:

The contents are not the gift itself. Why does Acts 19:6 say they were "speaking in tongues and prophesying," if they are one and the same? Why do you think Paul differentiates between prophecy and speaking and interpreting tongues? Why would he say, "Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy," it they are one and the same thing? They are clearly distinct gifts.

How, exactly, does Deut 18:21-22 address that?

You should ask yourself why you’ve been derailing the OP with these “four quotes in a row”.

I’m trying to understand what you’ve been saying, beginning with your very first sentence in the thread, and can’t get a straight answer for several things.

 

[Free]

It makes no sense to me why they must speak in foreign tongues in that particular occasion when there was no foreign visitor around - just to show off? Or to fit your definition?

First, because there is only one definition for the gift of tongues as given in Acts 2. Second, as I said, it’s because it was a sign to the Apostles of God’s inclusion of the Gentiles into his plan of salvation.

Seriously, did I make up Moses’s case? Is that not recorded in Ex. 3?

Of course you didn’t make up anything about Moses, but it is utterly irrelevant to the gift of tongues.

If you dismiss that as irrelevant, ok, take a look at Peter; when Jesus was arrested, he denied three times, he couldn’t even face a servant girl; then, empowered by the Holy Spirit, he was boldly proclaiming Lord Jesus to the 3000, then to the religious elites. If you don’t have the courage and confidence to speak in your native tongue, how on earth could you speak in a foreign tongue? How is that confusing?

It isn’t confusing. The Holy Spirit gave the 120 disciples the supernatural ability to speak in languages unknown to them. Sure, it gave them boldness, but the gift of tongues is the speaking in languages unknown to the speaker.

I’m putting the definition in the context instead of distorting the context to fit the definition, man.

You’re inserting your own definition—as stated in your first sentence in this thread—into the context, instead of getting the correct definition from the context, as you should. I don’t understand why you don’t seem to know that context defines a word, or at least why you would be ignoring that in this case. The definition of the gift of tongues is found in Acts 2 where it first occurs, and that is how it is used elsewhere in the NT, if word definitions are to mean anything at all.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I have asked you twice to provide clarification and twice you have deflected. Why? Please provide the answer to what I asked for or this conversation is done.

You insist that "tongues" in 10:46 and 19:6 - NOT 2:4 - must be "speak in a language unknown to the speaker", I object because there's no evidence for that, this definition doesn't necessarily apply because it doesn't fit the context of 10 and 19. Is that clear?

First, you made a claim and said nothing about a biblical precedent. Second, what is your reference to Moses a precedent for, exactly? It isn’t for the gift of tongues, because that is first defined in the Bible in Acts 2.

You questioned my "claim", and I gave you a valid biblical precedent to back it up, in fact more than one. I don't owe you anything beyond that.

That’s fine, but you quoted Phil 2:11 in response to me, for which I have to again ask: what does this have to do with what you quoted from me?

Your definition "gift of the Holy Spirit" requires evidence to prove that it's truly from the Holy Spirit, which I provided.

That is the very instance in the whole of Scripture where the gift of tongues is defined. How is that loaded? If that is how tongues is defined, then that is what it means elsewhere.

Again, how do you know it's a "gift of the Holy Spirit"? Please read posts 57-60, you're being too dogmatic, this other gentleman is very friendly and much easier to talk to than you, he instantly got it, while you still don't over such a long back and forth discussion. Don't you think it's perfectly legitimate to test the spirit and question the source of such tongues? Don't you think it's presumptuous to extrapolate this definition to every instance in and out of biblical events, to conclude that "you don't even understand what you're talking about" must be a gift of the Holy Spirit? Why didn't the 3000 mocked the disciples instead of instantly calling it a "gift of the Holy Spirit"?

I honestly don’t know how anyone can dispute this, apart from reading other ideas into the text.

When did I ever dispute that, man? I'm disputing your claim that this same miracle must've been reproduced in Acts 10, 19 and perhaps other congregations because "tongues" therein must fit this given definition. What's more important than the text is the CONTEXT.

What do you mean “again”? This is the first time in our discussion you have mentioned “modern” or “applications.”

But that's the topic of the OP - "The gift of tongues was the many languages that were there at the time of the different nations, so it was given for this purpose, and it has been distorted with the babbling many use today."

 

[Free]

You insist that "tongues" in 10:46 and 19:6 - NOT 2:4 - must be "speak in a language unknown to the speaker", I object because there's no evidence for that, this definition doesn't necessarily apply because it doesn't fit the context of 10 and 19. Is that clear?

You questioned my "claim", and I gave you a valid biblical precedent to back it up, in fact more than one. I don't owe you anything beyond that.

Your definition "gift of the Holy Spirit" requires evidence to prove that it's truly from the Holy Spirit, which I provided.

Again, how do you know it's a "gift of the Holy Spirit"? Please read posts 57-60, you're being too dogmatic, this other gentleman is very friendly and much easier to talk to than you, he instantly got it, while you still don't over such a long back and forth discussion. Don't you think it's perfectly legitimate to test the spirit and question the source of such tongues? Don't you think it's presumptuous to extrapolate this definition to every instance in and out of biblical events, to conclude that "you don't even understand what you're talking about" must be a gift of the Holy Spirit? Why didn't the 3000 mocked the disciples instead of instantly calling it a "gift of the Holy Spirit"?

When did I ever dispute that, man? I'm disputing your claim that this same miracle must've been reproduced in Acts 10, 19 and perhaps other congregations because "tongues" therein must fit this given definition. What's more important than the text is the CONTEXT.

But that's the topic of the OP - "The gift of tongues was the many languages that were there at the time of the different nations, so it was given for this purpose, and it has been distorted with the babbling many use today."

I can see that you’re not going to answer any of things I asked. This is fruitless and unedifying, so I’m out.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

How, exactly, does Deut 18:21-22 address that?

It addresses the validity of prophesying. Why else do you think Jesus warned about false prophets? The same applies to tongues, you can't just automatically assumes it's a gift from the Holy Spirit when in fact it may be from the devil.

I’m trying to understand what you’ve been saying, beginning with your very first sentence in the thread, and can’t get a straight answer for several things.

What I've been saying is addressing the OP, which discusses not the definition of tongues, but the VALIDITY of tongues.

First, because there is only one definition for the gift of tongues as given in Acts 2. Second, as I said, it’s because it was a sign to the Apostles of God’s inclusion of the Gentiles into his plan of salvation.

First, I was talking about Acts 10:44-47 and 19:1-7, I've moved past 2. Second, the real sign is the contents, which is "magnifying God" and "prophesying."

Of course you didn’t make up anything about Moses, but it is utterly irrelevant to the gift of tongues.

It is relevant to us, to any introvert, timid brother and sister.

It isn’t confusing. The Holy Spirit gave the 120 disciples the supernatural ability to speak in languages unknown to them. Sure, it gave them boldness, but the gift of tongues is the speaking in languages unknown to the speaker.

How do you ascertain that if you hear such "tongues" today? And again, why didn't the 3000 in the crowd instantly know that? Why did they respond with skepticism?

You’re inserting your own definition—as stated in your first sentence in this thread—into the context, instead of getting the correct definition from the context, as you should. I don’t understand why you don’t seem to know that context defines a word, or at least why you would be ignoring that in this case. The definition of the gift of tongues is found in Acts 2 where it first occurs, and that is how it is used elsewhere in the NT, if word definitions are to mean anything at all.

"Used elsewhere in the NT" is your assumption, and you're contradicting your own words in post #8.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I can see that you’re not going to answer any of things I asked. This is fruitless and unedifying, so I’m out.

I have answered you repeatedly, you're being dogmatic and you refuse to listen. You derailed the OP with your own line of questioning.

 

[Corinth77777]

It addresses the validity of prophesying. Why else do you think Jesus warned about false prophets? The same applies to tongues, you can't just automatically assumes it's a gift from the Holy Spirit when in fact it may be from the devil.

What I've been saying is addressing the OP, which discusses not the definition of tongues, but the VALIDITY of tongues.

First, I was talking about Acts 10:44-47 and 19:1-7, I've moved past 2. Second, the real sign is the contents, which is "magnifying God" and "prophesying."

It is relevant to us, to any introvert, timid brother and sister.

How do you ascertain that if you hear such "tongues" today? And again, why didn't the 3000 in the crowd instantly know that? Why did they respond with skepticism?

"Used elsewhere in the NT" is your assumption, and you're contradicting your own words in post #8.

I did not see the discussion but get the point now.

You assert that Free believes because " other tongues" are said to be unknown to the Speaker
hence that does not mean that you can say that is what the "so called" prayer language one might believe is the tongues of angels is in reference to.

Because the context is people heard them in their known language speak forth the deeds of God, and magnify God.

But in the so called " prayer languge" no one understands. And as McAuthor' points out, He believes Paul is being Sarcastic when He says
You are speaking mystery to "a god" and speaking in the air.

Why? Because tongues were meant to share the word and the Miricle was the same manifestation that the Jews had, which showed them that the Gentile were now to be included in the faith.

So if one prays from emotion, maybe meaning with their heart/spirit then one should pray with their mind, know what you are praying.

For if ya don't know what you are praying how would you know it was from God.

In conclusion one should not take part of a passage from acts and take it to another passage to make a claim for their practices, especially when in what they practice no one knows what is uttered. Since in Act the "other part" not carried over to their claim- is a true language others know.

And one does not know it is true because no one (sarcasticly) would understand but " a god".

Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led. 3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. 4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.

This article shows ecstatic tongues BC

Tongues in Paganism

The problem with the Pentecostal Charasmatic movement is they go to Acts as if Acts is the norm.

But it is said that Acts is history. History tells what happened, but not what we are supposed to do.
Does it say emulate this? It telling what God did in history, and that doesn’t mean what God is always going to do throughout history. Acts is not the instruction for the spiritual life, that comes in later in the epistles.

From above website...

 

[hawkman]

Dear Heavenly Father , I pray that you would send practical knowledge of the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues as the Holy Spirit gives the utterance to our forum members Carry_Your_Name and Corinth77777 . They are seeking to understand and those of us in this thread are trying our best to help them understand but we need your help Lord .
In Jesus name we pray , Amen .

 

[Corinth77777]

I did not see the discussion but get the point now.

You assert that Free believes because " other tongues" are said to be unknown to the Speaker
hence that does not mean that you can say that is what the "so called" prayer language one might believe is the tongues of angels is in reference to.

Because the context is people heard them in their known language speak forth the deeds of God, and magnify God.

But in the so called " prayer languge" no one understands. And as McAuthor' points out, He believes Paul is being Sarcastic when He says
You are speaking mystery to "a god" and speaking in the air.

Why? Because tongues were meant to share the word and the Miricle was the same manifestation that the Jews had, which showed them that the Gentile were now to be included in the faith.

So if one prays from emotion, maybe meaning with their heart/spirit then one should pray with their mind, know what you are praying.

For if ya don't know what you are praying how would you know it was from God.

In conclusion one should not take part of a passage from acts and take it to another passage to make a claim for their practices, especially when in what they practice no one knows what is uttered. Since in Act the "other part" not carried over to their claim- is a true language others know.

And one does not know it is true because no one (sarcasticly) would understand but " a god".

Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led. 3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. 4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.

This article shows ecstatic tongues BC

Tongues in Paganism

The problem with the Pentecostal Charasmatic movement is they go to Acts as if Acts is the norm.

But it is said that Acts is history. History tells what happened, but not what we are supposed to do.
Does it say emulate this? It telling what God did in history, and that doesn’t mean what God is always going to do throughout history. Acts is not the instruction for the spiritual life, that comes in later in the epistles.

From above website...

There is something I love that DW said and I know I wont get it right. But something Like:.God can use the dumbest Ideals..

When I find it Ill post it.

Point is none of us probably have everything right. Nor do we probably know or do something the way we should. But I truly believe God does not wait until we get it all right to bless it or us.