Tongues As A Sign For Unbelievers.

[PaulChristensen]

There are many testimonies out there.


T.L. Osborne comes to mind.

I remember him. He was a powerful healing evangelist. I remember his nephew coming to our church in Palmerston North NZ to take a couple of meetings. Very impressive.

 

[PaulChristensen]

If a person is an Apostle, they are an Apostle of Jesus Christ, having been sent by Him; by Hs Spirit.

You seem to be referring to the twelve.


Then there was Paul.


Signs follow believers.

The Apostles of Christ were ones who were appointed in person by the resurrected Christ. Paul was appointed through a special visitation by Christ, and then went through the same three year training in Arabia that the others received during the three year they were with Christ while He was still in the flesh before His crucifixion and resurrection.

But apostles to the church are appointed by the Holy Spirit and they continue the work that was established by the original Apostles. The original twelve Apostles have a special place in eternity and carry a unique honour that no other apostles will have.

 

[Degas]

It is not possible that Paul misinterpreted the scripture, because he had the historical event of Acts 2, in which Peter quoted Joel 2:28-29, saying that it was the Holy Spirit, referring to the miraculous languages the apostles were speaking.

Neither Joel 2:28-29 nor Peter say anything about speaking in tongues. They only talk about prophesying. Only Paul claims that some people were speaking in tongues in Acts 2. So this whole thing about speaking in tongue relies only on Paul.

Now, how can you say that Paul cannot have misinterpreted Isaiah 28:11 and Mark 16:17 when -- and I am asking all readers to be very honest and wonder if they would believe all seven points below if they were about someone they had never heard of:
1- Paul contradicted himself between Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9
2- Paul pretended he was blinded by Jesus' apparition (do you really think Jesus would harm anyone?)
3- Paul pretended he was blinded by Jesus' apparition although his travel companions' eyes were not harmed at all
4- Paul inferred in Acts 5:1-10 that Peter miraculously killed both Ananias and his wife for a tiny lie (how Christian does that sound?) even though, according to Paul, Ananias was a high priest (Acts 23:2 and Acts 24:1) to whom Jesus allegedly appeared to ask him to miraculously heal Paul's eyes (Acts 24:1), which he allegedly did (Acts 9:17). Did Ananias of all men deserve to die for a tiny lie?
5- in 1 Timothy 2:12, Paul gives his own command, not the Lord's, which none of the four evangelists ever indulge in doing, and excuses it with bigotry, explaining that since Eve only sinned, all women should keep quiet (1 Timothy 2:14) in full contradiction with his own words in Romans 5:17 and 5:19 where Paul wrote we all bear the original sin because of the offense / disobedience of one man.
6- Paul claims humility to be very important yet, in his correspondence, he wrote he allegedly performed 7 miracles -- that no one else but him ever accounted for -- but he never, not once, said anything about the 38 miracles that the 4 evangelists attribute to Jesus
7- Paul's spiritual understanding is so poor that he wrote a twice heretic statement in Galatians 4:9, both denying God as being omniscient and the Creator of all souls

Now, I am asking you again: is it possible that Paul misinterpreted Isaiah 28:11 and Mark 16:17?

 

[tdidymas]

Neither Joel 2:28-29 nor Peter say anything about speaking in tongues. They only talk about prophesying. Only Paul claims that some people were speaking in tongues in Acts 2. So this whole thing about speaking in tongue relies only on Paul.

Nothing in the Bible is as exact as you want it to be. Everyone "fills in the blanks" with their bias. I try to make my bias in line with the whole of scripture, including everything on the subject. I believe that all scripture, NT included, is inspired of God, and conforms to the law of non-contradiction. So, who cares that Joel doesn't speak about tongues? It's what actually happened in Acts 2, and Peter quotes it by inspiration of God. Therefore, it applies.

Now, how can you say that Paul cannot have misinterpreted Isaiah 28:11 and Mark 16:17 when -- and I am asking all readers to be very honest and wonder if they would believe all seven points below if they were about someone they had never heard of:
1- Paul contradicted himself between Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9

"heard a voice" and "heard not the voice of him" are not necessarily contradictory. One can hear a voice but not understand what is said. "heard not" in Acts 22:9 means not understanding, as several translations attest.

2- Paul pretended he was blinded by Jesus' apparition (do you really think Jesus would harm anyone?)

It says he was blinded, not "pretended" as you claim. It was a temporary blindness, therefore he was not harmed. His later allusion to not seeing clearly may have been natural aging, such as cataracts.

3- Paul pretended he was blinded by Jesus' apparition although his travel companions' eyes were not harmed at all

Being blinded doesn't mean it was so bright that it burned his retina. Later it says something like scales fell off his eyes, so it wasn't harming his retina. Therefore, the companions weren't harmed either, and Paul's blindness was not from the light.

4- Paul inferred in Acts 5:1-10 that Peter miraculously killed both Ananias and his wife for a tiny lie (how Christian does that sound?) even though, according to Paul, Ananias was a high priest (Acts 23:2 and Acts 24:1) to whom Jesus allegedly appeared to ask him to miraculously heal Paul's eyes (Acts 24:1), which he allegedly did (Acts 9:17). Did Ananias of all men deserve to die for a tiny lie?

There are 3 different Ananiases here. Can you see that from the context of each?
There is no such thing as a "tiny lie" or a "little white lie" when it comes to the only true and holy God who is a consuming fire. When the church was young and tender, such things needed to happen to keep the church pure from corruption; this is how I interpret that event. It says that people feared God after that.

5- in 1 Timothy 2:12, Paul gives his own command, not the Lord's, which none of the four evangelists ever indulge in doing, and excuses it with bigotry, explaining that since Eve only sinned, all women should keep quiet (1 Timothy 2:14) in full contradiction with his own words in Romans 5:17 and 5:19 where Paul wrote we all bear the original sin because of the offense / disobedience of one man.

1 Tim. 2:12-15 lacks information to be clear on its meaning, and is the reason why it is a controversial passage. Certainly not one to formulate doctrine on that single passage, and much less if taken out of context. It is widely surmised that it is largely a cultural statement, because in those days women were generally not allowed an education. But he doesn't say that Eve only sinned. It says that she was deceived and transgressed. But only a few moments later, Adam sinned without being deceived, he just did it anyway (with his eyes wide open).

6- Paul claims humility to be very important yet, in his correspondence, he wrote he allegedly performed 7 miracles -- that no one else but him ever accounted for -- but he never, not once, said anything about the 38 miracles that the 4 evangelists attribute to Jesus

Whenever Paul wrote of his own miracles, he was trying to benefit the readers, such as the Corinthians, to accept him as an apostle of Christ. One of the criteria of recognizing an apostle with authority to teach new doctrine about God was that they performed miracles. Some of the Corinthians weren't recognizing him, and he wanted them to change their minds, so that they could benefit from his ministry. It wasn't necessary to say anything about Jesus' miracles, because those were already written down in the gospel accounts, and people wouldn't be in a church unless they already heard about them and believed.

7- Paul's spiritual understanding is so poor that he wrote a twice heretic statement in Galatians 4:9, both denying God as being omniscient and the Creator of all souls

I can see how you come up with "denying God as being omniscient," but denying He is the Creator of all souls, is that out of thin air? But neither of those two ideas apply to Gal. 4:9. "To be known by God" means that when you have a relationship with God, you know that God knows you. It's not saying that God didn't know you, as if He isn't omniscient, and then He comes to know you. It is speaking from a human point of view. Natural reasoning says that if I don't have a relationship with someone, then neither person knows the other. But out of relationship, both come to know each other. So Paul is saying this from a natural standpoint. It speaks of knowing as relational experience. There are many accommodating statements in the Bible that make God appear like a man, in order to "personify" God to accommodate the ignorance and viewpoint of human beings. This is one of those accommodations.

Now, I am asking you again: is it possible that Paul misinterpreted Isaiah 28:11 and Mark 16:17?

No, not possible.

 

[PaulChristensen]

Neither Joel 2:28-29 nor Peter say anything about speaking in tongues. They only talk about prophesying. Only Paul claims that some people were speaking in tongues in Acts 2. So this whole thing about speaking in tongue relies only on Paul.

Now, how can you say that Paul cannot have misinterpreted Isaiah 28:11 and Mark 16:17 when -- and I am asking all readers to be very honest and wonder if they would believe all seven points below if they were about someone they had never heard of:
1- Paul contradicted himself between Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9
2- Paul pretended he was blinded by Jesus' apparition (do you really think Jesus would harm anyone?)
3- Paul pretended he was blinded by Jesus' apparition although his travel companions' eyes were not harmed at all
4- Paul inferred in Acts 5:1-10 that Peter miraculously killed both Ananias and his wife for a tiny lie (how Christian does that sound?) even though, according to Paul, Ananias was a high priest (Acts 23:2 and Acts 24:1) to whom Jesus allegedly appeared to ask him to miraculously heal Paul's eyes (Acts 24:1), which he allegedly did (Acts 9:17). Did Ananias of all men deserve to die for a tiny lie?
5- in 1 Timothy 2:12, Paul gives his own command, not the Lord's, which none of the four evangelists ever indulge in doing, and excuses it with bigotry, explaining that since Eve only sinned, all women should keep quiet (1 Timothy 2:14) in full contradiction with his own words in Romans 5:17 and 5:19 where Paul wrote we all bear the original sin because of the offense / disobedience of one man.
6- Paul claims humility to be very important yet, in his correspondence, he wrote he allegedly performed 7 miracles -- that no one else but him ever accounted for -- but he never, not once, said anything about the 38 miracles that the 4 evangelists attribute to Jesus
7- Paul's spiritual understanding is so poor that he wrote a twice heretic statement in Galatians 4:9, both denying God as being omniscient and the Creator of all souls

Now, I am asking you again: is it possible that Paul misinterpreted Isaiah 28:11 and Mark 16:17?

It was Luke who wrote Acts, and he spoke the truth about Acts 2 because he was there, one of the 120 who were in the upper room. So the account of the disciples speaking in tongues did not solely depend on Paul at all.

The rest of the post is basically nonsense and not worth a response from me.

 

[Degas]

It was Luke who wrote Acts, and he spoke the truth about Acts 2 because he was there, one of the 120 who were in the upper room. So the account of the disciples speaking in tongues did not solely depend on Paul at all.

Ok, I thought Acts were written by Paul. Thank you for clarifying this. Now the Luke who wrote Acts was not Luke the evangelist. He was a friend of Paul's. This Luke never met Jesus and got most of his inspiration in the Gospel of Mark (https://saintroberts.net/documents/Year of Faith/TenThingsAboutLuke.pdf) so whether Acts were written by Paul or by a friend of his doesn't change my point.

The rest of the post is basically nonsense and not worth a response from me.

You can look down on me all you want, your condescending silence won't convince anyone.


tdidymas: I understand that you'd rather comfort your beliefs that look the truth in the eye but, come on, be honest:

It says he was blinded, not "pretended" as you claim. It was a temporary blindness, therefore he was not harmed. His later allusion to not seeing clearly may have been natural aging, such as cataracts.

Being blinded doesn't mean it was so bright that it burned his retina. Later it says something like scales fell off his eyes, so it wasn't harming his retina. Therefore, the companions weren't harmed either, and Paul's blindness was not from the light.

"My companions led me by the hand into Damascus, because the brilliance of the light had blinded me" (Acts 22:11)

There are 3 different Ananiases here.

It says that people feared God after that.

Exactly and fear of God is an idea from the Old Testament, which Paul knows much better than Jesus' teachings since he never met Jesus and he was born and raised a Jew. Whether there are more than one Ananias is beside the point because Jesus never said anything about fearing God, let alone killing someone over a lie. God doesn't even kill satanists, he didn't kill Hitler, do you seriously believe he would have killed someone over a simple lie?

Again, Jesus never said anything about fearing God and Paul is wrong to try to frighten people. The all point of Jesus' teachings and his Passion wasn't fear but Love. These verses sum it all up:
"One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?” “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” (Mark 12:28-31)

he doesn't say that Eve only sinned. It says that she was deceived and transgressed. But only a few moments later, Adam sinned without being deceived, he just did it anyway (with his eyes wide open).

This doesn't explain why Paul would infer that sinning on purpose, like Adam did, is less serious than being deceived as Eve was. Most Christians would actually probably agree to the contrary so if we were to apply Paul's principles, only women would be allowed to teach!

I can see how you come up with "denying God as being omniscient," but denying He is the Creator of all souls, is that out of thin air? But neither of those two ideas apply to Gal. 4:9. "To be known by God" means that when you have a relationship with God, you know that God knows you. It's not saying that God didn't know you

Yes, that is exactly what Paul is saying. One may only have a relationship with God after they convert but God does have a relationship with every human being from their very conception. Galatians 4:9 is hence twice heretic in its statement.

Whenever Paul wrote of his own miracles, he was trying to benefit the readers, such as the Corinthians, to accept him as an apostle of Christ.

I am glad to say I agree with you here: Paul was known to have tormented and arrested Christians (Acts 9:13-14), he was known to have attended Stephen's lapidation (Acts 7:55-58) and he was found in the house of Judas after Jesus' crucifixion hence after Judas was known to be the traitor that he was (Act 9:11-12). It is hence my conviction that when Paul decided to convert, his only way to be taken seriously as a servant of Christ was to lie about Jesus appearing to him. I do not question Paul's sincerity as a Christian but I am convinced he is a liar and a self proclaimed apostle with poor spiritual understanding. This shouldn't come as a surprise since a deep spiritual understanding is derived from contact with the Lord (Luke 24:45 and 1 John 5:20) which Paul -- and the Luke who wrote Acts -- failed to have, even if inwardly. This is why Paul, for example, starts Romans 8:38 and Romans 14:14 with "I am convinced". He hence admits he has no clue! Indeed, would one say: "I am convinced to be xx years old" or simply "I am xx years old"? One obviously only says "I am convinced" when one doesn't know for sure... as Paul doesn't. This is why I do not believe for one second that speaking in tongue comes from God. Moreover, anyone could learn how to pretend to speak in tongue, just like some people speak Klingon or na'vi. I am still open to being proven wrong, though.

 

[tdidymas]

tdidymas: I understand that you'd rather comfort your beliefs that look the truth in the eye but, come on, be honest:


"My companions led me by the hand into Damascus, because the brilliance of the light had blinded me" (Acts 22:11)

Ok, you got me on this one. But because he regained his sight, and because the others didn't lose theirs, it was not a permanent damage for Paul and no damage to those with him. Can you see that God can do anything, including hurt Paul's eyes, and then heal them?

Exactly and fear of God is an idea from the Old Testament, which Paul knows much better than Jesus' teachings since he never met Jesus and he was born and raised a Jew. Whether there are more than one Ananias is beside the point because Jesus never said anything about fearing God, let alone killing someone over a lie. God doesn't even kill satanists, he didn't kill Hitler, do you seriously believe he would have killed someone over a simple lie?
Again, Jesus never said anything about fearing God and Paul is wrong to try to frighten people. The all point of Jesus' teachings and his Passion wasn't fear but Love. These verses sum it all up:
"One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?” “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” (Mark 12:28-31)

Jesus said in Mat 10:28 "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." This sounds like a command to fear God and not men. Loving God includes fearing Him and respecting His authority. John wrote in 1 John 5: "This is love for God, to obey His commands."

This doesn't explain why Paul would infer that sinning on purpose, like Adam did, is less serious than being deceived as Eve was. Most Christians would actually probably agree to the contrary so if we were to apply Paul's principles, only women would be allowed to teach!

That is not inferred. It is in the context of which gender got deceived and which didn't. In that world, men were in authority and had the education to lead, this is why Paul didn't want women to have authority or teach men, because women in general are prone to deception due to their sensitive nature (as the "weaker vessels"). Like I said, this is a controversial subject, and no use to argue about it.

Yes, that is exactly what Paul is saying. One may only have a relationship with God after they convert but God does have a relationship with every human being from their very conception. Galatians 4:9 is hence twice heretic in its statement.

I disagree with you. It's not having any kind of relationship that is the issue, it's having a certain kind.

I am glad to say I agree with you here: Paul was known to have tormented and arrested Christians (Acts 9:13-14), he was known to have attended Stephen's lapidation (Acts 7:55-58) and he was found in the house of Judas after Jesus' crucifixion hence after Judas was known to be the traitor that he was (Act 9:11-12). It is hence my conviction that when Paul decided to convert, his only way to be taken seriously as a servant of Christ was to lie about Jesus appearing to him. I do not question Paul's sincerity as a Christian but I am convinced he is a liar and a self proclaimed apostle with poor spiritual understanding. This shouldn't come as a surprise since a deep spiritual understanding is derived from contact with the Lord (Luke 24:45 and 1 John 5:20) which Paul -- and the Luke who wrote Acts -- failed to have, even if inwardly. This is why Paul, for example, starts Romans 8:38 and Romans 14:14 with "I am convinced". He hence admits he has no clue! Indeed, would one say: "I am convinced to be xx years old" or simply "I am xx years old"? One obviously only says "I am convinced" when one doesn't know for sure... as Paul doesn't. This is why I do not believe for one second that speaking in tongue comes from God. Moreover, anyone could learn how to pretend to speak in tongue, just like some people speak Klingon or na'vi. I am still open to being proven wrong, though.

I disagree with you. I got convinced of God's grace sometime later after I believed. This kind of being convinced is becoming certain. It's being so certain that nothing can possibly be said or done to be convinced otherwise. According to the etymology of the word, it means to be conquered (mentally). This is the meaning that is extracted from the context of scripture. It's a matter of knowledge of the truth and the working of the conscience.

It appears to me that you are using the weakest connotation of the word and imposing that on the scripture, which is a faulty interpretation. It's like saying "believe" means to be weak at knowledge, as people might say "well, I believe so," as a weaker statement than "I know so." Imposing that weak connotation on the gospel concerning believing in Christ is a bad idea. And it is also a bad idea to impose any modern connotation of words on any words of scripture.

Concerning tongues, Paul was not lying, and neither was Luke in the Acts 2 narrative (or any of the other 3 places in Acts where tongues is mentioned). And just because modern Charismatics pretend to speak in tongues, doesn't mean that the tongues in the Bible is false. The difference is that modern tongues is gibberish, but Biblical tongues was real languages spoken miraculously. Just because Charismatics claim they are speaking "tongues" of the New Testament (or "tongues of angels"), doesn't make it true.