“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#328 May 24, 2014
gundee123 wrote:
Okay, now I will carry on. The gift of tongues (according to Paul) was a sign for those who did not believe. For example, if I (as a nonbeliever) witnessed a person who did not speak my language (or tongue) very effectively communicate with me about God/Jesus in my language, then this phenomenon may cause me to become a believer. However, what some churches practice today is not trying to communicate with a nonbeliever in a tongue (language) in which he or she understands, but rather simply claim to have the gift to speak in an unintelligible tongue or gibberish (glossolalia) without even bothering to have a translator, right?
You are absolutely correct in your assertions, my friend.

That was the significance during Pentecost and afterward. The miraculous gift of tongues was solely to convert others, as it served as evidence that a higher power was not only involved, but also supported the organization.
gundee123 wrote:
Thus, I totally agree with you the tongue must be either understood by the listener or an interpreter must be present to translate as the words are being uttered. However, if the audience and the speaker already speak the same tongue, then their is no miracle, but rather the speaker is making a mockery of God's word. In fact, I dare say that it is ridiculous to claim to have the ability to speak in tongue, when the speaker's native language is the same as those listening.
Again, I agree.

My contention is that, as I believe the gift of tongues was used solely to convert others, I also believe that the gift of tongues was bestowed upon men only during the first century, when it was necessary in order to establish the Church.

The Holy Spirit was called "The Comforter," so I believe the vocation of the Holy Spirit, during that time, was to assist the elders in establishing the Church, knowing that the elders would face great opposition. The gifts, such as speaking in tongues, healing, so forth and so on, served as evidence (like I said), as it bestowed power upon men that made them like the one they preached about, that being our anointed Savior. But, once the Church became established, I believe the Holy Spirit, in that vocation, was no longer necessary. And that's why I believe it was written, "Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away (1Cor 13:8)." And just five verses later, it says, "And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity."

I believe Paul was preparing the Church for the departure of such miraculous power while instructing them to rely more (and only) on love and devotion toward one another, which coincides with what our anointed Savior had initially taught. "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another (John 13:35)," taught our anointed Savior. I believe Paul was trying to keep the Church from being deceived and persuaded by heretics, so forth and so on. As an example, Paul was already able to speak Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Koine, which was common for Pharisees. It was just as common for the Hellenistes to speak both, Aramaic and Koine. Considering this, it would be rather simple for a person that could speak more than one tongue to deceive and persuade a believer if that believer still believed that the gift of tongues was still active and present. But, if that believer was forewarned, then the possibility to deceive and persuade them becomes little to none?

What say you?

Since: Jun 07

Spring Hill, FL

#329 May 24, 2014
Gary Coaldigger wrote:
Don't apologize to that moron, the only ignorance here is that of her own. She constantly says things like that on here because she's an attention whore and because she's loony as well.
Wow! I did not realize this. I simply thought that the poster had simply spoke over my head.
Gary Coaldigger wrote:
Many has different serious spiritual beliefs about the speaking of tongues as I indicated in my initiative post on this thread.
Some believes that it was meant for those from Biblical times, some believes it is the Holy Spirit that speaks thru them and some believes that it is the work of the Devil.
I totally agree that the opinion and/or belief about speaking in tongues (or in other languages) vary amongst Christians and non-Christians. However, from what I have read, studied, and researched, what happened on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1) was a one-time phenomenon that was never again biblically replicated. In other words, the 11 disciples (Judas was not there) were filled with the Holy Spirit on this particular day and began to speak with other tongues to devout men out of every nation under heaven (Acts 2:5), who spoke at least 18 different languages (Acts 2:9-11). However, the miraculous sign was that every man “heard [the Aramaic speaking Galilean disciples] in his own language”(Acts 2:6). And as a result, about 3,000 souls were saved (Acts 2:41) that day.
Thus, in my humble opinion, the most important idea to discern about what happened on the day of Pentecost is that the 11 disciples spoke Aramaic, whereas the devout men from every nation did not. Thus, in order for these devout men to understand what was being spoken, the Holy Spirit enabled each of them to “hear” what the 11 disciples spoke “in [his] own tongue, wherein [he was] born”(Acts 2:8). Simply put, the language barrier was eliminated on this specific day, without any need for an interpreter. Unfortunately, many Christians today have been ingeniously deceived into believing that they have been given the gift to speak and/or interpret “in other tongues.” Interestingly, instead of eliminating a language barrier, many churches are creating one by speaking gibberish. Thus, the profound question that I would like to most respectfully ask is,“Why would it even be necessary for anyone to speak in tongues (other languages) to people who already understood in the speaker’s native language?”

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#330 May 24, 2014
Senecus wrote:
Thanks :)
And agree. In fact , being somewhat linguistic and knowing a little of many beyond 'primary language', I'm able to 'fool' people into believing I'm conversing in a language other than their own say, on the phone. A lot is just about voice inflection and intonation.
In concordance...

English is my primary language. As a child, though, I learned Portuguese and Portuguese-Creole, as many in my family only spoke the two (combined) and not English. Then, growing up, I had to learn as much Spanish as possible, as there were many Puerto Rican, Guatamalan, and Dominicans, in and around our neighborhood. And as I began learning Hebrew, I came to learn what we call "The Lord's Prayer" and a couple of Psalms in Hebrew, by heart. Of a surety, I can most easily convince a believer that the gift of tongues has been bestowed upon me. Thank "God," I know better than that, though. If I didn't know better than that, then only those that are aware that such a gift ceased long ago couldn't be deceived and convinced.

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

#331 May 24, 2014
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow! I did not realize this. I simply thought that the poster had simply spoke over my head.
<quoted text>
I totally agree that the opinion and/or belief about speaking in tongues (or in other languages) vary amongst Christians and non-Christians. However, from what I have read, studied, and researched, what happened on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1) was a one-time phenomenon that was never again biblically replicated. In other words, the 11 disciples (Judas was not there) were filled with the Holy Spirit on this particular day and began to speak with other tongues to devout men out of every nation under heaven (Acts 2:5), who spoke at least 18 different languages (Acts 2:9-11). However, the miraculous sign was that every man “heard [the Aramaic speaking Galilean disciples] in his own language”(Acts 2:6). And as a result, about 3,000 souls were saved (Acts 2:41) that day.
Thus, in my humble opinion, the most important idea to discern about what happened on the day of Pentecost is that the 11 disciples spoke Aramaic, whereas the devout men from every nation did not. Thus, in order for these devout men to understand what was being spoken, the Holy Spirit enabled each of them to “hear” what the 11 disciples spoke “in [his] own tongue, wherein [he was] born”(Acts 2:8). Simply put, the language barrier was eliminated on this specific day, without any need for an interpreter. Unfortunately, many Christians today have been ingeniously deceived into believing that they have been given the gift to speak and/or interpret “in other tongues.” Interestingly, instead of eliminating a language barrier, many churches are creating one by speaking gibberish. Thus, the profound question that I would like to most respectfully ask is,“Why would it even be necessary for anyone to speak in tongues (other languages) to people who already understood in the speaker’s native language?”
The thing of it is,yes,people can be deceived.
Lots of times,if not less than,people can fake it of speaking in tongues and sometimes they can do it so well that its difficult to tell if its the real thing or not.
What I have learn to understand this much about the speaking in tongues comes from the Holy Spirit speaking thru us and us learning a different language to communicate with other people from different countries and cultures
What you are describing in part is cultural language and not the language of the Holy Spirit
The language that you described argumentatively got started when a king wanted to build a tower that reached Heaven and according to the story,God stopped it from being built by causing the builders to speak in different languages to where they couldn't understand one another thus calling it the Tower of Babel

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#334 May 24, 2014
dollarsbill wrote:
Two DAMNED FOOLS in agreement equals:
Matthew 15:14 (NKJV)
14 They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch.
Pardon my intrusion, please and if you will, but what's the purpose for this post?

If anything, a couple of things are established. One, you believe gundee123 and Senecus are "damned fools" and "blind." However and secondly, you exalt them to "leader" status which can be, in and of itself, construed as a compliment. But, other than that, what's the purpose of this post?

I ask, because I find that the most important element that's missing is your evidence that supports your belief. If they are, indeed, "damned fools" and "blind," what evidence do you have that supports such proclamations against them? Most importantly, how do you know they're "damned"? What makes you and your beliefs so superior to theirs that you can proclaim such a verdict upon them? Do you realize that your verdict has surpassed that of discernment? Do you believe we're allowed to proclaim such a verdict on others?

Since: Jun 07

Spring Hill, FL

#335 May 24, 2014
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>You cannot purchase it. It's free. Jesus paid for it with His Blood.
If it is free, then "Why do you suppose that the church postulates the man-made doctrine of claiming that God requires 10 percent of its members income," if you do not mind my asking?

Since: Jun 07

Spring Hill, FL

#336 May 24, 2014
Brother Lee Love wrote:
You are absolutely correct in your assertions, my friend.
That was the significance during Pentecost and afterward. The miraculous gift of tongues was solely to convert others, as it served as evidence that a higher power was not only involved, but also supported the organization.
Okay, I think that we agree that on the day of Pentecost,“about 3,000 souls [were] saved”(Acts 2:41) as a result of Holy Spirit eliminating the language barrier. Furthermore, I think that we also agree that speaking in a tongue (language) that the whole congregation readily understands is most definitely not the reason for practicing speaking in tongue by the church today, right?
Brother Lee Love wrote:
Again, I agree.
My contention is that, as I believe the gift of tongues was used solely to convert others,
With regard to what happened on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), I totally agree with your assertion. However, Paul (1 Cor 14) was actually admonishing the people for allegedly speaking in tongue, for he knew that they were not trying to edify the church, but rather themselves.
Brother Lee Love wrote:
I also believe that the gift of tongues was bestowed upon men only during the first century, when it was necessary in order to establish the Church.
Although I think that make a very interesting point here, I must respectfully ask,“Did Jesus teach and/or practice speaking in tongue?” Further, the gift of the Spirit is subordinate to the fruit of the Spirit, whereas the gift is earthy, while the fruit is heavenly, right?
Brother Lee Love wrote:
The Holy Spirit was called "The Comforter," so I believe the vocation of the Holy Spirit, during that time, was to assist the elders in establishing the Church, knowing that the elders would face great opposition.
Please forgive my ignorance, but “How would speaking in tongue reduce the great opposition that the elders might face in establishing the Church,” if you do not mind my asking?
Brother Lee Love wrote:
The gifts, such as speaking in tongues, healing, so forth and so on, served as evidence (like I said), as it bestowed power upon men that made them like the one they preached about, that being our anointed Savior.
“Can you cite any specific scriptural evidence that anyone (besides Act 2:7-11) ever spoke with tongues,” if I may very respectfully ask? You see, I only know of two other times as follows:

(1)“For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God”(Act 10:46).

(2)“And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied”(Acts 19:6)....

Since: Jun 07

Spring Hill, FL

#337 May 24, 2014
....
Brother Lee Love wrote:
But, once the Church became established, I believe the Holy Spirit, in that vocation, was no longer necessary.
Well, I opine that speaking in tongue only edified the person, rather than the church. In other words, speaking in tongue (unintelligible gibberish) was not necessary to build up the church, in my humble opinion. Besides, such a practice is simply a physical spectacle for self-aggrandizement of the flesh.
Brother Lee Love wrote:
And that's why I believe it was written, "Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away (1Cor 13:8)." And just five verses later, it says, "And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity."
Yes, I totally agree that charity is much more important than speaking in tongue.
Brother Lee Love wrote:
I believe Paul was preparing the Church for the departure of such miraculous power while instructing them to rely more (and only) on love and devotion toward one another, which coincides with what our anointed Savior had initially taught. "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another (John 13:35)," taught our anointed Savior.
Yes, I absolutely agree.
Brother Lee Love wrote:
I believe Paul was trying to keep the Church from being deceived and persuaded by heretics, so forth and so on. As an example, Paul was already able to speak Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Koine, which was common for Pharisees. It was just as common for the Hellenistes to speak both, Aramaic and Koine. Considering this, it would be rather simple for a person that could speak more than one tongue to deceive and persuade a believer if that believer still believed that the gift of tongues was still active and present. But, if that believer was forewarned, then the possibility to deceive and persuade them becomes little to none?
Excellent point! I totally agree.
Brother Lee Love wrote:
What say you?

People who refuse to acknowledge the truth that speaking in tongue (unintelligible gibberish) was never sanctioned by God or Jesus have developed, in my humble opinion, a carnal mind and idol of the heart, with all due respect.

Since: Jun 07

Spring Hill, FL

#338 May 24, 2014
Gary Coaldigger wrote:
The thing of it is,yes,people can be deceived.
Well, I am going to take it a step further and say that people who believing in today’s church practice of speaking in tongue are being deceived, in my humble opinion.
Gary Coaldigger wrote:
Lots of times,if not less than, people can fake it of speaking in tongues and sometimes they can do it so well that its difficult to tell if its the real thing or not.
Once again, today’s church practice of speaking in tongue (unintelligible gibberish) is totally deceitful.
Gary Coaldigger wrote:
What I have learn to understand this much about the speaking in tongues comes from the Holy Spirit speaking thru us and us learning a different language to communicate with other people from different countries and cultures
“Why would it be necessary to speak to an English congregation in another tongue (unintelligible gibberish),” if you do not mind my asking? On the other hand, most missionaries who visit other countries to spread the gospel usually have some fore knowledge of the language and culture of the country they are so entering, right?
Gary Coaldigger wrote:
What you are describing in part is cultural language and not the language of the Holy Spirit
Well, the language of the Holy Spirit has ceased according to Paul, right?
Gary Coaldigger wrote:
The language that you described argumentatively got started when a king wanted to build a tower that reached Heaven and according to the story, God stopped it from being built by causing the builders to speak in different languages to where they couldn't understand one another thus calling it the Tower of Babel
I most respectfully disagree. I am referring to speaking with tongue with regards to what happened on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) and how Paul admonished the church (1 Cor 14).

Since: Jun 07

Spring Hill, FL

#339 May 24, 2014
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>Two DAMNED FOOLS in agreement equals:
Matthew 15:14 (NKJV)
14 They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch.
Please know that you are quoting a passage refers to religious leaders, of which I most certainly is not (smile).

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

#340 May 24, 2014
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I am going to take it a step further and say that people who believing in today’s church practice of speaking in tongue are being deceived, in my humble opinion.
<quoted text>
Once again, today’s church practice of speaking in tongue (unintelligible gibberish) is totally deceitful.
<quoted text>
“Why would it be necessary to speak to an English congregation in another tongue (unintelligible gibberish),” if you do not mind my asking? On the other hand, most missionaries who visit other countries to spread the gospel usually have some fore knowledge of the language and culture of the country they are so entering, right?
<quoted text>
Well, the language of the Holy Spirit has ceased according to Paul, right?
<quoted text>
I most respectfully disagree. I am referring to speaking with tongue with regards to what happened on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) and how Paul admonished the church (1 Cor 14).
See?,that's where you clearly don't understand,you don't try to understand and therefor you want to draw your own conclusions which does not really fit the argument other than the notion that you do not believe.
I maybe wrong but I doubt that you have any understanding at all about the Holy Spirit
You have never truly witnessed it,you have truly never felt it and so you have never had any experience with the Holy Spirit to know anything about what you are talking about beyond the point of your carnal objections towards a specific religion and not the spiritual understanding or even the spiritual experience of it.
I don't go to church because church is subject to be corruptible these days but just because I don't go to church that doesn't mean that I stopped believing.
Sure,I have questions,but I know that the answers that I seek does not lie with man to answer correctly.
Man can only assume and voice their opinions about such things but that doesn't necessarily mean that they know everything that I don't.
BTW,aside from my beliefs,I live a happily carnal life and the way I see it is those who wants to judge me for how I live my life should first observe their own and I'm sure that you can easily say the same and you would be right in doing so.

Since: Aug 08

Somewhere in Ireland

#341 May 24, 2014
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>Pardon my intrusion, please and if you will, but what's the purpose for this post?
If anything, a couple of things are established. One, you believe gundee123 and Senecus are "damned fools" and "blind." However and secondly, you exalt them to "leader" status which can be, in and of itself, construed as a compliment. But, other than that, what's the purpose of this post?
I ask, because I find that the most important element that's missing is your evidence that supports your belief. If they are, indeed, "damned fools" and "blind," what evidence do you have that supports such proclamations against them? Most importantly, how do you know they're "damned"? What makes you and your beliefs so superior to theirs that you can proclaim such a verdict upon them? Do you realize that your verdict has surpassed that of discernment? Do you believe we're allowed to proclaim such a verdict on others?
To answer your questions, the only people who are "damned fools" and "blind" are the people who take dollarsbill seriously. He is more than a few sandwiches short of a picnic!

Since: Jun 07

Spring Hill, FL

#342 May 24, 2014
Gary Coaldigger wrote:
See?, that's where you clearly don't understand,you don't try to understand and therefor you want to draw your own conclusions which does not really fit the argument other than the notion that you do not believe.
Please do not confuse my understanding with my disagreements. Further, my arguments are neither based on beliefs or not believing, but rather based on the empirical and/or biblical evidence used to substantiate a given claim.
Gary Coaldigger wrote:
I maybe wrong but I doubt that you have any understanding at all about the Holy Spirit
Well, please know that I am well aware of the biblical claims of the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, I will readily concede that I have no personal encounters.
Gary Coaldigger wrote:
You have never truly witnessed it,you have truly never felt it and so you have never had any experience with the Holy Spirit to know anything about what you are talking about beyond the point of your carnal objections towards a specific religion and not the spiritual understanding or even the spiritual experience of it.
With all due respect, those who claimed that they have felt the Holy Spirit within them often disagree about what He has revealed to them. So,“Does this mean that the Holy Spirit is inconsistent in His message or that the individuals simply interpret the Holy Spirit differently,” if you do not mind my asking? And since the Holy Spirit is the one who enables one to speak in tongue,“Why do you suppose that may people profess that speaking in tongue can be taught”?
Gary Coaldigger wrote:
I don't go to church because church is subject to be corruptible these days but just because I don't go to church that doesn't mean that I stopped believing.
Yes, I totally agree that many churches have been corrupted, but then again, there are many honest and sincere people within these churches that have unknowingly being deceived into believing that they have the gift or speaking or interpreting in tongue. And by the way, I was raised up in the Southern Baptist faith. However, it was my findings after many years of studies and research that led me to no longer walk in Christian doctrine, especially in the face of irrefutable evidence.
Gary Coaldigger wrote:
Sure, I have questions, but I know that the answers that I seek does not lie with man to answer correctly.
Well, some of the answers to life’s question do in fact rest with man, whereas others is beyond man’s understanding. Thus, a wise person will know how to differentiate between the two, in my humble opinion.
Gary Coaldigger wrote:
Man can only assume and voice their opinions about such things but that doesn't necessarily mean that they know everything that I don't.
The bible encourages people to “know the truth,” right?
Gary Coaldigger wrote:
BTW,aside from my beliefs, I live a happily carnal life and the way I see it is those who wants to judge me for how I live my life should first observe their own and I'm sure that you can easily say the same and you would be right in doing so.
From what I gather, you rely heavily on your beliefs, whereas I rely heavily on empirical evidence. But as far as it relates to others judging me, I simply want to know if they are using the same yardstick to measure themselves.

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

#343 May 24, 2014
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text>
Please do not confuse my understanding with my disagreements. Further, my arguments are neither based on beliefs or not believing, but rather based on the empirical and/or biblical evidence used to substantiate a given claim.
<quoted text>
Well, please know that I am well aware of the biblical claims of the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, I will readily concede that I have no personal encounters.
<quoted text>
With all due respect, those who claimed that they have felt the Holy Spirit within them often disagree about what He has revealed to them. So,“Does this mean that the Holy Spirit is inconsistent in His message or that the individuals simply interpret the Holy Spirit differently,” if you do not mind my asking? And since the Holy Spirit is the one who enables one to speak in tongue,“Why do you suppose that may people profess that speaking in tongue can be taught”?
<quoted text>
Yes, I totally agree that many churches have been corrupted, but then again, there are many honest and sincere people within these churches that have unknowingly being deceived into believing that they have the gift or speaking or interpreting in tongue. And by the way, I was raised up in the Southern Baptist faith. However, it was my findings after many years of studies and research that led me to no longer walk in Christian doctrine, especially in the face of irrefutable evidence.
<quoted text>
Well, some of the answers to life’s question do in fact rest with man, whereas others is beyond man’s understanding. Thus, a wise person will know how to differentiate between the two, in my humble opinion.
<quoted text>
The bible encourages people to “know the truth,” right?
<quoted text>
From what I gather, you rely heavily on your beliefs, whereas I rely heavily on empirical evidence. But as far as it relates to others judging me, I simply want to know if they are using the same yardstick to measure themselves.
..and like always where there is no evidence that you can see you quickly dismiss it as a myth simply because you can't be convinced due to your one-sided logic of understanding,correct?
It is my understanding,and you can correct me if I'm wrong,that the only reason why you really abandoned your faith in God is because the ill treatment you received by other Christiana.
I left for the same reason that was done unto me both directly and indirectly but mostly indirectly.
Now if you think that I'm judging you or chastising you,you got it all wrong.
What I'm saying is if you rely on man to tell you what's what more than you do about trusting yourself then you're puppet for everybody's show,willing to sing and dance at their will and not your will.
Things like that don't just happen in churches and other religious places,its like that everywhere and that's why one must always keep his and her wits about themselves and try not to fall into the traps that others might set.
Everybody wants to be in control but nobody in their own right mind wants to be controlled by others.

Since: Jun 07

Spring Hill, FL

#344 May 24, 2014
Gary Coaldigger wrote:
..and like always where there is no evidence that you can see you quickly dismiss it as a myth simply because you can't be convinced due to your one-sided logic of understanding, correct?
Well, actually when there is a lack of empirical evidence, I evaluate the other types of evidence that avail themselves, i.e., biblical accounts, personal experiences/testimonies, supernatural claims, etc. However, I must concede that I am swayed by evidence, rather than unsubstantiated and inconsistent claims that normally defy logic and reasoning. For example, I am not convinced that literally, a donkey spoke to his owner, a man was swallowed by a large fish, there was a worldwide flood, people lived to be 900 plus years old, any woman had a child at 90 years old, etc.
Gary Coaldigger wrote:
It is my understanding,and you can correct me if I'm wrong,that the only reason why you really abandoned your faith in God is because the ill treatment you received by other Christiana. I left for the same reason that was done unto me both directly and indirectly but mostly indirectly.
Please know that while I am very much aware of the hypocrisy, bigotry, and intolerance that is rampant within the church, these behaviors did not cause me to abandon Christianity. You see, the reason that I left the faith was simply because I discovered that it was a plagiarized copy of earlier myths. But then again, I now compare most religions to Aesop’s Fables, whereas there are many deeper allegorical meanings behind what is proclaimed, which in essence were never meant to be taken literally in the first place. In other words, when one reads the scripture to discern the esoteric, exoteric, and exegesis meaning, it becomes a great book to read, study, research, and discuss, in my humble opinion.
Gary Coaldigger wrote:
Now if you think that I'm judging you or chastising you,you got it all wrong.
No, I do not thing such. In fact, I really enjoy it when others share their perspective.
Gary Coaldigger wrote:
What I'm saying is if you rely on man to tell you what's what more than you do about trusting yourself then you're puppet for everybody's show,willing to sing and dance at their will and not your will.
You make an excellent point here. On the other hand, when one does his own studies and research, as well as apply his own critical thinking, he simply refused to regurgitate unsubstantiated claims made by others. In addition, he or she does not allow others ideas to become his or her reality.
Gary Coaldigger wrote:
Things like that don't just happen in churches and other religious places,its like that everywhere and that's why one must always keep his and her wits about themselves and try not to fall into the traps that others might set.
Excellent point! And this is why I most respectfully submit that one should seek first to know thyself, as opposed to believing that there is a cosmic bellboy who will always be there for him or her in times of need, with all due respect.
Gary Coaldigger wrote:
Everybody wants to be in control but nobody in their own right mind wants to be controlled by others.
I most respectfully disagree. In other words, there are many people who are in their right mind who willingly accepts and defends the unsubstantiated claims made by others.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#345 May 24, 2014
gundee123 wrote:
Okay, I think that we agree that on the day of Pentecost,“about 3,000 souls [were] saved”(Acts 2:41) as a result of Holy Spirit eliminating the language barrier. Furthermore, I think that we also agree that speaking in a tongue (language) that the whole congregation readily understands is most definitely not the reason for practicing speaking in tongue by the church today, right?
Right.

The purpose for the gift of tongues was so that the speaker could speak to others of an entirely different tongue. It makes no sense whatsoever to have a whole congregation speaking in other tongues when, most commonly, every member already shares the same tongue.
gundee123 wrote:
With regard to what happened on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), I totally agree with your assertion. However, Paul (1 Cor 14) was actually admonishing the people for allegedly speaking in tongue, for he knew that they were not trying to edify the church, but rather themselves.
Paul said that prophesying was better than speaking in tongues (1Cor 14:5), which causes me to believe that if any miraculous work was to be used as evidence that one has been endowed with power from on high, that prophesying would be that gift. But, the miracle of speaking in tongues can be counterfeited, especially by those that speak two or more languages already. Prophesying, on the other hand and eventually, will expose the prophet's genuineness, so the gift of tongues is preferred before prophesying by our generation.
gundee123 wrote:
Although I think that you make a very interesting point here, I must respectfully ask; “Did Jesus teach and/or practice speaking in tongue?” Further, the gift of the Spirit is subordinate to the fruit of the Spirit, whereas the gift is earthy, while the fruit is heavenly, right?
Right. And as to your first question, I can't answer that. I do know that it's written, "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen (John 21:25)." Considering that, it's possible he did, but it just wasn't recorded. Additionally, it's written, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father (John 14:12)." Considering that, now, it's quite possible that our anointed Savior didn't miraculously preach in other tongues, but that doesn't mean the elders were limited to just those miracles that our anointed Savior performed.
gundee123 wrote:
Please forgive my ignorance, but “How would speaking in tongue reduce the great opposition that the elders might face in establishing the Church,” if you do not mind my asking?
Because, the gift of tongues allowed them to speak and contend freely, and without limitations when either, such people as the Judaizers came to uproot what was already established, or unbelievers attempted to hinder others from becoming converted.
gundee123 wrote:
“Can you cite any specific scriptural evidence that anyone (besides Act 2:7-11) ever spoke with tongues,” if I may very respectfully ask? You see, I only know of two other times as follows:

(1)“For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God”(Act 10:46).

(2)“And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied”(Acts 19:6)....
Nope. The verses you quoted are about it. But, that neither, proves, nor disproves, that the gift of tongues was used only during those few moments in time. And considering the emphasis that Paul made in regards to speaking in tongues, we can most easily conclude that the gift of speaking in tongues was not a rare occurrence.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#346 May 24, 2014
gundee123 wrote:
Well, I opine that speaking in tongue only edified the person, rather than the church. In other words, speaking in tongue (unintelligible gibberish) was not necessary to build up the church, in my humble opinion. Besides, such a practice is simply a physical spectacle for self-aggrandizement of the flesh.
The gift of speaking in tongues does only edify the individual speaking if they only speak to receive exaltation. However, the gift of speaking in tongues edifies the Church when it's clear that such utilizing of this gift is being used to magnify our 'Elohiym while attempting to increase the Body's membership.
gundee123 wrote:
People who refuse to acknowledge the truth that speaking in tongue (unintelligible gibberish) was never sanctioned by God or Jesus have developed, in my humble opinion, a carnal mind and idol of the heart, with all due respect.
Well said, my friend.

2Timothy 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

What about those that are deluded?

Since: Jun 07

Spring Hill, FL

#347 May 24, 2014
Brother Lee Love wrote:
Right.
The purpose for the gift of tongues was so that the speaker could speak to others of an entirely different tongue.
Bingo! Unfortunately, people in the church today practice “speaking in tongue”(or unintelligible gibberish) to those who already know their native language.
Brother Lee Love wrote:
It makes no sense whatsoever to have a whole congregation speaking in other tongues when, most commonly, every member already shares the same tongue.
Once again, I totally agree! Speaking gibberish does not edify the church, according to Paul, as well as according to anyone who engages his or her critical thinking.
Brother Lee Love wrote:
Paul said that prophesying was better than speaking in tongues (1Cor 14:5), which causes me to believe that if any miraculous work was to be used as evidence that one has been endowed with power from on high, that prophesying would be that gift.
Yes, prophesying in a language that everyone already understands is superior to speaking gibberish that no one understands, in my humble opinion.
Brother Lee Love wrote:
But, the miracle of speaking in tongues can be counterfeited, especially by those that speak two or more languages already.
If I may respectfully disagree with you on this point, for I am prepared to argue that the way the church has practiced “speaking in tongue” today is not only a counterfeit to what happened on the day of Pentecost, but also it has made a mockery of Holy Spirit.
Brother Lee Love wrote:
Prophesying, on the other hand and eventually, will expose the prophet's genuineness, so the gift of tongues is preferred before prophesying by our generation.
Yes, I think that because people cannot readily expose those who claim to speak in tongue (unintelligible gibberish), they feel safer promoting this fraudulent practice, with all due respect.
Brother Lee Love wrote:
Right. And as to your first question, I can't answer that. I do know that it's written, "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen (John 21:25)." Considering that, it's possible he did, but it just wasn't recorded.
Please know that I realize that if we speculate or form conjectures, we can assume practically anything. However, the bible was not written in a way that people had to make suppositions and create doctrines based on those assumptions, in my humble opinion. In other words, Jesus said to follow Him (His teachings), as oppose to follow the unsubstantiated hypotheses of others, right?
Brother Lee Love wrote:
Additionally, it's written, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father (John 14:12)." Considering that, now, it's quite possible that our anointed Savior didn't miraculously preach in other tongues, but that doesn't mean the elders were limited to just those miracles that our anointed Savior performed.
Although I think that you a good point here, Jesus never spoke in tongue or taught others that they should speak in tongue (unintelligible gibberish), right?....

Since: Jun 07

Spring Hill, FL

#348 May 24, 2014
....
Brother Lee Love wrote:
Because, the gift of tongues allowed them to speak and contend freely, and without limitations when either, such people as the Judaizers came to uproot what was already established, or unbelievers attempted to hinder others from becoming converted.
Excellent point! But please know that speaking in tongue was strictly used when the people spoke in different languages, right? And if so,“Is this what’s being practiced in the church today,” if you do not mind my asking?
Brother Lee Love wrote:
Nope. The verses you quoted are about it. But, that neither, proves, nor disproves, that the gift of tongues was used only during those few moments in time.
Well, the status quo dictates that unless there is biblical evidence that the gift of tongue was spoken at other times, then these three occasions were the only time we have a good reason to think that it was spoken without engaging in speculations or conjectures, in my humble opinion.
Brother Lee Love wrote:
And considering the emphasis that Paul made in regards to speaking in tongues, we can most easily conclude that the gift of speaking in tongues was not a rare occurrence.
Paul admonished people for speaking in tongue, as opposed to condoning what they were doing, right?

Since: Jun 07

Spring Hill, FL

#349 May 24, 2014
Brother Lee Love wrote:
The gift of speaking in tongues does only edify the individual speaking if they only speak to receive exaltation. However, the gift of speaking in tongues edifies the Church when it's clear that such utilizing of this gift is being used to magnify our 'Elohiym while attempting to increase the Body's membership.
According to Paul, the only way that the church could be edified or God could be magnified by anyone speaking in tongue was if there was an interpreter, i.e.,“... except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying”(Acts 2:5). And when there is no interpreter in the church today when people get up and start speaking unintelligible gibberish, Christians need to know that these tongue speakers are required to keep silent in the church (Acts 2:28), according to their own bible.

Interesting, many people believe that women must keep silent in the church (1 Cor 14:34), but not men who are speaking in tongue without an interpreter (1 Cor 14:28).
Brother Lee Love wrote:
Well said, my friend.
2Timothy 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
What about those that are deluded?
Excellent reference (smile)!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
A Message from Nettie (Feb '14) 6 min Huntington Guy 1,408
Who stole the keys to Heaven? 22 min Faith Alone 244
Are World Events Pointing to End Times 28 min Faith Alone 970
Message to - YOU - The Mod. 31 min hmmmmm 26
The Prophet of Jesus Christ 38 min hmmmmm 50
BIRTH CONTROL is ABORTION 56 min God the son 15
I am God the son - Time Traveler 1 hr God the son 1
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Christian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••