Actually and even more unfortunate, we have many in these congregations that spew out a series of sounds that have absolutely no translation whatsoever and call it "speaking in tongues." And unfortunately, the majority don't know any better. Even still, it'll still be just as unprofitable if there was one that could miraculously speak in other tongues to do so when it's completely unnecessary.Bingo! Unfortunately, people in the church today practice speaking in tongue(or unintelligible gibberish) to those who already know their native language.
No, it doesn't. But, neither I, nor Paul, was referring to spewing out a series of sounds that have no translation. Neither does speaking in an unknown tongue when unnecessary edify the Church.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.
Prophesying is still regarded as superior to speaking in tongues even when the miraculous tongue spoken is an actual language.Yes, prophesying in a language that everyone already understands is superior to speaking gibberish that no one understands, in my humble opinion.
Although I agree with you, this is not the point Paul was making. Paul was not referring to the foolish babbling that people in our modern-day congregations spew.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.
Rather, people don't expose those who make such claims, because for the most part, a great number of believers believe they are speaking in tongues. And that's why the majority exalts the gift of tongues above prophesying.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.
Our anointed Savior meant to follow his way of life, which is his unwavering dedication to faith and obedience in the moral law. Regardless, my point stands. Even suppositions and assumptions have to remain within the confines of the law and prophets. Therefore and based on what John wrote, it's more than possible, if not probable, that it just was not recorded. I'll digress, though, to saying "No, he didn't," considering that he never left Galilee and Judea, except for a brief visit to Samaria.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?
That we know of. But, no. Never does our anointed Savior instruct the apostles and disciples, specifically, to speak in tongues, unless of course we count what's said in the gospel according to Mark. But, I know you're response to that, already, and I'll rather not veer away from the discussion at hand. Discussing that which appears in Mark will do just that. Anyway, we don't have a specific instruction from our anointed Savior, but we do have him declaring how that the apostles would perform even greater works than he did. Therefore...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?....