ECT WHY GLOSSA /TONGUES ARE NOT FOR TODAY !!

[jsjohnnt]

But that is not an answer. I asked a pointed question that speaks to the way to the "healing of our needs" brought on by our the flesh demanding its rights..


Why?? It is because we don't seek Him to know Him __ to know His eternal Life, have His Mind in living out through our finger tips, His eternal purposes __Now!



No. It is definitely because of our continual sin and selfish activity being the issue, futile thinking that thwarts the Mind of God to our heart.. Overcoming our vain lives is what the teaching by the Holy Spirit is all about.
We can never be givers and will always be takers in such personal matters you speak of absent our continual seeking God to know Him to have His Mind in all matters of our life. That is how Jesus did it and for our example. I know because I wrote the book ,"How to be a taker without trying" ___ and I was a "confessing" Christian. When I was born again was when I would begin a breaking in my life, an understanding of the necessity of the new birth Jesus was attempting to convey to Nicodemus. Jn. 3:3,5 KJV.



You tell me. I asked you and you apparently didn't think it a relevant question. Would you like to try again?

You asked, "Question: If you knew Him, would you sin?" And I John 1:7-9 was my answer. What I was saying is "Yes" to your question. We do not stop sinning when we come to God. I Jo 1:7-9 is as clear a statement of this fact as we have in the Bible. It lays the foundational context for everything else John has to say about sin and sainthood, keeping in mind that the "law" of which John speaks, is the law of love. And a careful reading of I John makes my point.

CR writes: " Why?? It is because we don't seek Him to know Him __ to know His eternal Life, have His Mind in living out through our finger tips, His eternal purposes __Now!"

While "now" is our victory in and because of Christ (II Cor 5:17 "we have become new" is a perfect tense verb and represents completed action in time), but such is only true because the blood of Christ continues to flow understanding that "keeps on cleansing" is a present tense verb in I Jo 1:7. Let's not forget that Paul is talking about himself, in Romans 7:14 -25, and his admission is ours, all of us. At no time are we deserving of salvation and you are suggesting otherwise in your insistence that we live without sin to prove our love and salvation.

Understand that "we have become new" could not be a final or completed act, in our lives, if we are responsible for our continued health, in the Christ of God. Rather, it is all up to Him, and sense he cannot be defeat, his cleansing of us to total, complete and final, in the I Jo 1:7.

 

[Cross Reference]

You asked, "Question: If you knew Him, would you sin?" And I John 1:7-9 was my answer. What I was saying is "Yes" to your question. We do not stop sinning when we come to God. I Jo 1:7-9 is as clear a statement of this fact as we have in the Bible. It lays the foundational context for everything else John has to say about sin and sainthood, keeping in mind that the "law" of which John speaks, is the law of love. And a careful reading of I John makes my point.

I am speaking of KNOWING Him as you know your wife!

 

[jsjohnnt]

I am speaking of KNOWING Him as you know your wife!

We really are not too far apart on this issue. But I have anger issues, laziness, and a certain degree of selfishness, that keeps me from being a perfected husband. My argument is the same. (Did you reread my post after I finished editing it?).

 

[Word based mystic]

If you are not talking about a strict, monastic piety, I can say a hardy "Amen."

i understand monastic piety as near to (faith without works).

it probably does not include evangelizing or going to the ends of the earth to reach the lost.

nor maybe loving your neighbor.

probably not much relationship either. the opposite of what God desires. (relationship)

 

[jsjohnnt]

i understand monastic piety as near to (faith without works).

it probably does not include evangelizing or going to the ends of the earth to reach the lost.

nor maybe loving your neighbor.

probably not much relationship either. the opposite of what God desires. (relationship)

Indeed, I think you have it right as to monasticism in the broader sense, but I was thinking more specifically in terms of acquired sinlessness . . . i.e. perfection "via the Spirit's empowerment."

 

[kayaker]

No one will be standing, little man.

Thanks for your glowing compliment, CR (Matthew 23:11 KJV, Matthew 23:12 KJV). Matthew 24:42 "Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come." THIS side of His return, might you explain how one will be found kneeling?

Don't charismatics stand on their feet, arms outstretched, or flailing arms? Don't charismatics fall out in the floor like a passed-out drunkard, or thrash about like someone having a pseudo seizure?

From your post 593:

Question: If you knew Him, would you sin?

I suppose that about accuses everyone except charismatics, at least in their own minds. Such sets the stage for more boohoo voodoo salvations with an invitation to get allegedly baptized in the alleged holy ghost. Charismatics think they ARE the second advent Jesus since only One was without sin (Matthew 24:24 KJV). If you WERE Him, you would be sinless. Sinlessness for humans exists on the other side, not in these flesh bodies. More charismatic arrogance vicariously accusing the brethren, veiled as humility.

kayaker

 

[Cross Reference]

Thanks for your glowing compliment, CR (Matthew 23:11 KJV, Matthew 23:12 KJV). Matthew 24:42 "Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come." THIS side of His return, might you explain how one will be found kneeling?

Don't charismatics stand on their feet, arms outstretched, or flailing arms? Don't charismatics fall out in the floor like a passed-out drunkard, or thrash about like someone having a pseudo seizure?

From your post 593:



I suppose that about accuses everyone except charismatics, at least in their own minds. Such sets the stage for more boohoo voodoo salvations with an invitation to get allegedly baptized in the alleged holy ghost. Charismatics think they ARE the second advent Jesus since only One was without sin (Matthew 24:24 KJV). If you WERE Him, you would be sinless. Sinlessness for humans exists on the other side, not in these flesh bodies. More charismatic arrogance vicariously accusing the brethren, veiled as humility.

kayaker

You smell of sulfur __ maybe a check of your spiritual deodorant is in order? I think so. . . . I know so.

 

[jsjohnnt]

Thanks for your glowing compliment, CR (Matthew 23:11 KJV, Matthew 23:12 KJV). Matthew 24:42 "Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come." THIS side of His return, might you explain how one will be found kneeling?

Don't charismatics stand on their feet, arms outstretched, or flailing arms? Don't charismatics fall out in the floor like a passed-out drunkard, or thrash about like someone having a pseudo seizure?

From your post 593:



I suppose that about accuses everyone except charismatics, at least in their own minds. Such sets the stage for more boohoo voodoo salvations with an invitation to get allegedly baptized in the alleged holy ghost. Charismatics think they ARE the second advent Jesus since only One was without sin (Matthew 24:24 KJV). If you WERE Him, you would be sinless. Sinlessness for humans exists on the other side, not in these flesh bodies. More charismatic arrogance vicariously accusing the brethren, veiled as humility.

kayaker

Plug "charismatic" or "tongue speaker" in the place of the weak brother (the vegetarian) in Ro 14:19-23. Those Charismatics you seem to enjoy ridiculing, are brothers in the Lord, serving Him as Master, just like the vegetarian. think about it. In other words, the Charismatics, as well as the Liturgical Church, the Eastern Church, the Roman Church, are members of the same family because they serve the same Master. Right or wrong has nothing to do with that reality.

 

[kayaker]

You smell of sulfur __ maybe a check of your spiritual deodorant is in order? I think so. . . . I know so.

LOL! Well, CR, maybe you prefer the charismatic brand of deodorant: tongue-speak. But, I don't think you'd pass the spiritual breathalyzer test. I can't help but reflect on Jesus' words to His detractors, the Shelanites (John 8:33 KJV, Romans 9:6, 7, 8), in Matthew 23:25, 26, 27, 28. Tongue-speak, as charismatics render it, doesn't make one more than a bag of dead men's bones (Ezekiel 37). Maybe it's a timing issue considering Ezekiel 37:4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. I do appreciate the notion the Lord God caused "breath to enter into you, and ye shall live..." Do charismatics consider Ezekiel 37 prophecy of the charismatic movement?

kayaker

 

[kayaker]

Plug "charismatic" or "tongue speaker" in the place of the weak brother (the vegetarian) in Ro 14:19-23. Those Charismatics you seem to enjoy ridiculing, are brothers in the Lord, serving Him as Master, just like the vegetarian. think about it. In other words, the Charismatics, as well as the Liturgical Church, the Eastern Church, the Roman Church, are members of the same family because they serve the same Master. Right or wrong has nothing to do with that reality.

I've pondered this notion, JSJ, and your point is noteworthy and appreciated. How do you discern false prophets from vegetarians? Vegetarians are hungry for truth. Jesus told Satan, "It is written (Deuteronomy 8:3 KJV), Man shall not live by bread alone (vegans), but by every word (meat) that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" Matthew 4:4 KJV. Do you suggest charismatic babble is meat, then?

The seven churches of Revelations were judged; part of one, and only Philadelphia and Smyrna were found without need of repentance. So, what was unique about those two churches, particularly? I suggest reflecting on Revelation 2:9, 3:9, with particular emphasis on Revelation 3:10 KJV. So... what can I say? Many churches (probably all, with member exceptions) aren't "serving the same master" as I. Charismatics are too busy edifying themselves as holy and sinless, pointing their long boney fingers at the great unwashed, to discern the "Jewish distinction." I'm more of a Matthew 8:19 KJV, Matthew 8:20 KJV kind of follower attending a Matthew 18:20 KJV church. As far as I'm concerned, by and large, I consider the charismatics over-ripe low hanging fruit, and plucked.

kayaker

 

[Cross Reference]

LOL! Well, CR, maybe you prefer the charismatic brand of deodorant: tongue-speak. But, I don't think you'd pass the spiritual breathalyzer test. I can't help but reflect on Jesus' words to His detractors, the Shelanites (John 8:33 KJV, Romans 9:6, 7, 8), in Matthew 23:25, 26, 27, 28. Tongue-speak, as charismatics render it, doesn't make one more than a bag of dead men's bones (Ezekiel 37). Maybe it's a timing issue considering Ezekiel 37:4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. I do appreciate the notion the Lord God caused "breath to enter into you, and ye shall live..." Do charismatics consider Ezekiel 37 prophecy of the charismatic movement?

kayaker

Give it up, kayaker. Your opinion is no opinion because your foundation is no foundation upon which to have one. Personally, I believe it to be less than wood, hay and stubble by what you present to be accepted as the "truth of it all". Your argument is from presumption urged on by presumptuous others. What you need to do is learn Christ with a pure motive to know Him. Leave aside conjectured reasoning that rejects any evidence that comes against it.

 

[Word based mystic]

Indeed, I think you have it right as to monasticism in the broader sense, but I was thinking more specifically in terms of acquired sinlessness . . . i.e. perfection "via the Spirit's empowerment."

our born again spirit/inner man is birthed of God and has no sin.
It resides IN CHRIST and thus it is Christ's righteousness not our own.

God will finish what He started in us as we grow in grace/power and comprehension of Him.

we daily and hourly choose to walk in the Spirit or the flesh. Thus the command to walk in the Spirit so we DON'T fulfill the lusts of the flesh.

the yielding and submitting to His Spirit causes us grow in Spiritual fruit.

But even that focus is diminished if we focus our eyes and hearts on comprehending/experiencing Gods Love.
in doing so. we no longer or less and less respond to fear.
fear being a root for sin response.

If we respond in and by love then we will not sin or break any commands.

 

[kayaker]

Give it up, kayaker.

Give it up, you suggest? The fact is that giving it up is an option you don’t have without the inherent notion you’ve been scripturally duped for the last 58 years. I could give it up with virtually zero implications to my spiritual reputation. I don’t have a ‘denomination’ or ‘church’ or ‘faith’ to proselytize into, or to defend, supporting preconceived notions.

Your opinion is no opinion because your foundation is no foundation upon which to have one.

My opinion is the “truth” communication problem was threefold:

1) Language barrier (“tongues”). Scriptural origin is found in Genesis 10: 5 KJV, Genesis 10:20 KJV, Genesis 10:31 KJV, Genesis 10:32 KJV. This language barrier was Divinely resolved in Acts 2:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.

2) Divinely inspired receptive aphasia (not a physical/physiologic dysfunction). Scriptural origin is found in Isaiah 6:8, 9, 10, 11, 12. This Divinely inspired receptive aphasia was referred to by Jesus speaking privately to His disciples in Matthew 13:10, Matthew 13:11 KJV, Matthew 13:12, Matthew 13:13 KJV, Matthew 13:14 KJV, Matthew 13:15 KJV, Matthew 13:16 KJV, Matthew 13:17 KJV with particular emphasis on Jesus’ words in v. 15 “…lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be CONVERTED, and I should HEAL them.”

Jesus illuminated His conversion from believers (John 8:30 KJV) into disciples (John 8:31 KJV) as Jesus told His believers, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32 KJV). The two testimonies of these two Divine witnesses (John 8:17, 18) is found in John 8:38 KJV, and John 8:40 KJV. What succinct and explicit truth did Jesus SEE with His Father? What succinct and explicit truth did Jesus HEAR from His Father that even Abraham didn’t know? Even though one may not comprehend these two testimonies, the lack of comprehension does not inherently refute the notion witnesses testify (John 8:17, 18).

3) Physiologic deficits being literal hearing/speech deficits and/or the physiologic cognitive inability (v. Divine receptive aphasia) to process information even though hearing may physically intact. The physiologic communication deficit was Scripturally documented in Mark 7:32, 33, 34, 35, 37, KJV “And they bring unto him one that was deaf, and had an impediment in his speech… 35) And straightway his ears were opened, and the string of his tongue was loosed, and he spake plain. “ Charismatics are going the other direction. The aforementioned secular documentation corroborated inbreeding as a significant factor contributing to physiologic (including cognitive) communication deficits. Genesis 9:22 KJV and Leviticus 18:8 KJV Scripturally document the origin of first-degree consanguineous unions that Paul indirectly referred to as occurring COMMONLY among the Corinthians in 1Corinthians 5:1 KJV. Therefore, with only a mustard seed of faith, speech impediments would have been rampant among the Corinthians from whom charismatics extrapolate tongue-speak.

My “opinion” is rather well documented, CR.

Personally, I believe it to be less than wood, hay and stubble by what you present to be accepted as the "truth of it all". Your argument is from presumption urged on by presumptuous others.

Without refuting documentation CR, yours is the opinion.

What you need to do is learn Christ with a pure motive to know Him. Leave aside conjectured reasoning that rejects any evidence that comes against it.

Arrogant charismatic presumptuousness precedes you, CR. Does “learn Christ with a pure motive to know Him” embrace tongue-speak? Charismatics edify tongue-speak, which edifies them as allegedly possessing the Holy Ghost. I don’t perceive such as unbiased. Where’s your evidence that contradicts my position? Or, is all you have a presumptuous opinion?

kayaker

 

[Cross Reference]

Give it up, you suggest? The fact is that giving it up is an option you don’t have without the inherent notion you’ve been scripturally duped for the last 58 years. I could give it up with virtually zero implications to my spiritual reputation. I don’t have a ‘denomination’ or ‘church’ or ‘faith’ to proselytize into, or to defend, supporting preconceived notions.

You have nothing, kay, and take yourself too seriously.

My opinion is the “truth” communication problem was threefold:

There is no Truth in your "truth".

My “opinion” is rather well documented, CR.

Indeed, And ignored because of wanton error.

Without refuting documentation CR, yours is the opinion.

I inferred that. Wake up.

Arrogant charismatic presumptuousness precedes you, CR. Does “learn Christ with a pure motive to know Him” embrace tongue-speak?

It will, if pure.

Charismatics edify tongue-speak,

That's a lie, spoken from willful ignorance.

which edifies them as allegedly possessing the Holy Ghost.

That is so and carries with it a responsibility you are not capable of understanding.

I don’t perceive such as unbiased. Where’s your evidence that contradicts my position? Or, is all you have a presumptuous opinion?

I have nor need anymore beyond what you have sufficiently postulated.

 

[kayaker]

KAY: Give it up, you suggest? The fact is that giving it up is an option you don’t have without the inherent notion you’ve been scripturally duped for the last 58 years. I could give it up with virtually zero implications to my spiritual reputation. I don’t have a ‘denomination’ or ‘church’ or ‘faith’ to proselytize into, or to defend, supporting preconceived notions.

CR: You have nothing, kay, and take yourself too seriously.

Besides not having His Father’s permission to invoke Judgment at that time, what was something else Jesus didn’t have, CR? Might take a look at Matthew 8:19 KJV, Matthew 8:20 KJV.

KAY: My opinion is the “truth” communication problem was threefold:

CR: There is no Truth in your "truth".

Charismatics suggest a fourth-fold rendering of tongue speak. Do you wish to offer Scriptural support?

KAY: My “opinion” is rather well documented, CR.

CR: Indeed, And ignored because of wanton error.

I’ve pretty well documented the three-fold aspects of speaking in tongues. I’ve not ignored the fourth-fold rendering Charismatics offer. But, you might offer corroborating Scripture for a fourth aspect.

KAY: Without refuting documentation CR, yours is the opinion.

CR: I inferred that. Wake up.

I’m not sure I grasp your inference.

KAY: Arrogant charismatic presumptuousness precedes you, CR. Does “learn Christ with a pure motive to know Him” embrace tongue-speak?

CR: It will, if pure.

What constitutes the “if pure” notion, CR? Sounds pretty exalted, though. I can sling a few YouTube vids of tongue-speak that you’d likely agree are fakes. How do you know what’s pure? If it feels good, do it?

Charismatics edify tongue-speak,

CR: That's a lie, spoken from willful ignorance.

The title, “Pentecostal,” speaks to itself. The Acts 2 Pentecostal event was irrefutably a multilingual translation miracle. How about Charismatics suggesting Paul spoke in tongues per 1Corinthians 13:1 KJV “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels…”? “Tongues of men” refers to multilingual skill; Paul likely spoke more than one language. Tongues of angels can be found in multiple places in the OT including the two angels who spoke to Lot in Genesis 19:1, 2. Interestingly, there were three divine ‘entities’ who approached Abraham and Sarah on their way to Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18:1, 2). So, the tongues of angels were literally discernable, although the depth of the message may have been beyond the comprehension of some of those listening.

KAY: which edifies them as allegedly possessing the Holy Ghost.

CR: That is so and carries with it a responsibility you are not capable of understanding.

What responsibility, CR? To proselytize Christians into the Pentecostal faith? You’ve offered no Scripture to corroborate your understanding.

KAY: I don’t perceive such as unbiased. Where’s your evidence that contradicts my position? Or, is all you have a presumptuous opinion?

CR: I have nor need anymore beyond what you have sufficiently postulated.

The three-fold aspect of communicating truth has indeed been sufficiently postulated. Toss some Scripture out to corroborate the fourth and Charismatic notion of tongue-speak. I kinda snicker under my breath when my 85 year-old mother brags that she was “born a Baptist.” I suppose that’s a twist on being ‘born again.’ Weren’t you born into a Charismatic family?

So there’s a lot more than biased rendering at stake for you to consider anything to the contrary. I’ve been called everything but a child of God by my biological brother. In fact, I sincerely refer you to Luke 12:49 KJV, Luke 12:50 KJV, Luke 12:51 KJV, Luke 12:52 KJV, Luke 12:53 KJV.

Anyway, CR… know that my prayers are for you on this matter, “Ephphatha.”

In the ‘name’ of Jesus,

kayaker

 

[Cross Reference]

Besides not having His Father’s permission to invoke Judgment at that time, what was something else Jesus didn’t have, CR? Might take a look at Matthew 8:19 KJV, Matthew 8:20 KJV.



Charismatics suggest a fourth-fold rendering of tongue speak. Do you wish to offer Scriptural support?



I’ve pretty well documented the three-fold aspects of speaking in tongues. I’ve not ignored the fourth-fold rendering Charismatics offer. But, you might offer corroborating Scripture for a fourth aspect.



I’m not sure I grasp your inference.



What constitutes the “if pure” notion, CR? Sounds pretty exalted, though. I can sling a few YouTube vids of tongue-speak that you’d likely agree are fakes. How do you know what’s pure? If it feels good, do it?



The title, “Pentecostal,” speaks to itself. The Acts 2 Pentecostal event was irrefutably a multilingual translation miracle. How about Charismatics suggesting Paul spoke in tongues per 1Corinthians 13:1 KJV “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels…”? “Tongues of men” refers to multilingual skill; Paul likely spoke more than one language. Tongues of angels can be found in multiple places in the OT including the two angels who spoke to Lot in Genesis 19:1, 2. Interestingly, there were three divine ‘entities’ who approached Abraham and Sarah on their way to Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18:1, 2). So, the tongues of angels were literally discernable, although the depth of the message may have been beyond the comprehension of some of those listening.



What responsibility, CR? To proselytize Christians into the Pentecostal faith? You’ve offered no Scripture to corroborate your understanding.



The three-fold aspect of communicating truth has indeed been sufficiently postulated. Toss some Scripture out to corroborate the fourth and Charismatic notion of tongue-speak. I kinda snicker under my breath when my 85 year-old mother brags that she was “born a Baptist.” I suppose that’s a twist on being ‘born again.’ Weren’t you born into a Charismatic family?

So there’s a lot more than biased rendering at stake for you to consider anything to the contrary. I’ve been called everything but a child of God by my biological brother. In fact, I sincerely refer you to Luke 12:49 KJV, Luke 12:50 KJV, Luke 12:51 KJV, Luke 12:52 KJV, Luke 12:53 KJV.

Anyway, CR… know that my prayers are for you on this matter, “Ephphatha.”

In the ‘name’ of Jesus,

kayaker

Please don't. I don't want your prayers. Pray for yourself that you get understanding.

 

[Word based mystic]

controlling prayers that are not from or inspired by the Holy Spirit are usually witchcraft,
trying to control others or their surroundings through ones own carnal wishes and desires.

even prayers that want the other person to act or believe in another manner.

that is why we have the lords prayer
followed up by walking, hearing and responding in and by the Spirit

otherwise if you pray in your carnal mind you end up asking amiss.
and often do witchcraft which is a spirit of control, without realizing it.

 

[jsjohnnt]

The title, “Pentecostal,” speaks to itself. The Acts 2 Pentecostal event was irrefutably a multilingual translation miracle. How about Charismatics suggesting Paul spoke in tongues per 1Corinthians 13:1 KJV “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels…”? “Tongues of men” refers to multilingual skill; Paul likely spoke more than one language. Tongues of angels can be found in multiple places in the OT including the two angels who spoke to Lot in Genesis 19:1, 2. Interestingly, there were three divine ‘entities’ who approached Abraham and Sarah on their way to Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18:1, 2). So, the tongues of angels were literally discernable, although the depth of the message may have been beyond the comprehension of some of those listening.

.

Although you make some good points, your insistence that the example of angels speaking to man (i.e. to Lot) is definitive as to Paul's gift of tongues, is far too much of a jump, exegetically or or hermeneutically. The facts that Paul's gift was unintelligible to Paul, that it was a gift as opposed to the speech of the angels, that he used it in private worship, that he used his gift often, that we have no biblical reason to assume that he used his gift as a tool for evangelism or communication with other humans, all prevent the cut and paste proof-text approach you use to advance your tongues theory. More than this, you have no interpretative rules that drive you to conclude that Lot's angels had the same fight as Paul . . . . no rules at all, you just make the assumption.

 

[kayaker]

.

Although you make some good points, your insistence that the example of angels speaking to man (i.e. to Lot) is definitive as to Paul's gift of tongues, is far too much of a jump, exegetically or or hermeneutically.

Perhaps I was not clear, JSJ. Paul’s intelligible speech being the tongues of angels is not the fourth and Charismatic aspect of tongue-speak… up, down, or sideways. And, that was my point refuting 1Corinthians 13:1 KJV often used as corroborating Scripture by Charismatics, since none are rendering up Scritpture. Then, do you agree Paul speaking with the tongues of angels was NOT charismatic tongue? Would you submit Paul speaking with the tongues of angels was a gift? How could it not be? But, Paul’s ‘angel-speak’ was NOT the charismatic notion of tongues.

Paul was indeed gifted to speak with the intelligible tongues of angels, agreed? His speech was intelligible, although his message was often beyond the perception of his audience subject to Divine receptive aphasia that Isaiah spoke of. Romans 9:6, 7 is a case in point… who specifically was Paul referring to? Not Ishmaelites, not Edomites, not Israelites, and NOT discerned by the multitudes, even today. That’s a bit of a brain-teaser. Ask youR colleagues in seminary! The answer is reasonably discernable from Scripture in the ‘gifted’ class. The two Divine testimonies (John 8:17, 18) found in John 8:38 KJV and John 8:40 KJV add a whole new dimension, I suspect.

The facts that Paul's gift was unintelligible to Paul, that it was a gift as opposed to the speech of the angels, that he used it in private worship, that he used his gift often, that we have no biblical reason to assume that he used his gift as a tool for evangelism or communication with other humans, all prevent the cut and paste proof-text approach you use to advance your tongues theory.

Now THAT’s a long sentence! Charismatics are tongues theorists. I’ve given three examples (not including angel-speech) of what are NOT Charismatic tongues. It stands to reason the burden of proof for charismatic tongue-speak is not mine. We seem to agree Paul’s ‘angel-speak’ was not the charismatic notion of tongues, although CR might have a differing view. How about some scripture, JSJ:

“Paul’s gift was unintelligible to Paul”

“…that he used it in private worship, that he used it often”

Without agreeing with charismatic tongues, I’m likewise unaware said alleged charismatic gift was used by Paul “…as a tool for evangelism or communication with other humans.” Charismatic tongue-speak allegedly edifies the speaker as being in contact with God via the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost theoretically cannot dwell in sinners. Therefore, non-tongue speakers are sinners, which I most certainly am, ask CR. Then, are non-tongue speakers absent the Holy Ghost? Charismatic arrogance suggests so in their feigned humility.

On the strict Charismatic angle, tongue-speak can sometimes be interpreted as prophecy in church service. I’m of the opinion translating the babble of those afflicted with heritable speech impediments WAS important in the inbred Corinthian church service. We find those ‘gifted’ with sign language translating often in churches. We find ‘gifted’ language translators used, also. Besides WitchcraftBasedMagician, why do Charismatic evangelists in foreign countries need translators? And, what’s with the charismatic tongues of prophecy necessitating translation into native tongue, then? Why doesn’t the one allegedly prophesying cut to the chase, and just spit it out?

More than this, you have no interpretative rules that drive you to conclude that Lot's angels had the same fight as Paul . . . . no rules at all, you just make the assumption.

I shouldn’t have to argue Lot’s angels had a bone to pick considering the wrath upon Sodom and Gomorrah. That was simply an example that angel-speech was intelligible, although an angelic message might not be fully comprehended by the entire audience. John the Baptist’s father conversed intelligibly with “an angel of the Lord (Gabriel)” (Luke 1:11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17). Paul’s ‘fight’, rather communication challenges, included 1) language translation, 2) Divine receptive aphasia (which he preserved in Romans 9:6, 7, for example), and 3) heritable speech impediments among the outcast (John 8:15 KJV) inbred Corinthians. Do you have further comment on ‘Paul’s fight’?

You offer that Paul “used it in private worship, that he used it often.” Are you suggesting Paul’s alleged charismatic tongue- speech is inappropriate in church service, then? Possibly now you see the need for interpreters of charismatic tongues ‘prophecy’. Said interpreters justify tongues during church service. Is there more than one type of charismatic tongue? Some is interpreted as alleged prophecy, and some is considered spiritual ‘conversation’ between one’s soul/spirit and God. Was the Holy Ghost ever explicitly depicted in Scripture as a mediator FROM MAN to God? We don’t ‘heal’ God with said gift of healing. We don’t ‘teach’ God with said gift of teaching. Paul was telling the inbred Corinthians to leave their impaired speech vocalizations at home… their strange vocalizations disrupt the message to those in church who can hear, respectfully. Well, unless there’s a translator, of course.

Do you subscribe to the notion charismatic tongue-speak can be translated into native tongue?

You suggest I have no interpretive rules, respectfully. And, I’m getting the most peculiar impression you’re shifting from foot to foot right about now.

kayaker

 

[Puppet]

‘angel-speak’ ? Thats a new one for TOL