Initial evidence

[Esaias]

Now, in the new testament a distinction is made between prophesying and speaking with tongues, where also speaking with tongues joined with interpretation of tongues equals prophesying. Which shows us that both are ecstatic utterances by the Spirit, prophesying being an ecstatic utterance in a language the speaker and the hearers understand, and tongues being an ecstatic utterance where the speaker and the hearers do not understand (thus requiring the interpretative gift).

However, 'prophesy' in the old testament appears to be somewhat broader in meaning. 1 Chronicles 25:1 indicates prophesying can be equivalent to 'making music in praise of God on instruments'. Jeremiah 14:14 indicates that prophesying can take the form of vision and 'divination' (casting a lot). The important thing to note is that Joel said all those who received the promised outpouring of the Spirit would prophesy. And, the interpretative problem you mention is created by the apostle Peter himself: under divine inspiration he identified the speaking in tongues that was occurring as the thing that Joel had said would occur. Or in other words, the apostle himself understood 'they shall prophesy' as being fulfilled by 'and they all began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.'

The old testament indicates there was to be a universally occurring, immediate effect of receiving the Spirit: 'they shall prophesy'. When this came to pass, the recipients 'spake with other tongues'. And furthermore, Peter said 'this is that': 'they began to speak with other tongues' is 'they shall prophesy' as meant by Joel.

We all agree that 'the new testament interprets and explains the old testament'. In this case, in regard to receiving the promised outpouring of the Spirit, the new testament interprets 'shall prophesy' as 'speak with other tongues'. And therefore the conclusion is established: the old testament teaches a universal initial evidence of receiving the Spirit, it identifies this evidence as 'they shall prophesy', and the new testament explains this as being fulfilled by speaking in other tongues when a person receives the Spirit.

Every time receiving the Spirit is mentioned, with one exception, we see the recipients speaking in tongues. There is a reason for that from a theological pov (Luke's intention in recording these events). And in the one exception (Paul's) it likewise doesn't actually say he DID receive the Spirit (though we assume he did and for good reasons) and furthermore we know he spoke in tongues a lot according to his own admissions found elsewhere. So then, the fact the book of Acts does not mention tongues in some particular instances cannot be taken to mean that tongues did not occur, unless we are going to be consistent and say receiving the Spirit did not occur, either.

*The 3000 were among those who heard the disciples speaking in tongues, and who were wondering what was going on. And the apostle identified for them the fact that what was going on (all these people speaking in tongues) was the fulfillment of Joel's prophecy regarding the outpouring of the Spirit. He then proclaimed the resurrected Jesus as Lord and Christ, and they asked what they should do about that. They were told to repent and be baptised in the name of this resurrected and exalted Jesus Christ, and were told if they did that they too, would receive of the poured-out Spirit. They had already been told that the exalted Jesus 'hath poured out this which you both see and hear'. The fact they accepted the apostle's message and were baptised indicates they were anticipating and expecting to experience the same thing they had seen and heard happening with the disciples in the upper room. Why? Because they saw and heard them all speaking with tongues, were told this is the promised Spirit outpouring, that Jesus was causing it to happen, and they too could have this if they would repent and be baptised in the name of this same Jesus.

Now, where else in all of modern Christendom will you find anything even remotely similar to that?

[Esaias]

And Moses went out, and told the people the words of the LORD, and gathered the seventy men of the elders of the people, and set them round about the tabernacle. And the LORD came down in a cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him, and gave it unto the seventy elders: and it came to pass, that, when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, and did not cease. But there remained two of the men in the camp, the name of the one was Eldad, and the name of the other Medad: and the spirit rested upon them; and they were of them that were written, but went not out unto the tabernacle: and they prophesied in the camp. And there ran a young man, and told Moses, and said, Eldad and Medad do prophesy in the camp. And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of Moses, one of his young men, answered and said, My lord Moses, forbid them. And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the LORD'S people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit upon them!
(Numbers 11:24-29 KJV)

After that thou shalt come to the hill of God, where is the garrison of the Philistines: and it shall come to pass, when thou art come thither to the city, that thou shalt meet a company of prophets coming down from the high place with a psaltery, and a tabret, and a pipe, and a harp, before them; and they shall prophesy: And the Spirit of the LORD will come upon thee, and thou shalt prophesy with them, and shalt be turned into another man.
(1 Samuel 10:5-6 KJV)

And when they came thither to the hill, behold, a company of prophets met him; and the Spirit of God came upon him, and he prophesied among them. And it came to pass, when all that knew him beforetime saw that, behold, he prophesied among the prophets, then the people said one to another, What is this that is come unto the son of Kish? Is Saul also among the prophets?
(1 Samuel 10:10-11 KJV)

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Here is an argument against "speaking in tongues" being the sole evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost: (devils advocate)

Diversity of spiritual gifts: 1 Corinthians 12-14 emphasizes the variety of spiritual gifts, including tongues, prophecy, healing, and more. Paul notes that not all believers possess the same gifts (1 Corinthians 12:29-30), implying that tongues may not be the sole or primary evidence of Spirit reception.

"Faith" is also included, so by this argumentation not every believer has faith. Ergo, the argument is refuted.

Fruits of the Spirit: Galatians 5:22-23 highlights the fruits of the Spirit, such as love, joy, peace, and self-control, as evidence of the Spirit's presence. This suggests that character transformation and moral growth may be more significant indicators of Spirit baptism than speaking in tongues.

Having more significant indicators of Spirit baptism later on in one's Christian life has nothing to do with an "initial evidence". It should be noted that "evidence" is not "certain and undeniable and absolute proof". It should also be noted that Calvinism and TULIP are not Biblical and not apostolic, so a person may very well receive the Spirit and then later on fall off the wagon. So the "fruit of the Spirit" argument doesn't affect initial evidence one way or the other.

Tongues as a secondary gift: 1 Corinthians 14:1-25 portrays tongues as a secondary gift, subordinate to prophecy and intelligible communication. This suggests that tongues may not be the primary or initial evidence of Spirit reception.

The fact that something is "secondary" or "subordinate" to something else does not indicate anything about whether it comes first or is normative. For example, the rank of private is secondary and subordinate to the rank of sergeant, but nobody that I know of ever became a sergeant without first being a private.

In fact, just being an inductee is certainly subordinate to being a "marine" (inductees are not considered marines until AFTER they have completed boot camp), yet every marine begins as an inductee, and without being inducted you aren't and never will be a marine.

[Amanah]

Hallelujah! This is that!!!!!

[Amanah]

Elder Esaias,
I sent your explanation to my Pastor. I'm sure he will discuss it with leadership. I expect him to align with leadership. At that point, if you don't mind I'm going to post it on Facebook. I don't think this is something you can agree to disagree on.

[diakonos]

Excellent posts, E

[Tithesmeister]

Sister Amanah,

In the video that you posted by Brother White, it seems to me that he teaches that in the New Testament all of the remnant of the Israelites were from the tribe of Judah. Hence they are the Jews. And he teaches that the lost tribes were dispersed among the Gentiles and that even they didn’t realize they were Jews. I know this may be a bit of a rabbit chase but Paul wasn’t from the tribe of Judah. He was a Benjamite and he seemed to be very clear about his linage. Others were known to be Levites. Am I not understanding what he’s saying? Can you explain what I’m missing here?

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Sister Amanah,

In the video that you posted by Brother White, it seems to me that he teaches that in the New Testament all of the remnant of the Israelites were from the tribe of Judah. Hence they are the Jews. And he teaches that the lost tribes were dispersed among the Gentiles and that even they didn’t realize they were Jews. I know this may be a bit of a rabbit chase but Paul wasn’t from the tribe of Judah. He was a Benjamite and he seemed to be very clear about his linage. Others were known to be Levites. Am I not understanding what he’s saying? Can you explain what I’m missing here?

He doesn't teach it the way Esaias teaches it.

Bro White believes that the house of Israel (10 tribes) were lost and became indistinguishable/intermixed with gentiles. But, the Judeans (Jews) kept their identity and are now in the land of Israel.

Elder Esaias teaches, correctly, that both the House of Judah and the House of Israel are dispersed and mixed with gentiles, which means the Jews who are currently in Israel are not of the lineage of the 12 tribes.

So weirdly enough the gospel is going out to the lost sheep, Israel, who have basically become gentiles. And everyone can respond to the gospel and be grafted into the root and be in the New Covenant.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Elder Esaias,
I sent your explanation to my Pastor. I'm sure he will discuss it with leadership. I expect him to align with leadership. At that point, if you don't mind I'm going to post it on Facebook. I don't think this is something you can agree to disagree on.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Amanah

He doesn't teach it the way Esaias teaches it.

Bro White believes that the house of Israel (10 tribes) were lost and became indistinguishable/intermixed with gentiles. But, the Judeans (Jews) kept their identity and are now in the land of Israel.

Elder Esaias teaches, correctly, that both the House of Judah and the House of Israel are dispersed and mixed with gentiles, which means the Jews who are currently in Israel are not of the lineage of the 12 tribes.

So weirdly enough the gospel is going out to the lost sheep, Israel, who have basically become gentiles. And everyone can respond to the gospel and be grafted into the root and be in the New Covenant.

The assertion that modern Jews living in Israel share no DNA or identifiable ancestry with ancient biblical Israel is a topic of ongoing debate and research among geneticists, historians, and scholars. While there is evidence of genetic continuity between modern Jews and ancient Middle Eastern populations, the relationship is complex and multifaceted. Here are some findings:

1. *Genetic studies:* A 2010 study published in the American Journal of Human Genetics found that modern Jews from various diaspora communities (e.g., Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and Mizrahi) share a common Middle Eastern ancestry, but also exhibit significant genetic diversity and admixture with local populations. (1)

2. *Ancient DNA:* A 2018 study published in the European Journal of Human Genetics analyzed ancient DNA from the Levant (the region encompassing modern-day Israel, Palestine, and parts of Jordan and Syria) and found that modern Jews share some genetic affinity with ancient Levantine populations, but the connection is not straightforward. (2)

3. *Y-chromosome and mtDNA:* Research on Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) lineages has revealed that some modern Jewish populations retain ancient Middle Eastern haplogroups (genetic lineages), but these are not exclusive to Jews and are also found in other regional populations. (3, 4)

4. *Conversion and admixture:* Historical records and genetic studies suggest that Jewish communities have experienced conversion, assimilation, and admixture with local populations throughout history, which has contributed to the complexity of Jewish genetic ancestry. (5, 6)

5. *Khazarian hypothesis:* A controversial theory proposes that some Ashkenazi Jews may have descended from the Khazarian Empire, a medieval Eastern European kingdom that converted to Judaism. While this idea is debated, genetic studies have found some evidence of Eastern European and Caucasian ancestry in Ashkenazi Jews. (7, 8)

In conclusion, while there is evidence of genetic continuity between modern Jews and ancient Middle Eastern populations, the relationship is complex and influenced by various factors such as admixture, conversion, and migration. It is inaccurate to state that modern Jews living in Israel share no DNA or identifiable ancestry with ancient biblical Israel.

References:

(1) Atzmon et al. (2010). Abraham's children in the genome era: Major Jewish diaspora populations comprise distinct genetic clusters with shared Middle Eastern ancestry. American Journal of Human Genetics, 86(6), 850-859.

(2) Haber et al. (2018). Continuity and Admixture in the Last Five Millennia of Levantine History from Ancient Canaanite and Present-Day Lebanese Genome Sequences. European Journal of Human Genetics, 26(2), 286-294.

(3) Behar et al. (2003). Multiple origins of Ashkenazi Levites: Y chromosome evidence for both Near Eastern and European ancestries. American Journal of Human Genetics, 73(3), 768-779.

(4) Thomas et al. (2002). Founding mothers of Jewish communities: Geographically separated Jewish populations define their Mediterranean ancestry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(3), 1473-1478.

(5) Ostrer et al. (2012). The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people. Nature, 466(7303), 238-242.

(6) Need et al. (2009). Genome-wide insights into the origins of the Jewish populations. Human Genetics, 126(3), 353-364.

(7) Elhaik et al. (2013). The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses. Genome Biology and Evolution, 5(1), 61-74.

(8) Costa et al. (2013). A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages. Nature Communications, 4, 1-8.

META AI