Acts 2: Then and Now

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by JoeHardy07

Here is what I did not say: Paul is stupid. Paul was a raving idiot. Tongues are irrelevant.

Here is what I did say(or tried to say): The heavenly tongues idea is not an important issue.

There is plenty of evidence to support earthly languages. Acts 2 and 1 Cor. 14 both read extensively on the subject. There is no such detailing of this, and this is funny, man-made "heavenly language." I'd probably be correct in saying that this counterfeit was created somewhere near the early 20th century.

There may very well be a heavenly language, but it, or our idea of it, has become some trophy to be obtained to the point that we threaten people's salvation and spirituality with it.

It's ridiculous.

What does this statement of yours mean? I guess I'm interpreting you to say either camp (for or against) heavenly language has no support


I'd say neither camp has much of anything to back up an argument on this. So, I say if an extraterrestrial language was needed for salvation or even super-spirituality, it would have been further covered in the Word.


Besides who said these tongues that are initially there with the infilling of the Holy Ghost is a heavenly language?

[JoeHardy07]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

What does this statement of yours mean? I guess I'm interpreting you to say either camp (for or against) heavenly language has no support


I'd say neither camp has much of anything to back up an argument on this. So, I say if an extraterrestrial language was needed for salvation or even super-spirituality, it would have been further covered in the Word.


Besides who said these tongues that are initially there with the infilling of the Holy Ghost is a heavenly language?

I was saying that just as you can't prove to me that Paul is writing about a heavenly language, I cannot prove to you that he isn't. So it's a stalemate.

Some teach that if you speak in tongues, be it earthly or heavenly(which some call gibberish), upon the Spirit's coming into your body then you have the Holy Ghost. This is questionable because the tongues that the disciples experienced were only earthly.

I'm not saying it's false, although I believe it is very very suspicious. Not to mention that it opens up a whole slu of new routes people can take in their spirituality.

Is that wrong...psh I have no idea.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by JoeHardy07

I was saying that just as you can't prove to me that Paul is writing about a heavenly language, I cannot prove to you that he isn't. So it's a stalemate.

Some teach that if you speak in tongues, be it earthly or heavenly(which some call gibberish), upon the Spirit's coming into your body then you have the Holy Ghost. This is questionable because the tongues that the disciples experienced were only earthly.

I'm not saying it's false, although I believe it is very very suspicious. Not to mention that it opens up a whole slu of new routes people can take in their spirituality.

Is that wrong...psh I have no idea.

WHo says the tongues are heavenly when you receive the HOly Ghost? Of course those in Acts 10 or Acts 19 didn't have the same experience of multiple nations being present, so we don't know if they spoke earthly or heavenly languages.

My point was that you were fighting heavenly language as an invention when you clearly said you don't have much evidence either way.

[JoeHardy07]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

WHo says the tongues are heavenly when you receive the HOly Ghost? Of course those in Acts 10 or Acts 19 didn't have the same experience of multiple nations being present, so we don't know if they spoke earthly or heavenly languages.

My point was that you were fighting heavenly language as an invention when you clearly said you don't have much evidence either way.

One God Apostolics say this.

In reference to your point: the answer would then be for both sides to leave the issue alone. Men should not create doctrines based on fragmented scriptures that are only used as passing notes to make larger points(tongues without love = nothing), and the other side (my side) should learn to be more open minded about such things.

I'm not fighting the tongues themselves, I'm questioning what those tongues have been made to be: something that cannot be backed up with scripture.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by JoeHardy07

I'd say neither camp has much of anything to back up an argument on this. So, I say if an extraterrestrial language was needed for salvation or even super-spirituality, it would have been further covered in the Word.

Fact is, it isn't.

Without question, every major form of tongues that is discussed thouroughly in the Bible, which happens to be only one, reads of only earthly tongues. At the very core, this "heavenly language" idea is speculation and human invention. There is simply nothing to support it. No soul on earth can deny this.

Didn't say it was wrong or even bad. It's just cannot be thouroughly supported and is therefore, it would seem, irrelevant.

The point was this verse references tongues of men and of angels and implies the possibility of speaking either

He is not just speaking about Love but Love in the context of Spiritual gifts

1Co 13:1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
1Co 13:2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

[Godsdrummer]

Joe hardy is on to something, that you others don't want to stop and take the time to look at, because it might mean you could be wrong, and God forbid. What I said earlier is that what Paul is saying in chapter 13 is simply, "if I have oratative speaking abilities and have not love I am...", In other words "Just because I speak many languages of Men, or have the ability to speak great speeches, without love I am nothing. What is the language of angles? The only language they have is the same used to bring what ever messaged they are sent with from God to men. The speak what ever language is needed for what ever nationality they are speaking to. That is all Paul is saying here. "though I have the abitlity to speak many languages"

Again we Pentecostals build our doctrines too many times upon scriptures taken out of context reading into them what we want them to say in order to back up our doctrines. Just as we have taken the word gospel to mean a "plan or formula for salvation" when gospel simply means good news. which is that the kingdom of God has come. To preach the gospel simply means to herald the good news.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

That is all Paul is saying here. "though I have the abitlity to speak many languages"

And here is the rub I suppose you and "Joe" don't want to consider because (insert your own negative reasoning in this space);

You are admitting that angelic languages or the so called "heavenly language" IS a possibility.

That is, in fact, what that verse implies.

There IS biblical precedent for it

Simply saying "no" or "That's not what Paul means" is not a refutation or an explanation

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

And here is the rub I suppose you and "Joe" don't want to consider because (insert your own negative reasoning in this space);

You are admitting that angelic languages or the so called "heavenly language" IS a possibility.

That is, in fact, what that verse implies.

There IS biblical precedent for it

Simply saying "no" or "That's not what Paul means" is not a refutation or an explanation

Oh really, care to put that into scripture?

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

And here is the rub I suppose you and "Joe" don't want to consider because (insert your own negative reasoning in this space);

You are admitting that angelic languages or the so called "heavenly language" IS a possibility.

That is, in fact, what that verse implies.

There IS biblical precedent for it

Simply saying "no" or "That's not what Paul means" is not a refutation or an explanation

Just because you say there is bible precedent does not make it so either. To say languages of angels is a heavenly language is to further add to or put words to scripture that is not there. If anything speaking in tongues in the holy ghost is more a heavenly language then to say language of angles is heavenly.
1Co 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

Further more I did not simply say "that is not what Paul means" what I did do was follow the continuity of the previous chapter when Paul tells us to seek after the best gifts, then he tells us "but I show you a better way" and launches into verse one of chapter 13. What is that better way? Is he comparing just the gifts of the spirit? No he just opens up with the gifts of the spirit as that is what he was talking about in the previous chapter. But he does not stop there, he goes on to say...
1Co 13:3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

In a nut shell, the gifts of the spirit are given to equip the body of christ to do the work of the ministry, and to deify the body of Christ. Ephesians 4:12 till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. Ephesians 4:13 Or till we all have a true spirit of Love. As Jesus said "the world will know you by your love one for another" .

Friend we have a long way to go before that happens, esspecialy when we can't find true love one for another even in our own groups. Seen by the division from one idea to another, "my way is the only way and if you won't play the way I want then I will take my ball and go home". In my life time I have seen more splits in just the UPCI than should be, just because of differances of seeing scripture. This is Love?

Paul deals with this in clear detail in Romans 14, yet some that call themselves Christian won't fellowship with others because "they eat meat, or don't keep the Sabbath" add your own doctrines the principle Paul was teaching goes for all these things. Whether it be women cutting thier hair, wearing pants, etc.

So Brother Praxeas though I don't expect you to agree, I still love you and if we were to see each other in person I would still treat you as a brother in Christ. You see I found out seveal years ago when my house of cards fell apart that that is just what I had been raised with, a house of cards. So now I can discuse things without having to be right all the time. I don't put things out as what I say is gospel truth. I put them out so as to get others to draw closer to God in the spirit that God gave them to lead them into deeper relationship with God and not after the traditions of men and the rudiments of this world, built on the philosophies and vain deciets of man. Colosians 2:9-10.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Oh really, care to put that into scripture?

You mean repeat the same scripture we've just been discussing for several posts?

Sure why not, I suppose if it gets repeated enough it might finally sink in

1Co 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I have become as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal.