Acts 2: Then and Now

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

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.

Well aren't angels "heavenly" beings? And Paul mentions languages of angels...what more do we need to talk about?

If anything speaking in tongues in the holy ghost is more a heavenly language then to say language of angles is heavenly.

Really? Define "Heavenly language" then. BTW what difference does it make what we call it? This seems to be sort of a irrelevant semantic argument.

The point was Paul mentions languages of men and angels

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.

Wrong verse. Wrong topic

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..

Who are you talking to? Where did you dig up this other stuff in my post?

All Im pointing out is Paul DOES indeed mention two types of languages, of men and of angels

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.

Wrong verse. Wrong topic

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" .

Wrong topic. Again I don't know where you reading all this in my post. I Merely pointed out there are indeed two kinds of languages that are possible., This other stuff is completely beside the point

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?

Tongues of men and tongues of angels? Remember that? That was what I posted on. This is bizarre. Nothing you are posting is relevant to my post.

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.

Again wrong topic. Wrong poster...wow

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.

Tongues of men and of angels? Remember that? That was what we are talking about. That was ALL I said. You must have me confused with someone else.

[JoeHardy07]

Godsdrummer wrote:

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.


It got me thinking on another point. This is one of my most favorite scriptures in the Bible. Mainly because it is perhaps the most overlooked scripture in the Bible.

Paul clearly says that when somebody speaks in tongues they are speaking to God not to man.

So, tell me, when did God start speaking to us in tongues. Listen to the tongues and interpretation in a service. We just had one last sunday night. A girl spoke in tongues and then interpreted it: Can you not see My glory. Have I not made My presence clear. I am God...yada yada yada.

So, added to the imaginary plethora of scriptures describing angelic tongues, we now have (or have always had since 1901 or so) a set of imaginary scriptures that explains there are actually 2 different types of T&I. The most common of the two being where God talks to men in general, non-specific phrases...and in old english to boot.

It

Cannot

Be

Found

In

Scripture



A scriptural interpretation would go something like this: God is good. God is great.

Then everyone will be happy because it was interpreted.

[JoeHardy07]

This one is my favorite: Come thee back thou to me...est...I have been a Father to thee and thou's...return thou to my fold and be mine sheep.

Still searching for scripture to back that one up.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by JoeHardy07

Godsdrummer wrote:

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.


It got me thinking on another point. This is one of my most favorite scriptures in the Bible. Mainly because it is perhaps the most overlooked scripture in the Bible.

Paul clearly says that when somebody speaks in tongues they are speaking to God not to man.

So, tell me, when did God start speaking to us in tongues. Listen to the tongues and interpretation in a service. We just had one last sunday night. A girl spoke in tongues and then interpreted it: Can you not see My glory. Have I not made My presence clear. I am God...yada yada yada.

So, added to the imaginary plethora of scriptures describing angelic tongues, we now have (or have always had since 1901 or so) a set of imaginary scriptures that explains there are actually 2 different types of T&I. The most common of the two being where God talks to men in general, non-specific phrases...and in old english to boot.

It

Cannot

Be

Found

In

Scripture



A scriptural interpretation would go something like this: God is good. God is great.

Then everyone will be happy because it was interpreted.

The reason he says he that speaks in a tongue speaks to God and not to men is because men don't understand it. So the point is God does understand it. That is why he says he speaks to God.

1Co 14:28 But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God.

Paul doesn't mean he that speaks in tongues is speaking to God as in having a conversation with God anymore than he meant here having a conversation with himself

The interpretation is not speaking to God but to men just as prophecy does, to our edification

It's not a translation but an interpretation

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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.

Excatly what I ment earlier taking one scripture out of context and making it say what you want it to say. Of course is you place the other meaning of the word "aggelos" which is messenger, pastor, angel.

"though I speak with the languages of men and messengers and have not charity."

"though I speak with the languages of men and pastors and have not charity."

It seems to blow your scriptural precidenece out of the water if that is the only verese you have.

2Co 13:1 I am coming to you this third time. In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established.

Paul doesn't mean he that speaks in tongues is speaking to God as in having a conversation with God anymore than he meant here having a conversation with himself

??????

1Co 14:2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. For no one hears, but in spirit he speaks mysteries.

1Co 14:14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.

[shag]

Praxeas, IYO when tongues in church is given (b4 an interpretation of that tongues) when the tongues is happening, who is speaking to who at that particular moment(Man to God or God to man?) then the interpretation would be exactly an explanation of that same thing being said in the unknown tongue, right?)
Just wondering exactly how U see it....

[JoeHardy07]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

The reason he says he that speaks in a tongue speaks to God and not to men is because men don't understand it. So the point is God does understand it. That is why he says he speaks to God.

1Co 14:28 But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God.

Paul doesn't mean he that speaks in tongues is speaking to God as in having a conversation with God anymore than he meant here having a conversation with himself

The interpretation is not speaking to God but to men just as prophecy does, to our edification

It's not a translation but an interpretation

Nah dude. Listen, you're right. It is indeed not a conversation with God. I understand that. It's just thanksgiving. That was my point: when did God start talking back via tongues?

Tongues are only praise and worship to God in another language (which should be interpreted in public). Men do the talking, God does the listening and enjoying. That is all speaking in tongues is (or at least should be)

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by JoeHardy07

Nah dude. Listen, you're right. It is indeed not a conversation with God. I understand that. It's just thanksgiving. That was my point: when did God start talking back via tongues?

Tongues are only praise and worship to God in another language (which should be interpreted in public). Men do the talking, God does the listening and enjoying. That is all speaking in tongues is (or at least should be)

Joe seriously? Why even have the gift of interpretation of tongues? Why would God even give that gift? God does mean tongues to be interpreted sometimes so that the body may receive edifying. It is not always just between that person and God, but sometimes a person speaks in tongues and then prays that he may interpret for the church like Paul says.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Excatly what I ment earlier taking one scripture out of context and making it say what you want it to say. Of course is you place the other meaning of the word "aggelos" which is messenger, pastor, angel.

"though I speak with the languages of men and messengers and have not charity."

"though I speak with the languages of men and pastors and have not charity."

It seems to blow your scriptural precidenece out of the water if that is the only verese you have.

2Co 13:1 I am coming to you this third time. In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established.



??????

1Co 14:2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. For no one hears, but in spirit he speaks mysteries.

1Co 14:14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.

The contexts does not show that when Paul said "though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels" did not mean Paul wasn't serious about speaking with the tongues of men of angels.

I did not take it out of context. The context merely shows the point to the gifts of the Spirit is Love. One can do miracles but if he has not love he is nothing. The gifts are for edifying. Selfish misuse of the gifts is against the idea of Love.

That does NOT change one bit Paul's point about being able to speak in tongues of men and of angels.

What language do Pastors speak? French? The word Langauge means just that, a language. The context reveals tongues is one of the gifts of the Spirit and that the language is usually unknown but a language.

So please tell us about this unknown pastoral langauge? Aren't Pastors men too? Human languages would be Greek, English, Akkadian..languages of our world.

What is a Pastoral language..a langauge Paul (a pastor of sorts) didn't know?

Im sorry but that is absurd and the context does not change the meaning of the word aggelos to Pastors. You've taken nothing from the context to show it means pastors and that Im wrong

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

1Co 14:2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. For no one hears, but in spirit he speaks mysteries.

1Co 14:14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.

Paul said "If I pray" in a tongue. That does not mean everytime sonmeone speaks in an tongue he is praying.

If this is true all the time, then Acts 2 makes no sense for Paul said the reason he that speaks in a tongue speaks to God is because nobody understands him. That is what the word "for" means

In Acts 2 they understood, so using your logic then those tongue speakers were not speaking to God but to men.

Ok back to the verse you did not address

1Co 14:27 If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret.
1Co 14:28 But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God.

So if "speak to God" means having a conversation with God (like prayer, your example) then he is also speaking of praying or having a conversation with himself.

That is not the point. The point was that tongue speaker is speaking to God "because no one understands him". In other words if anyone DID understand him he would be speaking to them too, as in Acts. This verse is being used to show that interpretations that are first person God to man are unbiblical and that misses the point Paul is making. Paul is not saying the purpose of tongues is to talk to God. God isn't dumb. He understands all languages and does not need you to speak in tongues to him.

The purpose of tongues is to be interpreted so the church will be edified.

So the church will be edified. So if the church is edified then that person that interpreted is speaking to the church words that build up. God speaking to His children words of encouragement is edifying.

Again the point Paul says about speaking to God is that nobody understands the tongue but in acts they did understand so clearly they were speaking to both God and men. The point is not he is having a conversation with God but not men. The point is only God understands that tongue that no man does understand, unless it is interpreted.

The argument that all interpretations must be "God is great, God is good" and never "I am your God. I bow down to you this day to give you what you want" is baloney