Acts 2: Then and Now

Godsdrummer · #1 03-31-2011, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onefaith2

If what you are saying is true, then Paul even distinguishes tongues of men and of angels is incorrect. If they are the same, there is no need.

Context, context, I Cor. 13:1 is not speaking of the tongues of angels as a different type of tongues as you are trying to make it be. He is saying that though I am a great orator if I don't have love...

We get all the understanding of tongues in I cor. 14 that we need to understand where there place in the church is.

JoeHardy07 · #2 03-31-2011, 10:38 AM

[QUOTE=Godsdrummer;1052645]Context, context, I Cor. 13:1 is not speaking of the tongues of angels as a different type of tongues as you are trying to make it be. He is saying that though I am a great orator if I don't have love...

Exactly. There is nothing in scripture to prove otherwise.

onefaith2 · #3 03-31-2011, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Context, context, I Cor. 13:1 is not speaking of the tongues of angels as a different type of tongues as you are trying to make it be. He is saying that though I am a great orator if I don't have love...

We get all the understanding of tongues in I cor. 14 that we need to understand where there place in the church is.

If all the material so far relates to earthly tongues, what are we to make of the reference to the tongues of men and angels? Let's look at the context:

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

(1 Corinthians 13:1-3 NIV)

Paul is talking in superlatives in order to make a point. He is not talking about ordinary tongues any more than he is talking about ordinary prophecy or ordinary faith. He is saying if he has the ultimate in these gifts, the fullness of these gifts, so that he has "all faith" (literal Greek), fathoms "all mysteries", has "all knowledge", and all languages (the tongues of men and the angels) but not love, he is nothing. The text allows for angelic tongues but imply that these are exceptional.

http://www.alanmarshall.org/essays/TonguesOfAngels.htm

JoeHardy07 · #4 03-31-2011, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onefaith2

If all the material so far relates to earthly tongues, what are we to make of the reference to the tongues of men and angels? Let's look at the context:

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

(1 Corinthians 13:1-3 NIV)

Paul is talking in superlatives in order to make a point. He is not talking about ordinary tongues any more than he is talking about ordinary prophecy or ordinary faith. He is saying if he has the ultimate in these gifts, the fullness of these gifts, so that he has "all faith" (literal Greek), fathoms "all mysteries", has "all knowledge", and all languages (the tongues of men and the angels) but not love, he is nothing. The text allows for angelic tongues but imply that these are exceptional.

http://www.alanmarshall.org/essays/TonguesOfAngels.htm

Alan Marshall can make up all the jargon he wants to about tongues of angels. There's only one verse, and that only a fraction, which mentions anything that would even remotely imply an angelic language; and that is subjective. Anyone can make a scripture line up with an experience and call it truth.

Praxeas · #5 03-31-2011, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Context, context, I Cor. 13:1 is not speaking of the tongues of angels as a different type of tongues as you are trying to make it be. He is saying that though I am a great orator if I don't have love...

We get all the understanding of tongues in I cor. 14 that we need to understand where there place in the church is.

That does't explain "tongues of men and angels"

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.

this does suggest that tongues could be a langauge of men or angels

JoeHardy07 · #6 04-01-2011, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

That does't explain "tongues of men and angels"

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.

this does suggest that tongues could be a langauge of men or angels

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.

onefaith2 · #7 04-01-2011, 04:58 PM

Quote:

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.

You either contradicted yourself with the two bolded statements or you like the non evidence of earthly tongues only better than the nonevidence of heavenly tongues.

If Paul were around, we could ask him or tell him thats an irrevelant statement.

JoeHardy07 · #8 04-01-2011, 05:19 PM

This is getting out of hand.

onefaith2 · #9 04-01-2011, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeHardy07

This is getting out of hand.

such is the case when you have multiple minds processing a statement

JoeHardy07 · #10 04-01-2011, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onefaith2

You either contradicted yourself with the two bolded statements or you like the non evidence of earthly tongues only better than the nonevidence of heavenly tongues.

If Paul were around, we could ask him or tell him thats an irrevelant statement.

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.