Are Tongues Real?

[Bro Flame]

As a slight tangent to this conversation, I'm friends with someone on Facebook (yeah, I know) that has a ministry they oversee. They asked this morning or maybe yesterday what value we find in speaking in tongues. They aren't against tongues, because they're Charismatic, but I suppose they just wanted to see what responses they'd get.

The comments themselves were quite interesting. They gave a variety of answers, but no one said that they saw tongues as the initial sign of baptism with the Holy Ghost, but they all gave answers like "that's my spiritual discipline" or "it's a gift to God's chosen few" and stuff similar.

I just felt I'd drop this here.

The point of this reply?

How do you value speaking in tongues?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by diakonos

Everyone heard someone speak in his language. Is how I’ve always read it.

But it doesn't say "someone", it says "them".

[diakonos]

Originally Posted by Esaias

But it doesn't say "someone", it says "them".

I know how to read KJV.

[shag]

Why didn’t Elizabeth speak w tongues, when she was FILLED with the holyghost?

Luke 1:42

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by shag

Why didn’t Elizabeth speak w tongues, when she was FILLED with the holyghost?

Luke 1:42

Luke 1:67
And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,

Elizabeth’s husband experienced this as well, but I would liken their experience it to other scriptures like this.

1 Samuel 10:10
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.
11 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?

The baptism of the Holy Ghost post resurrection was something more.

John 7:38-39
38......He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39......(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

The baptism of the Holy Ghost did not occur until after Christ ascension (According to the gospel of John). The Spirit has always been at work with humanity, but it was not until Jesus came and rent the veil and put away the separation of sin from God and man, that we can experience the baptism that was prophecied.

[shag]

Thank you for responding.
My question is still yet, Why didn’t Elizabeth speak w tongues, when she was FILLED with the holyghost?

(Spirit “filled”, not “upon”)

(Maybe similar to why they didn’t speak in tongues when they were filled in acts 4:31?)


Does only spirit “baptism” = tongues evidence?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by shag

Why didn’t Elizabeth speak w tongues, when she was FILLED with the holyghost?

Luke 1:42

Does it say that? Or does it just not mention if she did or didn't?

[shag]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Does it say that? Or does it just not mention if she did or didn't?

and Elizabeth was filled with the Holyghost. 42 In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear!


Trying not to add to or take away….

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by shag

Thank you for responding.
My question is still yet, Why didn’t Elizabeth speak w tongues, when she was FILLED with the holyghost?

(Spirit “filled”, not “upon”)

(Maybe similar to why they didn’t speak in tongues when they were filled in acts 4:31?)


Does only spirit “baptism” = tongues evidence?

If Zechariah and Elizabeth’s experience was the same as the Holy Ghost outpouring in Acts 2, then you have a contradiction in the gospel of John. I understand the usage of “filled” in the verse , but it seems less conflicting to compare the story with that of King Saul. Both scenarios there was prophecy, but no tongues present.

[shag]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

If Zechariah and Elizabeth’s experience was the same as the Holy Ghost outpouring in Acts 2, then you have a contradiction in the gospel of John. I understand the usage of “filled” in the verse , but it seems less conflicting to compare the story with that of King Saul. Both scenarios there was prophecy, but no tongues present.

The best I can come up with, is that in light of John 739, the holyghost was not available to everyone desiring it, (until Acts). So this Holyghost/rivers of living water would not have been available to Zachariah or Elizabeth. Somehow different than Acts etc…
Yet they were “filled”..

So why was there no tongues (shown in scripture) in their situation?
Would it simply go back to the purpose(whatever exactly that may be) of tongues in Acts 2 etc, is not the same purpose with Zachariah and Elizabeth?