THE PURPOSE OF TONGUES IN THE ASSEMBLY

[Lees]

Hi Lees, you said..."Because the gift of miracles is a special gift given to some. But all the gifts are miraculous."

The contradiction was that you said miracles were unique (special) and given to some, and then you said that all the gifts are miracles, thus removing the uniqueness because all believers have gifts.



My evidence was from the Bible. I'll ask you again, (Paul asked these same questions in the Bible, 1 Cor. 4:7) what do you have that is good, that you did not receive from God? And if you did receive it from God, why do you not see it as a gift? My point is simple. The lists of gifts are not a list of super powers. They could be miraculous at one time, but, even then, were mostly very practical.

The rest is getting a bit redundant. I don't think that our repeating ourselves over and over will change anything.

Dave

No contradiction. All the gifts are miraculous. But some are given the gift of 'miracles'. As I said before, some have the gift of evangelism. But we are all to do the work of the evangelist. (Eph. 4:11) (2 Tim. 4:5)

The gifts of the Spirit are unique. Whether they be tongues, miracles, healing or whatever. They are from the Holy Ghost to the individual believer. It is where the individual believer excels in the Body of Christ.

Your evidence ignores (Rom. 12:3-8), (1 Cor. 12-14), (Eph. 4:7-16).

(1 Cor. 4:7) says nothing about 'spiritual gifts'. Gee, so you say spiritual gifts 'could be miraculous'? Like you don't want to admit. You then say they were mostly 'practical'. Which takes away from their being 'miraculous'. If they were so 'practical' why are you against them?

Show me the 'practical' with the various 'spiritual gifts'.

That's fine, you are not required to answer. I would like to hear your answer to (John 5:1-9). Why did Jesus just heal one, when so many needed healing?

Lees

 

[Arial]

I am not so sure. No doubt understanding what was said in ones language did occur. But that seems to occur due to the 'hearing'. (Acst 2:6) "...and every man heard them speak in his own language." (Acts 2:8) "And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherin we were born? (Acts 2:11) "...we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God."

Acts 2:8 tells us that it was their own language. But if that is not enough.

Strong's Lexicon
glóssa: Tongue, Language
Original Word: γλῶσσα
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: glóssa
Pronunciation: GLOHS-sah
Phonetic Spelling: (gloce-sah')
Definition: Tongue, Language
Meaning: the tongue, a language, a nation (usually distinguished by their speech).

Whether the event was men speaking in different languages or whether what was said in one language was heard in a person's native language imo is not worth debating. The message is the same.

The ones speaking in tongues were many of the disciples, including some of the believing women, including Mary and Christ's brothers. (Acts 1:13-14) And "they were all with one accord in one place." (Acts 2:1) "And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them." (Acts 2:3) "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." (Acts 2:4)

It just seems strange to me that so many disciples, if speaking various languages at the same time, that anyone could make heads or tails out of what any were saying. But if the Lord gave them tongues to speak which were not known language but was miraculously understood by those there at Pentecost, no matter what language they spoke, it seems to me there would have been more order and the ability to hear.

It would still be a whole bunch of people all speaking at the same time. But the word translated tongues means languages and it did to those who translated it as tongues. Why would it take some not known language. Maybe it was the ability to hear but what difference does that make?

Then you have another group there who represent the unbelieving. And what was their response? "Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine." (Acts 2:13) In other words they accused them of being drunk. I don't see how speaking another known language would produce this kind of reaction. As a result, their ears were not opened. But if they, the disciples, spoke in an unknown language or tongue given them by God, and they, those who mocked, just heard it as drunken gibberesh, because their ears were not opened, then their response makes more sense to me.

A language that is foreign to a person always sounds like gibberish. You are reading to much into it and perhaps missing the point. We only have the words that are written in our Bibles. None of us were there. We cannot imagine what it actually looked and sounded like or even how it was being done.

 

[Lees]

Acts 2:8 tells us that it was their own language. But if that is not enough.

Strong's Lexicon
glóssa: Tongue, Language
Original Word: γλῶσσα
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: glóssa
Pronunciation: GLOHS-sah
Phonetic Spelling: (gloce-sah')
Definition: Tongue, Language
Meaning: the tongue, a language, a nation (usually distinguished by their speech).

Whether the event was men speaking in different languages or whether what was said in one language was heard in a person's native language imo is not worth debating. The message is the same.

It would still be a whole bunch of people all speaking at the same time. But the word translated tongues means languages and it did to those who translated it as tongues. Why would it take some not known language. Maybe it was the ability to hear but what difference does that make?

A language that is foreign to a person always sounds like gibberish. You are reading to much into it and perhaps missing the point. We only have the words that are written in our Bibles. None of us were there. We cannot imagine what it actually looked and sounded like or even how it was being done.

Yes...perhaps.

Lees