Post by nofearson on Apr 14, 2009 0:43:07 GMT -5
Okay I like to see persons do some research and really get into it and see whats up, I personally believe that God does want this, to us for search the truth everything in this word is to be searched out.
However I will seek to clarify certain points on this matter and let everyone else search to God for their self.
I will say this emphatically that yes I do believe that there is the gift of tongues, I do believe that it is evidence to show that a member of the body of Christ has been baptized by the Holy Spirit. However I do not believe that all the gibberish being spoken in church worldwide is anything near or relative to the gift as seen in Acts, the first day it happened. Notice in all my posts I never said the gifts of the Holy Spirit were moved or taken away. I can only go off of what scripture has said.
Madpastor I admire the fact that you went and tried to give some scripture references you are a doing a great service not only to yourself but more importantly those who will follow your example.
However I believe that the issue here is not dealing with how the gift is to be used but, whatever is being spoke today is it the real thing? You did not respond to my discussion of the verses you use to reference the so called tongues of men and angels. As I stated before, when you read the following verses you will get a better understanding of what Paul is dealing with here. Paul said in verse two of chapter 13 that THOUGH I have the gift of prophecy and understand all mysteries and have all knowledge and have all faith but I do not have love then it is basically nothing (paraphrasing the last part). Now my question is did Paul understand all mysteries....You read on and you find that He says we know in part. So he did not understand everything. Although Paul was an highly educated man, he did not have all knowledge and he surely didn't have all faith to transport mountains. Now lets move on even further, Paul says that if I give all my possessions to the poor to feed them, which is quite honorable, did He do this though?? And he also says he gives his body to be burned, Paul was never burned but he was beheaded. Did Paul really give his body to be burned ( The greek word is Kaio and is literally burn) Paul did not do these things He did not possess all these things as I stated before and you even try to point out in your reply Paul was enforcing his main point. The idea of love. Paul was not stating that He spoke with the tongues of men and angels. If He did, how would speaking in the tongues of angels benefit him or anyone? "Though", taken from the KJV, I sometimes use the KJV because most are familiar with it, in this context is a supposition or a hypothetical statement. If one could do all these good things but have no love behind it, it would be worth nothing. But no one have these abilities on earth so as we already established Paul's emphasis was on love. Jesus had everything His Father gave Him but he exercised this all with love. And we are far lower and yet to be made into his image so we do not possess completely all His characteristics. On a side note angels can speak in the language of men we have seen many examples. Look at Mary, Look at Daniel. a few others but why do we need to talk in their language? So if you can expound this to me using scripture then I have no problem admitting I am wrong I will repent of my erroneous thoughts.
Now you claimed something very intriguing to me as I am still dealing with this concept of adding to the original manuscript, I will quote. "Now concerning "Pneumatika" Greek fr Spiritual gifts. (gifts is not found in the original greek but placed there for a better English understanding of the text). The original writing Just says Now concerning spirituals" Now I don't know about you but this alone in itself will cause someone to question because God warns about adding to the word. (Proverbs 30:5-6, Deut 4:2, Rev 22:18-19) So I will not comment on this now. To me there is a big difference between spiritual and spiritual gifts. One could be spiritually minded and not operate carnally but one could take the spiritual gifts and operate quite fleshy. This was the Corinthian church problem and I believe is a serious problem today for those who actually have the gift. However this is another topic. So please be careful, as a matter of fact I will do a study on this because the issue of translation can cause 'many a pain'. But I will deal with the clarity of greek words I used in my previous reply.
Now in your third response I believe that we are practically in agreement on most of it. Like I said I don't discredit the spiritual gifts all I am pointing out is that Paul says that when operating in these gifts one must do this in love. I'm sure we both agree on this.
On the word glossa, stating the gender and any other such things does not really help anyone because at the end of the day the meaning can refer to the actual tongue (organ) or 'language' and in the plural 'languages'. So is it good scholarship to state that plural languages means "unknown tongues"? As I stated before, the word "unknown" is not located in any of the original manuscripts, this is most common in KJV bibles that italicize words that were not in there originally. I do believe that some instances it could be done and some others just don't need it but for the most part should be avoided, which is why the need for studying in depth of other translations is important, because no translation is perfect.
On the day of Pentecost, I already touched on this and if I have not made it clear I will seek to do so as best as I can now. For one thing I will not go too much into the background as we both know what happened. However I draw your attention again to what happened. The gift of languages (glossa) was not to affect the person hearing but the person speaking. I put this on notice that there were 120 persons waiting on the promise of the Spirit so it was quite possible for the nations that were gathered in Jerusalem at the time. "And they were all amazed and marveled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak, Galileans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue [language/dialect], wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and the strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians we do hear them speak in our tongues(Glossa-languages) the wonderful works of God" (Acts 2:7-11)."
This is why Paul said the gift is for them of unbelief lets not forget the the gospel is spread through the foolishness of preaching.(I Cor. 1:20-21) So in order for the gospel to be preached and understood the 120 disciples had to speak in a language the other races could understand. So here we see that they spoke the languages of men, not of angels, as I will clarify later on in the usage of the greek words.
So these 120 persons spoke of the wonderful works of God to these persons from all these nations gathered here in each of their own language. So that by the foolishness of preaching the gospel would be spread and have a chance to be accepted. so many were saved that day. Now the gifts did not stop because the corinthian church still used it but in such a carnal way that Paul had to speak out. Every other instance besides the corinthian church and the day of pentecost, each instance of the gift of languages was for the purpose of either magnifying God or to the unbelievers (Acts 10:46). Now to further reiterate my point I am going to explain as best as God allows me to the Greek word Genos.
In 1 Cor 12:10 we read of divers kinds of languages, and in 28 we read diversities of languages and in 1 Cor 14:10 we read of many kinds of voices. Now what does this have to do with my point "All three words "kinds, diversities, & kinds" in the above three verses are from the same one Greek word (#1085, genos). "
IN strong's concordance Genos means "genos-: kin, born, country, diversity, generation, kind, nation, offspring, stock." So by context this is how Genos is translated in scripture Mark 7:26—"The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation [Gk: genos]…" In this verse it could have just correctly been translated "birth," but "diversity" or "kind" would never suit.
Acts 4:6—"And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred [Gk genos] of the high priest…" Again, "diversity" or "kind" would not suit in this verse.
Acts 4:36b—"…The son of consolation, a Levite, and of the country [Gk: genos] of Cyprus." "Diversity" or "kind" could never be used here.
II Cor. 11:26—"In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen [Gk: genos]…" These were real PEOPLE that Paul was in peril of.
Gal. 1:14—"And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation [Gk: genos]…" Here genos speaks of nation or nationality.
Rev. 22:16b—"I am the root and the offspring [Gk: genos] of Daivd…" Also "offspring" in Acts 17:28 & 29.
I Pet. 2:9—"But you are a chosen generation [Gk: genos], a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people…" Notice the company that genos keeps in this verse: "generation, priesthood, nation, people."
Phil. 3:5—"Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock [Gk: genos] of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew…" Notice the company that genos keeps in this verse: the stock of the nation Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, of the much larger clan of Hebrews.
So Paul is referring to these 'divers' kinds of tongues (languages) as earthly, 'genos', languages. This is the word used in 1 Cor 12. No room for tongues of angels.
As you and I both know Paul was a well educated man and traveled many places and had opportunity to learn many languages so it would not be wrong of him saying he spoke with tongues more than most of the corinthian church. (1 Cor 14:18).
Quite frankly Paul makes it plain enough that all will not speak in tongues, these passages are self explanatory (I Cor. 12:29-30) So by stating this is available to all believers is kinda contradictory.
Now I will seek to do more study on that which is perfect is come statement as in certain translations some reads perfect is maturity or complete maturity, so in regards to this I do admit that I may be mistaken and as such will do more studies.
However this brings me to my next point as i stated before and seemed to touch on but because I did not clarify myself I guess i left myself open but I will deal with this now. You are correct in stating that prophecies and knowledge are still in operation the greek word katargeo agrees with this but why did Paul choose another word, pauo, for the gift of languages? Read back to what I said earlier about when the gifts of languages on the day of pentecost and hopefully it will add to clarity. Pauo means to stop now there are other instances in scripture where this is used and I will share them and notice the context of the meaning better yet notice the time frame.
"Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down, why cumbers/encumbers [Gk: katargeo] the ground" (Luke 13:7 — "…make even the ground useless," Rotherham).
Here we are told that this katargeo was rendering the ground useless for 3 years.
"Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy [Gk: katargeo)] both it and them" (I Cor. 6:13—"…will be discarding it and them…," Concordant Literal New Testament).
In this verse we see that the process of God "…discarding [katargeo] it and them…" is still going on after two thousand years.
"Then comes the end, when He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when He shall have put down [Gk: katargeo] all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till he has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed [Gk: katargeo] is death" (I Cor. 15:24-26).
Now for Pauo
"Now when He [Jesus] he had left [Gk; pauo] speaking, He said unto Simon, Launch out into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught" (Luke 5:4).
How long do we suppose it was between the time Jesus stopped speaking and Jesus commanded Peter? A few minutes? It was very quickly, not years.
"And they came to Him, and awoke Him, saying, Master, master, we perish. Then He arose and rebuked the wind and the raging of the water: and they ceased [GK: pauo], and there was a calm" (Luke 8:24).
How long did it take to cause the wind and raging water to cease? A few minutes? Certainly not hours or days.
"And it came to pass, that as He was praying in a certain place, when He ceased [Gk: pauo], one of His disciples said unto Him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples. And He said unto them. When ye pray, say…" (Luke 11:1-2).
"Jesus ceased praying in an instant. Or do we believe Jesus went hours, or days between praying. To stop something by use of the word pauo is to end it very quickly."
"…and when they saw the chief captain and the soldiers, they left [Gk: pauo] beating of Paul. Then the chief captain came near, and took him…" (Acts 21:32).
"As soon as they left beating of Paul the chief captain came. Not hours or days later, but right then. The word pauo does not linger for centuries as does the word katargeo."
So when Paul teaches us that languages will end by way of pauo, he is telling us that languages will end very quickly as compared with prophesies & knowledge which will fade out over centuries and eons of time. This is why I believe this is this way, since the word of God is being translated in many different languages and the gospel is being preached in countries where those persons speak the native language then it is quite possible for this to be applicable. Prophecies can even in some ways seem to be vanishing since we have the complete Word of God to study from, and there is no need to add on to it, as a matter of fact prophecy just means to declare what the Lord says, quite frankly if one reads and studies enough you wouldn't need to be waiting for prophecies or words from the Lord, its all in there waiting for you to uncover.
Can you tell me of any other new testament writers that listed the gift of languages in their letters?
Now for this whole praying in the spirit thing, I will quote myself again "Paul says anyone who speaks in a tongue and there is no interpreter then he speaks in the spirit. What does this mean exactly? Study of the word pneuma(meaning breath, current of air, blast of air or in some cases yes spirit, but I assure you Holy Spirit is not in that passage of scripture). Now what would make more sense could it be possible Paul was just saying that you speak into the air and only God could understand you if you do speak in tongues and no man can understand. I'll do more research on the usage of this word."
I want to turn your attention to 1 Cor 14:1-9 and pay attention to verse 9. I do believe Paul was saying that since no one can understand you if there is no interpreter that you are speaking into the air since you don't understand and no one else could understand, then only God, the creator or all languages, could understand.
Then I believe we sometimes shoot ourselves in the foot with this one Romans 8:26 Now answer me this question if the spirit speaks with groanings that cannot be uttered why is there any sound coming out of our mouth if they are inarticulate or cannot be uttered??? Never said anything about uttered clearly just said nothing can be uttered. And in 1 Cor 14:14-15, I'm sorry still see no justification because every person and even including myself who ive ever heard speak in so called 'tongues' of today does not understand and in verse 15 Paul states that if he should do this it should be understood not only so that other persons would benefit but that I need to understand what is being said, in other words goes right back to verse 9.
As I said before I do not have an issue with the gifts of the spirit. I don't need to speak in what men call the 'gift of tongues' today to feel edified I go by the way of love the more excellent way. I use to think that tongues was so much a powerful thing, back then maybe, but not what I was being shown today, God opened my eyes to spiritual side of His word. Again another topic. But this another topic in itself. I do not believe that the vain repetitions we call tongues today is the gift of languages of yesterday and I believe I have given most of what I studied and learned from other brothers and sisters who seek God in wisdom and understanding and most of all love. Hardly anybody can interpret what is being said. It all sounds the same when spoken from the person yet for some odd reason paragraphs can be formed. I test the spirits. I make a bold statement that just because you feel something does not make it right. Just because monks in thailand or other monks can speak in 'tongues' does not mean that it is from God. Like I said the church is filled with more than we know. and one day I wish God would release me to speak but I am learning and growing in His grace still. Let go these idols of the heart that only accomplish self entertainment and empowerment, you are complete in Christ everyone who calls on His name. You have His word study it.
All in all I have bigger fish to fry and believe me they are big and hot. But in due time I will share. You can choose to reply if you wish it will not bother me if you don't. And even though you recommend that persons don't question their faith, I believe it is necessary for you to do such a thing so that you come into the knowledge of God's elect. The 'church' has a dark history and dark present and it would have been no surprise to Jesus and His apostles as they predicted these things.
Greetings and blessings from the Lamb of God that will save the whole world.
As always
(1Th 5:21) Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
However I will seek to clarify certain points on this matter and let everyone else search to God for their self.
I will say this emphatically that yes I do believe that there is the gift of tongues, I do believe that it is evidence to show that a member of the body of Christ has been baptized by the Holy Spirit. However I do not believe that all the gibberish being spoken in church worldwide is anything near or relative to the gift as seen in Acts, the first day it happened. Notice in all my posts I never said the gifts of the Holy Spirit were moved or taken away. I can only go off of what scripture has said.
Madpastor I admire the fact that you went and tried to give some scripture references you are a doing a great service not only to yourself but more importantly those who will follow your example.
However I believe that the issue here is not dealing with how the gift is to be used but, whatever is being spoke today is it the real thing? You did not respond to my discussion of the verses you use to reference the so called tongues of men and angels. As I stated before, when you read the following verses you will get a better understanding of what Paul is dealing with here. Paul said in verse two of chapter 13 that THOUGH I have the gift of prophecy and understand all mysteries and have all knowledge and have all faith but I do not have love then it is basically nothing (paraphrasing the last part). Now my question is did Paul understand all mysteries....You read on and you find that He says we know in part. So he did not understand everything. Although Paul was an highly educated man, he did not have all knowledge and he surely didn't have all faith to transport mountains. Now lets move on even further, Paul says that if I give all my possessions to the poor to feed them, which is quite honorable, did He do this though?? And he also says he gives his body to be burned, Paul was never burned but he was beheaded. Did Paul really give his body to be burned ( The greek word is Kaio and is literally burn) Paul did not do these things He did not possess all these things as I stated before and you even try to point out in your reply Paul was enforcing his main point. The idea of love. Paul was not stating that He spoke with the tongues of men and angels. If He did, how would speaking in the tongues of angels benefit him or anyone? "Though", taken from the KJV, I sometimes use the KJV because most are familiar with it, in this context is a supposition or a hypothetical statement. If one could do all these good things but have no love behind it, it would be worth nothing. But no one have these abilities on earth so as we already established Paul's emphasis was on love. Jesus had everything His Father gave Him but he exercised this all with love. And we are far lower and yet to be made into his image so we do not possess completely all His characteristics. On a side note angels can speak in the language of men we have seen many examples. Look at Mary, Look at Daniel. a few others but why do we need to talk in their language? So if you can expound this to me using scripture then I have no problem admitting I am wrong I will repent of my erroneous thoughts.
Now you claimed something very intriguing to me as I am still dealing with this concept of adding to the original manuscript, I will quote. "Now concerning "Pneumatika" Greek fr Spiritual gifts. (gifts is not found in the original greek but placed there for a better English understanding of the text). The original writing Just says Now concerning spirituals" Now I don't know about you but this alone in itself will cause someone to question because God warns about adding to the word. (Proverbs 30:5-6, Deut 4:2, Rev 22:18-19) So I will not comment on this now. To me there is a big difference between spiritual and spiritual gifts. One could be spiritually minded and not operate carnally but one could take the spiritual gifts and operate quite fleshy. This was the Corinthian church problem and I believe is a serious problem today for those who actually have the gift. However this is another topic. So please be careful, as a matter of fact I will do a study on this because the issue of translation can cause 'many a pain'. But I will deal with the clarity of greek words I used in my previous reply.
Now in your third response I believe that we are practically in agreement on most of it. Like I said I don't discredit the spiritual gifts all I am pointing out is that Paul says that when operating in these gifts one must do this in love. I'm sure we both agree on this.
On the word glossa, stating the gender and any other such things does not really help anyone because at the end of the day the meaning can refer to the actual tongue (organ) or 'language' and in the plural 'languages'. So is it good scholarship to state that plural languages means "unknown tongues"? As I stated before, the word "unknown" is not located in any of the original manuscripts, this is most common in KJV bibles that italicize words that were not in there originally. I do believe that some instances it could be done and some others just don't need it but for the most part should be avoided, which is why the need for studying in depth of other translations is important, because no translation is perfect.
On the day of Pentecost, I already touched on this and if I have not made it clear I will seek to do so as best as I can now. For one thing I will not go too much into the background as we both know what happened. However I draw your attention again to what happened. The gift of languages (glossa) was not to affect the person hearing but the person speaking. I put this on notice that there were 120 persons waiting on the promise of the Spirit so it was quite possible for the nations that were gathered in Jerusalem at the time. "And they were all amazed and marveled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak, Galileans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue [language/dialect], wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and the strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians we do hear them speak in our tongues(Glossa-languages) the wonderful works of God" (Acts 2:7-11)."
This is why Paul said the gift is for them of unbelief lets not forget the the gospel is spread through the foolishness of preaching.(I Cor. 1:20-21) So in order for the gospel to be preached and understood the 120 disciples had to speak in a language the other races could understand. So here we see that they spoke the languages of men, not of angels, as I will clarify later on in the usage of the greek words.
So these 120 persons spoke of the wonderful works of God to these persons from all these nations gathered here in each of their own language. So that by the foolishness of preaching the gospel would be spread and have a chance to be accepted. so many were saved that day. Now the gifts did not stop because the corinthian church still used it but in such a carnal way that Paul had to speak out. Every other instance besides the corinthian church and the day of pentecost, each instance of the gift of languages was for the purpose of either magnifying God or to the unbelievers (Acts 10:46). Now to further reiterate my point I am going to explain as best as God allows me to the Greek word Genos.
In 1 Cor 12:10 we read of divers kinds of languages, and in 28 we read diversities of languages and in 1 Cor 14:10 we read of many kinds of voices. Now what does this have to do with my point "All three words "kinds, diversities, & kinds" in the above three verses are from the same one Greek word (#1085, genos). "
IN strong's concordance Genos means "genos-: kin, born, country, diversity, generation, kind, nation, offspring, stock." So by context this is how Genos is translated in scripture Mark 7:26—"The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation [Gk: genos]…" In this verse it could have just correctly been translated "birth," but "diversity" or "kind" would never suit.
Acts 4:6—"And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred [Gk genos] of the high priest…" Again, "diversity" or "kind" would not suit in this verse.
Acts 4:36b—"…The son of consolation, a Levite, and of the country [Gk: genos] of Cyprus." "Diversity" or "kind" could never be used here.
II Cor. 11:26—"In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen [Gk: genos]…" These were real PEOPLE that Paul was in peril of.
Gal. 1:14—"And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation [Gk: genos]…" Here genos speaks of nation or nationality.
Rev. 22:16b—"I am the root and the offspring [Gk: genos] of Daivd…" Also "offspring" in Acts 17:28 & 29.
I Pet. 2:9—"But you are a chosen generation [Gk: genos], a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people…" Notice the company that genos keeps in this verse: "generation, priesthood, nation, people."
Phil. 3:5—"Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock [Gk: genos] of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew…" Notice the company that genos keeps in this verse: the stock of the nation Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, of the much larger clan of Hebrews.
So Paul is referring to these 'divers' kinds of tongues (languages) as earthly, 'genos', languages. This is the word used in 1 Cor 12. No room for tongues of angels.
As you and I both know Paul was a well educated man and traveled many places and had opportunity to learn many languages so it would not be wrong of him saying he spoke with tongues more than most of the corinthian church. (1 Cor 14:18).
Quite frankly Paul makes it plain enough that all will not speak in tongues, these passages are self explanatory (I Cor. 12:29-30) So by stating this is available to all believers is kinda contradictory.
Now I will seek to do more study on that which is perfect is come statement as in certain translations some reads perfect is maturity or complete maturity, so in regards to this I do admit that I may be mistaken and as such will do more studies.
However this brings me to my next point as i stated before and seemed to touch on but because I did not clarify myself I guess i left myself open but I will deal with this now. You are correct in stating that prophecies and knowledge are still in operation the greek word katargeo agrees with this but why did Paul choose another word, pauo, for the gift of languages? Read back to what I said earlier about when the gifts of languages on the day of pentecost and hopefully it will add to clarity. Pauo means to stop now there are other instances in scripture where this is used and I will share them and notice the context of the meaning better yet notice the time frame.
"Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down, why cumbers/encumbers [Gk: katargeo] the ground" (Luke 13:7 — "…make even the ground useless," Rotherham).
Here we are told that this katargeo was rendering the ground useless for 3 years.
"Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy [Gk: katargeo)] both it and them" (I Cor. 6:13—"…will be discarding it and them…," Concordant Literal New Testament).
In this verse we see that the process of God "…discarding [katargeo] it and them…" is still going on after two thousand years.
"Then comes the end, when He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when He shall have put down [Gk: katargeo] all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till he has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed [Gk: katargeo] is death" (I Cor. 15:24-26).
Now for Pauo
"Now when He [Jesus] he had left [Gk; pauo] speaking, He said unto Simon, Launch out into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught" (Luke 5:4).
How long do we suppose it was between the time Jesus stopped speaking and Jesus commanded Peter? A few minutes? It was very quickly, not years.
"And they came to Him, and awoke Him, saying, Master, master, we perish. Then He arose and rebuked the wind and the raging of the water: and they ceased [GK: pauo], and there was a calm" (Luke 8:24).
How long did it take to cause the wind and raging water to cease? A few minutes? Certainly not hours or days.
"And it came to pass, that as He was praying in a certain place, when He ceased [Gk: pauo], one of His disciples said unto Him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples. And He said unto them. When ye pray, say…" (Luke 11:1-2).
"Jesus ceased praying in an instant. Or do we believe Jesus went hours, or days between praying. To stop something by use of the word pauo is to end it very quickly."
"…and when they saw the chief captain and the soldiers, they left [Gk: pauo] beating of Paul. Then the chief captain came near, and took him…" (Acts 21:32).
"As soon as they left beating of Paul the chief captain came. Not hours or days later, but right then. The word pauo does not linger for centuries as does the word katargeo."
So when Paul teaches us that languages will end by way of pauo, he is telling us that languages will end very quickly as compared with prophesies & knowledge which will fade out over centuries and eons of time. This is why I believe this is this way, since the word of God is being translated in many different languages and the gospel is being preached in countries where those persons speak the native language then it is quite possible for this to be applicable. Prophecies can even in some ways seem to be vanishing since we have the complete Word of God to study from, and there is no need to add on to it, as a matter of fact prophecy just means to declare what the Lord says, quite frankly if one reads and studies enough you wouldn't need to be waiting for prophecies or words from the Lord, its all in there waiting for you to uncover.
Can you tell me of any other new testament writers that listed the gift of languages in their letters?
Now for this whole praying in the spirit thing, I will quote myself again "Paul says anyone who speaks in a tongue and there is no interpreter then he speaks in the spirit. What does this mean exactly? Study of the word pneuma(meaning breath, current of air, blast of air or in some cases yes spirit, but I assure you Holy Spirit is not in that passage of scripture). Now what would make more sense could it be possible Paul was just saying that you speak into the air and only God could understand you if you do speak in tongues and no man can understand. I'll do more research on the usage of this word."
I want to turn your attention to 1 Cor 14:1-9 and pay attention to verse 9. I do believe Paul was saying that since no one can understand you if there is no interpreter that you are speaking into the air since you don't understand and no one else could understand, then only God, the creator or all languages, could understand.
Then I believe we sometimes shoot ourselves in the foot with this one Romans 8:26 Now answer me this question if the spirit speaks with groanings that cannot be uttered why is there any sound coming out of our mouth if they are inarticulate or cannot be uttered??? Never said anything about uttered clearly just said nothing can be uttered. And in 1 Cor 14:14-15, I'm sorry still see no justification because every person and even including myself who ive ever heard speak in so called 'tongues' of today does not understand and in verse 15 Paul states that if he should do this it should be understood not only so that other persons would benefit but that I need to understand what is being said, in other words goes right back to verse 9.
As I said before I do not have an issue with the gifts of the spirit. I don't need to speak in what men call the 'gift of tongues' today to feel edified I go by the way of love the more excellent way. I use to think that tongues was so much a powerful thing, back then maybe, but not what I was being shown today, God opened my eyes to spiritual side of His word. Again another topic. But this another topic in itself. I do not believe that the vain repetitions we call tongues today is the gift of languages of yesterday and I believe I have given most of what I studied and learned from other brothers and sisters who seek God in wisdom and understanding and most of all love. Hardly anybody can interpret what is being said. It all sounds the same when spoken from the person yet for some odd reason paragraphs can be formed. I test the spirits. I make a bold statement that just because you feel something does not make it right. Just because monks in thailand or other monks can speak in 'tongues' does not mean that it is from God. Like I said the church is filled with more than we know. and one day I wish God would release me to speak but I am learning and growing in His grace still. Let go these idols of the heart that only accomplish self entertainment and empowerment, you are complete in Christ everyone who calls on His name. You have His word study it.
All in all I have bigger fish to fry and believe me they are big and hot. But in due time I will share. You can choose to reply if you wish it will not bother me if you don't. And even though you recommend that persons don't question their faith, I believe it is necessary for you to do such a thing so that you come into the knowledge of God's elect. The 'church' has a dark history and dark present and it would have been no surprise to Jesus and His apostles as they predicted these things.
Greetings and blessings from the Lamb of God that will save the whole world.
As always
(1Th 5:21) Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.