Tongues are the initial sign of the new birth

[Tambora]

1 Corinthians 12:27-30 KJV
(27) Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
(28) And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
(29) Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
(30) Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?


1 Corinthians 12:13-18 KJV
(13) For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
(14) For the body is not one member, but many.
(15) If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
(16) And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
(17) If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
(18) But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.





Not all that are in BOC spoke in tongues.

Something is different about those in the BOC and those in Mark 16 where all had the same gifts.

 

[SimpleMan77]

1 Corinthians 12:27-30 KJV
(27) Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
(28) And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
(29) Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
(30) Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?


1 Corinthians 12:13-18 KJV
(13) For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
(14) For the body is not one member, but many.
(15) If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
(16) And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
(17) If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
(18) But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.





Not all that are in BOC spoke in tongues.

Something is different about those in the BOC and those in Mark 16 where all had the same gifts.

Fact: every time the Book of Acts told the details of converts receiving the Holy Ghost there was initial observable evidence talked about. It specifically, over and over and over mentions speaking with tongues.

Fact: Peter said that the only reason he believed the Gentiles had received the Holy Ghost was because he and those with him "heard them speak with tongues".

Fact: In 1 Corinthians Paul teaches those who were already converts, and is teaching how the body of Christ works together, specifically when they are gathered together. He says that not all speak with tongues. He teaches that public speaking with tongues should be constrained unless there is an interpreter.

Fact: Bible doctrine doesn't contradict itself, and Bible should be interpreted by Bible.

Conclusion: the Bible explains conversions and the INITIAL infilling of the Holy Ghost in detail, and tongues were always present. After the initial infilling, to publicly speak in tongues is a gift only given to some, and should be done decently and in order.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[themuzicman]

1 Corinthians 12:27-30 KJV
(27) Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
(28) And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
(29) Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
(30) Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?


1 Corinthians 12:13-18 KJV
(13) For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
(14) For the body is not one member, but many.
(15) If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
(16) And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
(17) If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
(18) But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.





Not all that are in BOC spoke in tongues.

Something is different about those in the BOC and those in Mark 16 where all had the same gifts.

Mark 16:9-20 isn't part of the original text. It was added later.

 

[Tambora]

Mark 16:9-20 isn't part of the original text. It was added later.

Feel free to post a pic of "the original" manuscript.

 

[SimpleMan77]

Feel free to post a pic of "the original" manuscript.

There's plenty of Bible to prove it without that, even though there's nothing there that contradicts scripture.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Jdorman]

Fact: every time the Book of Acts told the details of converts receiving the Holy Ghost there was initial observable evidence talked about. It specifically, over and over and over mentions speaking with tongues.

Fact: Peter said that the only reason he believed the Gentiles had received the Holy Ghost was because he and those with him "heard them speak with tongues".

Fact: In 1 Corinthians Paul teaches those who were already converts, and is teaching how the body of Christ works together, specifically when they are gathered together. He says that not all speak with tongues. He teaches that public speaking with tongues should be constrained unless there is an interpreter.

Fact: Bible doctrine doesn't contradict itself, and Bible should be interpreted by Bible.

Conclusion: the Bible explains conversions and the INITIAL infilling of the Holy Ghost in detail, and tongues were always present. After the initial infilling, to publicly speak in tongues is a gift only given to some, and should be done decently and in order.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Thankyou, my thoughts exactly

 

[Jdorman]

Mark 16:9-20 isn't part of the original text. It was added later.

1) The argument against the passage is based primarily on the two oldest existing manuscripts, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. However, both admittedly contain other incorrect additions and omissions. For example, both contain several apocryphal books, and the latter omits the New Testament after Hebrews 9:14. It also contains a blank column where Mark 16:9-20 should go. Their age does not necessarily mean greater reliability. Perhaps these manuscripts were not used very much because of their known unreliability, while more correct manuscripts wore out due to great use and were destroyed when new copies were made from them.

(2) A vast number of other important manuscripts contain the passage, including the third oldest in existence, the Codex Alexandrinus.

(3) The passage appears in many early versions, including the Old Latin, Syriac Peshitta, Coptic, and Gothic.

(4) Many early church fathers quoted or alluded to the passage, including Irenaeus, Papias, Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Jerome, and Augustine.

(5) The passage is consistent with the other Gospel accounts.

(6) The doctrines taught in the passage are affirmed in other scriptural passages.

(7) It is extremely unlikely that someone would deliberately manufacture this passage with its teaching on tongues, power over demons, divine protection, and divine healing. If the church did not believe these doctrines (as critics of tongues maintain), why would someone add this passage and why would the ancient church accept it?

(8) Mark 16:8 reads, "And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid." This simply does not sound like a plausible ending for Mark's Gospel. We do not believe God would leave the account at this low point of fear and despair without mentioning the resurrection and the commissioning of the disciples.

(9) The passage was probably questioned because of the gradual disappearance of spiritual gifts as most of Christendom lost contact with the Holy Spirit. Indeed, some modern critics reject it primarily because of its content.

(10) If for some reason a few copies of Mark were circulated in an unfinished condition, it does not necessarily follow that other copies did not contain the passage.

In short, there is simply not enough evidence to discard Mark 16:9-20 from the Bible. We must take the words of Jesus in verse 17 at face value; speaking in tongues is a sign that will follow Christian believers everywhere.

 

[themuzicman]

Feel free to post a pic of "the original" manuscript.

I don't know why that's necessary. Scholars have known for years that Mark 16:9-20 was added later.

 

[Tambora]

There's plenty of Bible to prove it without that, even though there's nothing there that contradicts scripture.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Hold on there.
Let's stick to what was claimed ---- that it is not in the original.

 

[Tambora]

And what of this claim that the longer ending was added to replace the "lost original" ending of Mark? We should note that the claim that this occurred in the mid-2nd century is little more than a blind guess on the part of the Westcott-Hort crowd, and one which is designed to try to explain away the appearance of patristic quotations of these verses from the period preceding the testimony of the supposed "oldest and best" Alexandrian exemplars. The Critical Text supporters invest much in the authority of these exemplars, primarily Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, both from the mid-to-late 4th century. To have patristic writers from two hundred years previous citing and referring to these verses upsets the apple cart, so to speak. It causes the Critics conniption fits because it undercuts the textual authority of the exemplars. Thus, the reaction on the part of Westcott-Hortians is to simply invent the claim that this ending must have been added in the mid-2nd century, around the time when these verses first begin to be quoted extensively. In other words, they are trying to force the data to fit their theories, instead of questioning whether the underlying bases for their theories might be incorrect.

source: http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/markend.html

 

[TweetyBird]

I refer you to my original post.

Mark states that the sign of tongues is one sign that will accompany those who believe and are baptized.

Then Acts shows exactly how that sign is supposed to play out.

I don't see anything stated there about tongues being a sign of the new birth. The text actually says those signs will follow, not accompany.

 

[TweetyBird]

So you do not believe
that Jesus was actually
born of the Spirit
but just believed in God for His resurrection,
thus becoming born of the Spirit?

Definitely not. Jesus was not born of Spirit. He raised Himself from the dead as His Father gave Him commandment. Only unregenerate sinners can be born again of Water [Christ] and Spirit [Christ].

 

[TweetyBird]

Fact: every time the Book of Acts told the details of converts receiving the Holy Ghost there was initial observable evidence talked about. It specifically, over and over and over mentions speaking with tongues.

Those who spoke in tongues is mentioned only 3 times in the book of Acts. That makes 1000s of salvations with no mention of tongues.

Fact: Peter said that the only reason he believed the Gentiles had received the Holy Ghost was because he and those with him "heard them speak with tongues".

That is not what he said, however. He said the Holy Spirit FELL UPON and POURED OUT ON. That is not the new birth.

Fact: In 1 Corinthians Paul teaches those who were already converts, and is teaching how the body of Christ works together, specifically when they are gathered together. He says that not all speak with tongues. He teaches that public speaking with tongues should be constrained unless there is an interpreter.

How does that prove that tongues is the evidence of new birth. You understand that no one believed that or heard that tongues was evidence of the new birth until the early 1900s?

Fact: Bible doctrine doesn't contradict itself, and Bible should be interpreted by Bible.

Conclusion: the Bible explains conversions and the INITIAL infilling of the Holy Ghost in detail, and tongues were always present. After the initial infilling, to publicly speak in tongues is a gift only given to some, and should be done decently and in order.

That may your take on it, but not what the text actually states.

 

[TweetyBird]

Mark 16:9-20 isn't part of the original text. It was added later.

That is debatable. Most scholars say it should be there - at least the ones supporting the Byzantine Greek mss. There is undeniable proof. The modern versions have taken a rather dubious stand, making it appear that it was added, but based on what I have studied, I don't believe it's true in the least.

 

[TweetyBird]

Jesus is the Son of God.

God is a Spirit.

His mother is a woman.

Jesus is the offspring of the union of a Spirit and a women.

Do you believe it?

How does that relate to what I stated in my post?

tweety: ["Definitely not. Jesus was not born of Spirit. He raised Himself from the dead as His Father gave Him commandment. Only unregenerate sinners can be born again of Water [Christ] and Spirit [Christ]."]

 

[Jdorman]

I don't see anything stated there about tongues being a sign of the new birth. The text actually says those signs will follow, not accompany.

The ESV, NASB95, NRSV, and NLT all say accompany

 

[SimpleMan77]

Those who spoke in tongues is mentioned only 3 times in the book of Acts. That makes 1000s of salvations with no mention of tongues.



That is not what he said, however. He said the Holy Spirit FELL UPON and POURED OUT ON. That is not the new birth.



How does that prove that tongues is the evidence of new birth. You understand that no one believed that or heard that tongues was evidence of the new birth until the early 1900s?



That may your take on it, but not what the text actually states.

Actually, the Book of Acts only gives detailed accounts of people receiving the Holy Ghost 4 times, and 3 of the times it specifically says they spoke in tongues. The other time (Acts 8) there was VISIBLE evidence that greatly impressed Simon the Sorcerer.

Those are the only times the book of Acts tells details about people receiving the Holy Ghost. It never goes into detail on the other tens of thousands of conversions. If it did, there would have to be thousands of books written.

There is a specific reason why that each of those four accounts went into detail. Jesus had said that the disciples would reach Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and The uttermost parts of the world.

The detailed accounts tell of each of those categories being converted, and each of them getting baptized in Jesus' name and receiving the Holy Ghost, speaking with tongues. The last account tells of people who didn't have the fullness of truth, and showing that they needed to be rebaptized


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[TweetyBird]

The ESV, NASB95, NRSV, and NLT all say accompany

The modern versiona like to modify words to make them a bit more palatable. If one uses "accompany" that gives the idea that one is a co-partner in getting the signs. That would be favorable for the signs and wonders movement due to one's faith and belief. To "follow", places the impetus on God who does the giving as He wills, not dependent upon man. So I prefer to use "follow".

The Greek word used is

G3877
παρακολουθέω
parakoloutheō
par-ak-ol-oo-theh'-o
From G3844 and G190; to follow near, that is, (figuratively) attend (as a result), trace out, conform to: - attain, follow, fully know, have understanding.

 

[Jdorman]

Those who spoke in tongues is mentioned only 3 times in the book of Acts. That makes 1000s of salvations with no mention of tongues.



That is not what he said, however. He said the Holy Spirit FELL UPON and POURED OUT ON. That is not the new birth.



How does that prove that tongues is the evidence of new birth. You understand that no one believed that or heard that tongues was evidence of the new birth until the early 1900s?



That may your take on it, but not what the text actually states.

You've actually used what's called an "argument from silence" In other words the fact tongues are not mentioned everytime the Bible talks about salvation neither proves or disproves it's occurrence. Luke chose representative accounts in Acts to show a pattern of normality with Tongues.

 

[TweetyBird]

Actually, the Book of Acts only gives detailed accounts of people receiving the Holy Ghost 4 times, and 3 of the times it specifically says they spoke in tongues. The other time (Acts 8) there was VISIBLE evidence that greatly impressed Simon the Sorcerer.

3 times. Not four. That is conjecture and desperation to get the text to say something it does not to prove your theology.

Those are the only times the book of Acts tells details about people receiving the Holy Ghost. It never goes into detail on the other tens of thousands of conversions. If it did, there would have to be thousands of books written.

Exaggeration is not going to help your case. It would have only taken a word or two if it happened everytime. It is curious that for as important as you want tongues to be in the NT, the writers would have made sure by mentioning it dozens of times, not just 3. Grasping at straws does not a doctrine make. Tongues was just not that important to the Gospel message. It was a sign at first, but then, no more mention of it other than 1 Cor 12-14.