Tongues are the initial sign of the new birth

[TweetyBird]

There are a lot of counterfeits. However, the fact that there is a counterfeit means there is also something real.

No it doesn't. There were no counterfeits in the NT church.

I didn't say that there were tongues in the reformation. I said there were huge events that historians captured, but there were thousands of groups that the historians never wrote about.

Yes it would have. The historians of Christianity throughout the last 2,000 years gave witness as to what was going on in the church. Not one mention of tongues or the gifts.

There is no way anyone can say that those off-radar groups didn't speak with tongues. In fact, history does record the Waldenses in the 1100's speaking with tongues, along with the Quakers well before the 20th century.

The Waldeneses and the Quakers were false religious movements. The Quakers practiced mysticism.

If tongues continued, then it would be within all parts of the body of Christ, not just Pentecostalism and it's offshoots.

 

[TweetyBird]

I find it interesting that people believe that Jesus is his own father. [As God he is his own father]
They also believe Jesus is fully God and fully human.

But the Holy Spirit caused Mary to be pregnant with Jesus so the Father is not Jesus' father but the Holy Spirit is Jesus' father.

IMO when you engage the Trinity...you have some strange consequences.

The Holy Spirit is not the Father of Christ. I don't believe in the Trinity, but I believe in a triune God. Jesus is God. Jesus is the Holy Spirit. God is Jesus. God is the Holy Spirit. The three are ONE. Not 3 parts, not 3 individuals, but ONE.

Isa 9
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given:
and the government shall be upon his shoulder:
and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor,
The mighty God,
The everlasting Father,
The Prince of Peace.
7
Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end,
upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom,
to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice
from henceforth even for ever.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

1 John 5
5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? 6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. 10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. 11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

 

[TweetyBird]

http://web.archive.org/web/20090228...userve.com/homepages/pentecostal/New-Ch11.htm

Pentecostal website - of course they are going to try and prove tongues existed even though the sources are corrupt. That is how Pentecostalism keeps the false Gospel moving along at a rapid speed.

 

[TweetyBird]

Satan quoted scripture did he lie?

Paul said clearly that satan would be given false signs and wonders to deceive many. Jesus said the same thing. Are you disagreeing with them?

 

[SimpleMan77]

No it doesn't. There were no counterfeits in the NT church.



Yes it would have. The historians of Christianity throughout the last 2,000 years gave witness as to what was going on in the church. Not one mention of tongues or the gifts.



The Waldeneses and the Quakers were false religious movements. The Quakers practiced mysticism.

If tongues continued, then it would be within all parts of the body of Christ, not just Pentecostalism and it's offshoots.

Satan always tries to counterfeit the real thing. That's why he's so effective. The worst untruth is the one that is so close to the truth it's believable, but just different enough to be harmful. The Bible never says "there were no fakers/counterfeits in the early church". It's being careless with truth to state there were none just because you don't know about any.

There's an independent church up the road from me with around 100 people on it. Are you saying that what they practice would be recorded if someone wrote about world religions right now? There is absolutely no way ANYONE can claim that there weren't groups sealing with tongues just because church historians didn't mention them. We both know that.

I'm not defending everything the groups mentioned believed, and I'm not saying that truly speaking in tongues doesn't mean someone is off-base in other areas (I've seen that be the case). It's very dangerous, however, to flippantly claim that all modern tongues is of Satan. It existed in the early church, and God never said it should be no more.

The reason people are called "Pentecostals" is because they speak in tongues. Tongues can't exist outside of Pentecostalism, because the non-Pentecostals would become Pentecostals as soon as they spoke with tongues.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[themuzicman]

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.

Yes, well, Byzantine scholars tend to deny that Byzantine scribes had a tendency to add to the text to smooth things out. But that's a known fact.

 

[TweetyBird]

Satan always tries to counterfeit the real thing. That's why he's so effective. The worst untruth is the one that is so close to the truth it's believable, but just different enough to be harmful. The Bible never says "there were no fakers/counterfeits in the early church". It's being careless with truth to state there were none just because you don't know about any.

There were no fake tongues and fake gifts in the NT, because the apostles were there judging, as they were given authority to do so. When the sons of sceva tried to copy Paul, the devils said to them, Jesus and Paul we know, but who are you? The devils turned on them and beat them up and they fled naked. Fear spread throughout the church. Today, according to the will of God, the false spirit are allowed to do their fake signs and wonders in order to deceive people.

There's an independent church up the road from me with around 100 people on it. Are you saying that what they practice would be recorded if someone wrote about world religions right now? There is absolutely no way ANYONE can claim that there weren't groups sealing with tongues just because church historians didn't mention them. We both know that.

Are you trying to convince yourself?

I'm not defending everything the groups mentioned believed, and I'm not saying that truly speaking in tongues doesn't mean someone is off-base in other areas (I've seen that be the case). It's very dangerous, however, to flippantly claim that all modern tongues is of Satan. It existed in the early church, and God never said it should be no more.

It was a sign following the disciples. They are gone now.

The reason people are called "Pentecostals" is because they speak in tongues. Tongues can't exist outside of Pentecostalism, because the non-Pentecostals would become Pentecostals as soon as they spoke with tongues.

Pentecostalism was based in a 3 part salvation - conversion, sanctification, baptism in the spirit with evidence of tongues. Salvation was a progression of those three separate events. It's not Biblical.

 

[TweetyBird]

Yes, well, Byzantine scholars tend to deny that Byzantine scribes had a tendency to add to the text to smooth things out. But that's a known fact.

What??? Byzantine is a group of text type Greek manuscripts that number over 5,000 from all over, also known as the Textus Receptus [Received Text].

 

[themuzicman]

What??? Byzantine is a group of text type Greek manuscripts that number over 5,000 from all over, also known as the Textus Receptus [Received Text].

Well, "Textus Receptus" is a phrase invented by KJV marketers to improve KJV sales. The phrase first appears in the preface of one of the editions (1633, I think.)

The Byzantine text type does have a lot of manuscripts, mostly later copies, but one of its "features" is that early scribes (from whence we get the later volume of copies) tended to add to the text (i.e. John 7:53-8:11) to include traditional stories (like the John 7-8 section), or to smooth rough spots, such as the ending of Mark at verse 8.

So, it would be typical of Byzantine scholars to defend the early additions to their text type.

 

[Hawkins]

Well, "Textus Receptus" is a phrase invented by KJV marketers to improve KJV sales. The phrase first appears in the preface of one of the editions (1633, I think.)

The Byzantine text type does have a lot of manuscripts, mostly later copies, but one of its "features" is that early scribes (from whence we get the later volume of copies) tended to add to the text (i.e. John 7:53-8:11) to include traditional stories (like the John 7-8 section), or to smooth rough spots, such as the ending of Mark at verse 8.

So, it would be typical of Byzantine scholars to defend the early additions to their text type.

Byzantine text is rather a statistical construct from dominated manuscripts found. However, it is found that oldest manuscripts are more reliable in terms of closer to the originals.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/majority.html

Scribes adding contents is just an advocate which can hardly be proven as we can hardly acquire any manuscripts which can be considered as original for us to even remotely reckon the deviations. All we can tell is that early ancient scrolls in other languages such as Latin agree more with early scrolls in Greek than the Byzantine text type.

 

[TweetyBird]

Well, "Textus Receptus" is a phrase invented by KJV marketers to improve KJV sales. The phrase first appears in the preface of one of the editions (1633, I think.)

The Byzantine text type does have a lot of manuscripts, mostly later copies, but one of its "features" is that early scribes (from whence we get the later volume of copies) tended to add to the text (i.e. John 7:53-8:11) to include traditional stories (like the John 7-8 section), or to smooth rough spots, such as the ending of Mark at verse 8.

So, it would be typical of Byzantine scholars to defend the early additions to their text type.

["Textus Receptus (Latin: "received text") is the name given to the succession of printed Greek texts of the New Testament which constituted the translation base for the original German Luther Bible [1522 AD], the translation of the New Testament into English by William Tyndale [1500 AD], the King James Version, the Spanish Reina-Valera ..."]

Wycliffe also used it, 1300AD.

It sounds like you need to get up to speed on this.

The rest of your comments are just a lot of myths designed to denigrate the Scriptures.

 

[TweetyBird]

Byzantine text is rather a statistical construct from dominated manuscripts found. However, it is found that oldest manuscripts are more reliable in terms of closer to the originals.

Scribes adding contents is just an advocate which can hardly be proven as we can hardly acquire any manuscripts which can be considered as original for us to even remotely reckon the deviations. All we can tell is that early ancient scrolls in other languages such as Latin agree more with early scrolls in Greek than the Byzantine text type.

That is not true. The so called "oldest manuscripts" are corrupt. Secondly, we don't have to rely on the manuscripts anyway. Most of the early church writers quote many of the texta that are on the hit list anyway. It's all just a farce. It astounds me how many people believe all the lies that are driving this new found war on the Bible and are giving it a voice.

 

[Lilstu]

What??? Byzantine is a group of text type Greek manuscripts that number over 5,000 from all over, also known as the Textus Receptus [Received Text].

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01191a.htm


The African bishops willingly allowed corrections to be made in a copy of the Sacred Scriptures, or even a reference, when necessary, to the Greek text. With some exceptions, it was the Septuagint text that prevailed, for the Old Testament, until the fourth century. In the case of the New, the manuscripts were of the western type. (See Bible, Canon.) On this basis there arose a variety of translations and interpretations. This well-established fact as to the existence of a number of versions of the Bible in Africa does not imply, however, that there was no one version more widely used and more generally received than the rest, i.e. the version which is found nearly complete in the works of St. Cyprian. Yet even this version was not without rivals. Apart from the discrepancies to be found in two quotations of the same text in the works of two different authors, and sometimes of the same author, we now know that of several books of Scripture there were versions wholly independent of each other. No fewer than three different versions of Daniel are to be found in use in Africa during the third century; in the middle of the fourth, the Donatist Tychonius uses and collates two versions of the Apocalypse.

 

[Lilstu]

4th Century Historian ..notes on Scripture

4th Century Historian ..notes on Scripture

Eusebius
The Church History Paul L. Maier (1999)
*
*
They have not been afraid to corrupt divine Scriptures, they have rescinded the rule of ancient faith, they have not known Christ, they ignore Scripture but search for a logic to support their atheism. If anyone challenges them with a passage from Scripture, they examine it to see if it can be turned into a conjunctive or disjunctive syllogism. Abandoning the holy Scripture of God, they study “geometry” [earth measurement], for they are from the earth and speak of the earth and do not know the One who comes from above. Some of them study the geometry of Euclid and revere Aristotle and Theophrastus, and some virtually worship Galen. In using the arts of unbelievers for their heresy, they corrupt the simple faith of the Scriptures and claim to have corrected them.
*
That I am not slandering them anyone will learn who compares their writings, which are in great discord, for those of Asclepiades do not agree with those of Theodotus. Many manuscripts are available because their disciples zealously made copies of their “corrected” –though really corrupted-texts. Nor do these agree with the texts of Hermophilus, while those of Apolloniades are not even consistent among themselves, earlier copies differing greatly from later ones subjected to a second corruption. This sinful impudence can hardly have been unknown to the copyists, who either do not believe the Scriptures were inspired by the Holy Spirit and are unbelievers or deem themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit and are possessed. They cannot deny their crime: the copies are in their own handwriting, they did not receive the Scriptures in this condition from their teachers, and they cannot produce originals from which they made their copies. Some have even found it unnecessary to emend the text but have simply rejected the Law and the Prophets, using a wicked, godless teaching to plunge into the lowest depths of destruction.

 

[KingdomRose]

1. Tongues are directly called a sign of the believer. (Mark 16:16-17)

2. Act 3:19 says, "Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,"

This is the same pattern as Acts 2:38. First Repent, then convert(baptism) then the presence of the Lord (receive the Spirit). Acts 3:19 connects receiving the presence of the Lord with "the times of refreshing".

Isa 28:11-12 defines speaking in tongues as the "times of refreshing". Therefore when we receive the Spirit, we speak in tongues. Which is exactly what we see happen by example in Acts.

3. By example believers spoke in tongues when they initially received the Spirit (Acts 2:1-4,Acts 10:44-46, Acts 19:6)

4. The apostles used tongues as proof the gentiles received God. (Acts 11:15 )

Therefore Tongues are a sign of the believer that he experiences when he first receives the Spirit and is the initial evidence of being filled.

Mark 16:16-18 is understood by Bible scholars to to be added by much later clerics or copyists. It is generally not accepted as valid Scripture. (See the BSyArm Ms.)


Acts 3:19 and 2:38 do not prove of the necessity to speak in tongues. Receiving the Holy Spirit does not necessarily mean speaking in tongues.

Your perception of Isaiah 28:11,12 is, unfortunately, not in tune with what is meant by the author of the Bible. There are cross-references to Deuteronomy 28:49 & Jeremiah 5:15 which show that Isaiah was not referring to speaking in tongues (as is thought of today). Moses says in Deuteronomy 28:49: "Jehovah will raise up against you a nation far away, from the end of the earth...a nation whose tongue [language] you will not understand." Jeremiah said: "Here I [Jehovah] am bringing in upon you men a nation from far away, O house of Israel. It is an enduring nation. It is a nation of long ago, a nation whose language you do not know, and you cannot hear understandingly what they speak."

In light of that, we can understand that the Bible writers were not speaking of being able to speak in the gibberish of the likes of today's "speaking in tongues," nor were they speaking about "times of refreshing" for Israel. God had tried to tell Israel of a refreshing and a resting place, but they refused to accept what He offered. Read the texts more closely. Israel "was not willing to hear." Therefore He called upon Israel a nation that would not treat them kindly, whose language they couldn't understand.

Believers initially spoke in foreign languages when they received Holy Spirit, but it became unnecessary (I Corinthians 13:8)

Acts 11:15 does not say that "the apostles used tongues as proof the Gentiles received God." Read that verse. It simply says that the Holy Spirit "fell upon them." Hello. No mention of speaking in tongues. You are ASSUMING that speaking in tongues went hand-in-hand with receiving God. That is not what the Scripture says. In fact, Paul stated the following: "Not all speak in tongues, do they?" (I Corinthians 12:30) So how could that be any "proof" that anyone had received God?

You are wrong in your conclusion, as I have shown, if you will take the time to read my post and look up the Scriptures cited.

 

[intojoy]

Scoobydubududulele
Come on!

 

[Jacob]

It is my understanding that the thread title is incorrect. That is, it is not the truth. Please read 1 Corinthians 12-14.

 

[themuzicman]

["Textus Receptus (Latin: "received text") is the name given to the succession of printed Greek texts of the New Testament which constituted the translation base for the original German Luther Bible [1522 AD], the translation of the New Testament into English by William Tyndale [1500 AD], the King James Version, the Spanish Reina-Valera ..."]

Wycliffe also used it, 1300AD.

It sounds like you need to get up to speed on this.

The rest of your comments are just a lot of myths designed to denigrate the Scriptures.

Really? You have evidence of this? Or do you jut make it up?

(Oh, and I'm more interested in truth than what you claim. The TR and KJV are KNOWN to have errors.)

 

[Hawkins]

That is not true. The so called "oldest manuscripts" are corrupt.

No ancient scrolls can be identified as corrupt. They are just plainly scrolls for humans to reckon as scrolls or not.

Regardless, they agree with each other in different languages, that's the point.

 

[SimpleMan77]

Tongues are the initial sign of the new birth

I've been around true, documented miracles, but unfortunately there are a lot of fakes also.

Had a close relative who had x-rays from the Mayo Clinic showing 2 ruptured discs in his back, and after prayer, they did more x-rays, and the discs literally looked brand new.

I've seen reputable doctors do a second evaluation, and give money back for the doctor visit because they said "we don't know what happened - it was there, and now it's not".

If Jesus gave Paul and Peter that power, He is no respecter of persons. All are not real, but all are not fake.

You'll know them by their FRUITS, not the signs. But signs accompanying or following a Christian shouldn't be thought of as strange.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL