vooks:
I don't know of any my brother.
I only know of the twelve apostles and Paul, Philip the Evangelist and nothing else. If you know of others, please find it in your kind heart to share with vooks

I mean respond to my question first.

WHich is?

Bidam:
I mean respond to my question first.

Bidam:
re you blind or did you miss it in the biblehub commentary i quoted?

HERE:perfecting—The Greek implies correcting in all that is deficient, instructing and completing in number and all parts.
. I initially asked you whether the church is perfect first and you said YES. So check well again, is it perfect in that verse?

No, I am not blind.

As regards 'perfection', the word in context means 'maturity'. The church's foundation was perfectly put together by the Apostles with Christ as the cornerstone, no other foundation need to be laid by present believers.

When I said the church obtained perfection, it means the signs (wonders and miracles) brought the body of Christ to a place where the gospel message was authenticated by the works of the Apostles.

Now that we have the Word i.e the gospel message, we must abandon childish signs that brought us thus far.
1 cor 13
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Bidam:
Agabus is one of them. Do you want more?

Lol,i meant here in nigeria.

Your purpose of tongues is a popular assumption that lacks any scriptural backing.
1. Please name any scripture that supports this bold assertion

2. Give any example of tongues utilized for this purpose

3. Explain the purpose of the gift of interpreting tongues. Who benefits since you are speaking in a strange tongue to reach those who don't speak your vernacular?

4. At what point did the tongues turn into edification of the believer praying in them?

5. Tongues are mentioned as parts of signs and wonders in Mark 16 I think. What was their purpose from Mark?

shdemidemi:


Please have it behind your mind that I have nothing against your beliefs and I am not in no way saying you must accept what I say.

1)The book of Acts is not an overlap to the letter to the corinthian church. the letter to the church in Corinth is a correctional letter to the book of Romans(doctrinal).

2)Like I said above, the book is a correctional book to a misapplication to the book of Romans. We must be very careful and not randomly pick doctrines from this book. Paul was addressing a carnal church, remember.

Romans, Ephesians, 1 thessalonians, 2 thessalonians represent our major doctrinal books. The other books like Galatians, Phillipians and Colosians were doctrinal corrections while 1st and 2nd corinthians were application correction.

3) True.


The purpose for tongues was to speak forth God's message to people who do not understand the innate language of the disciples.

I am enjoying the thread so far but I just thought to correct shdemidemi on Romans and Corinthians. Corinthians was written before Romans so it could NEVER have been written as a means of correcting whatever was said in Romans since it came before it.

vooks:
Your purpose of tongues is a popular assumption that lacks any scriptural backing.
1. Please name any scripture that supports this bold assertion

Jesus gave a directive in Acts chapter 1 where He told the followers to stay in Jerusalem for the advent of the Holy Spirit. He described what the occasion will be-
Acts 1
8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be [size=26pt]witnesses[/size] unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

vooks:
2. Give any example of tongues utilized for this purpose

I asked you what the purpose of tongue was but I did not get an answer from you. Notwithstanding-

Acts 2
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with [size=24pt]other tongues[/size], as the Spirit gave them utterance.

At this point, were they praying in other tongues/languages?

No! Other languages, because there were Jews there from all over the then-known world all speaking different languages. Now the miracle of Pentecost was that God gave these apostles for sure this gift to speak all the languages of the people that were out there in that massive crowd in front of them. And then you come down to verse 6:


Acts 2:6

"Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language."

The bible says every man heard them speak in an understandable language different from their natural, intrinsic to their education or inborn language.

vooks:

3. Explain the purpose of interpreting tongues

We must establish the difference between tongue and tongues

Tongue is singular, It denotes a sound with no phonetics that can't be reduced to writing and had no pronunciation. Apostle Paul never spoke in an unknown tongue.

Tongues on the other hand is a clear audible language.

No where else did we hear about a gift of interpreting tongues in scriptures. Only in this carnal church that have totally misapplied God's word.

vooks:

4. At what point did the tongues turn into edification of the believer praying in them?

We must realise Paul did not write to this church on how to edify self, they were already divided as it were already. Paul wrote to teach charity/love and unity within the body. Paul puts it this way-
1 cor 14
22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not:

When someone claims to have had a tongues experience, according to the Book, who are they edifying? Themselves. It's an ego trip, and that's what it amounts to

1 cor 14:5 says
5 I would that ye all spake with tongues(audible language) but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

vooks:

5. Tongues are mentioned as parts of signs and wonders in Mark 16 I think. What was their purpose from Mark?

SIGNS

What are 'signs'? Signs help to navigate us to a destination. They are not the end but a means to an end. No one seats at a sign, we merely need the sign to lead us. The 'sign' of tongues was to lead us to Christ and should not be a place where we should pith our tent.

mbaemeka:
I am enjoying the thread so far but I just thought to correct shdemidemi on Romans and Corinthians. Corinthians was written before Romans so it could NEVER have been written as a means of correcting whatever was said in Romans since it came before it.

Good to know you are enjoying it bro. Your contributions are welcomed as long as we do not make this place a battle ground where we impose our opinions on one another.

You are right. However, the way God chose to arrange the writings of Paul proves that the bible isn't a man made idea but God inspired. Although the letter to the Corinth church was written before the book of Romans, Romans comes before it in subject arrangement on the bible table of content.

The Corinth church were certainly aware of the doctrines that were later documented in the book of Romans. How do I know? The book to the corinthians made reference to how they had been previously taught the teachings they were misapplying.

shdemidemi
1. You are wrong on Acts 1:8. The bible says they shall be witnesses but nowhere does it touch witnessing in a different tongue. You are making unwarranted conclusion from this verse. Once again what verse(s) show tongue(s) being used to propagate the gospel?

2. The reason I can't answer you is because of your restrictive & consequently dishonest question. You want me to ignore all the Spirit is saying about tongues except Acts. That is dishonesty. And I proved it. Neither can you demonstrate the value of tongues from Mark 16:17 ALONE or even exactly what tongues are

How does all these verses in Acts 2 point to your supposed purpose of preaching/propagating the gospel in different tongues? When Peter stood to speak/preach, I can guess he spoke in one language common to all these Diasporan Jews; Hebrews. The reasons are obvious. There were far too many languages represented and it would have been impossible to deliver the classic sermon in ALL the languages SIMULTANEOUSLY. So the preaching that won thousands to Christ was not in a tongue Peter never understood

3. The fact that nowhere else interpreting tongues don't diminish this wonderful gift; it is still a spiritual gift as valid as prophecy. There is somethign called Genetic Fallacy where you disregard something because of its dubious sources. For instance, Christianity may have been forced on you and you rebel against the faith on this basis. It don't make Christianity wrong, just its source. One day I was assisting a stranger jumpstart their dead battery. We connected the cables OK and started the vehicle but the other car could not start. A drunk observing us suggested that I hit the gas pedal all the way. I ignored him and shoed him off. After several attempts I decided to follow his advice. The other car started immediately. So your near obsession with the STATE of the church in Corinth should not subtract nothing from the message here as you are trying to do for reasons known best to yourself

Now, the difference between tongues and tongue is plural. You may want to push this distinction further WITH scriptures. Please refer to the verses below showing you that they mean the same thing

4. Did I read tongues edifying?
1 Corinthians 14:1-5 English Standard Version (ESV)

14 Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy. 2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. 3 On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. 4 The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church. 5 Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up.

5. Among the signs mentioned in Mark is casting out demons. Have we outgrown demon possession so that we no longer need casting out demons SIGNS?

vooks:
WHich is?

Scroll up and see.

vooks:
shdemidemi
1. You are wrong on Acts 1:8. The bible says they shall be witnesses but nowhere does it touch witnessing in a different tongue. You are making unwarranted conclusion from this verse. Once again what verse(s) show tongue(s) being used to propagate the gospel?

Lets take this one after the other.

What does it mean to 'witness'?

Testify, give testimony

shdemidemi:


Lets take this one after the other.

What does it mean to 'witness'?

vooks:


2. The reason I can't answer you is because of your restrictive & consequently dishonest question. You want me to ignore all the Spirit is saying about tongues except Acts. That is dishonesty. And I proved it. Neither can you demonstrate the value of tongues from Mark 16:17 ALONE or even exactly what tongues are

What is a 'sign'?

Are tongues 'SIGNS'?

“Signs,” as being tokens and indications of something beyond themselves, of the near presence and working of God, the seals and credentials of a higher power.

Source:Cambridge Bible -Mark 6:2

Yes they are a sign because mark 16:17 says so
Mark 16:17-18 English Standard Version (ESV)
17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

shdemidemi:


What is a 'sign'?

Are tongues 'SIGNS'?

ichuka:

Lol,i meant here in nigeria.

Agabus is a new testament prophet na.. . Let's stick to that as a new testament yardstick for judging others.

vooks:
“Signs,” as being tokens and indications of something beyond themselves, of the near presence and working of God, the seals and credentials of a higher power.

Source:Cambridge Bible -Mark 6:2

Yes they are a sign because mark 16:17 says so
Mark 16:17-18 English Standard Version (ESV)
17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

I agree with your definition of 'SIGNS'.

“Signs,” as being tokens and indications of something beyond themselves.

When we get beyond signs, does it make any logical sense that we go back to pitch our tent at 'Signs'?

You have quoted that great commission by Christ to the Apostles. Fine. Do you think you poison will be harmless to you based on this true commission by Christ?

vooks:
Now, the difference between tongues and tongue is plural. You may want to push this distinction further WITH scriptures. Please refer to the verses below showing you that they mean the same thing

Is the tongue in the book of Acts the same with the unknown tongue we he hear in our conventional churches today?

What do you mean by 'beyond signs'?

About poison, of course yes

shdemidemi:



I agree with your definition of 'SIGNS'.

“Signs,” as being tokens and indications of something beyond themselves.

When we get beyond signs, does it make any logical sense that we go back to pitch our tent at 'Signs'?

You have quoted that great commission by Christ to the Apostles. Fine. Do you think you poison will be harmless to you based on this true commission by Christ?

Bidam:
Agabus is a new testament prophet na.. . Let's stick to that as a new testament yardstick for judging others.

Lol'bro.
Are u afraid to name one NT prophet here in nigeria?

Before we jump from Acts to 2014, is the tongue(s) of Acts the same as those of 1 Corinthians?


And to answer you, yes they are

shdemidemi:


Is the tongue in the book of Acts the same with the unknown tongue we he hear in our conventional churches today?

vooks:

4. Did I read tongues edifying?
1 Corinthians 14:1-5 English Standard Version (ESV)

14 Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy. 2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. 3 On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. 4 The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church. 5 Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up.

I Corinthians 14:2

"For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: (God is the only One who can make anything out of it if it were possible.) for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit (small "s" so that's man's spirit) he speaketh mysteries,"

I Corinthians 14:3,4

"But (the flip side) he that prophesieth (or speaketh forth the Word as a gifted individual) speaketh unto men to edification, (lift them up) and exhortation, and comfort."

He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself(ego trip and nothing else); but he that prophesieth (and speaks forth the Word of God) edifieth the church."

vooks:
Before we jump from Acts to 2014, is the tongue(s) of Acts the same as those of 1 Corinthians?


And to answer you, yes they are

Are you saying the tongues in Acts were not clear understandable languages?

ichuka:

Lol'bro.
Are u afraid to name one NT prophet here in nigeria?

But the OP did not say that na bro.. . The body of Christ is not limited to Nigeria.. Think!

They were ONLY understandable to individuals but not to all, else why would they conclude they were drunk?
Would you guess that a man praising God in your vernacular is drunk? What about if your sister suddenly erupted in Russian?

shdemidemi:


Are you saying the tongues in Acts were not clear understandable languages?

My brother,
1. EDIFIETH HIMSELF is wrong/ ego trip but
2. EDIFIETH CHURCH is super and most welcome

I have debated fringe beliefs but your inconsistency in rendering this verse beats all of them combined. It is grossly and fatally contradictory

Edifying means the same thing regardless of whether the beneficiary is self or church. Demonstrate with scriptures how edifying self is wrong but edifying church is not

shdemidemi:


I Corinthians 14:2

"For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: (God is the only One who can make anything out of it if it were possible.) for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit (small "s" so that's man's spirit) he speaketh mysteries,"

I Corinthians 14:3,4

"But (the flip side) he that prophesieth (or speaketh forth the Word as a gifted individual) speaketh unto men to edification, (lift them up) and exhortation, and comfort."

He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself(ego trip and nothing else); but he that prophesieth (and speaks forth the Word of God) edifieth the church."

vooks:
They were ONLY understandable to individuals but not to all, else why would they conclude they were drunk?
Would you guess that a man praising God in your vernacular is drunk? What about if your sister suddenly erupted in Russian?

Imagine 120 people storm out of a building to testify(i am using your interpretation of witness now) about a thing in diverse languages. I am sure one can assume they have been drinking from wherever they stormed out from.

One thing that is certain is that the languages they spoke existed. Does the contemporary tongue speaking christian speak any language that can be put in to writing.

shdemidemi:

Good to know you are enjoying it bro. Your contributions are welcomed as long as we do not make this place a battle ground where we impose our opinions on one another.

You are right. However, the way God chose to arrange the writings of Paul proves that the bible isn't a man made idea but God inspired. Although the letter to the Corinth church was written before the book of Romans, Romans comes before it in subject arrangement on the bible table of content.

The Corinth church were certainly aware of the doctrines that were later documented in the book of Romans. How do I know? The book to the corinthians made reference to how they had been previously taught the teachings they were misapplying.

I agree that Paul wrote the book of Corinthians as a correctional tool. But what he was correcting wasn't necessarily what he taught in Romans. Paul had physically visited the Church in Corinth before and Taught them many things verbally but when he left they misapplied some things so he wrote them this time to correct the MISAPPLICATION of the things he had orally and personally taught them. So we can learn ALL from the book and not some.

In that book for e.g, he corrected the administration of tongues and not that he claimed there was an impending cessation.

mbaemeka:


I agree that Paul wrote the book of Corinthians as a correctional tool. But what he was correcting wasn't necessarily what he taught in Romans. Paul had physically visited the Church in Corinth before and Taught them many things verbally but when he left they misapplied some things so he wrote them this time to correct the MISAPPLICATION of the things he had orally and personally taught them. So we can learn ALL from the book and not some.

In that book for e.g, he corrected the administration of tongues and not that he claimed there was an impending cessation.

Gbam!

I can't imagine them storming out testifying because we are not told they stormed out testifying. Holy Spirit has blessed me with a fertile imagination but I would rather die before I second guess His inspired text

The languages spoken in Acts 2 did exist because some people heard them and understood them. The people who understood them came from a far meaning had they not been there, the local Jews would not have understood them. In fact it is probable that it was they that read drunkenness from this experience seeing they KNEW the 120 to be Galileans and all they heard was gibberish

Paul in 1 Cor 14 would have you understand that it is perfectly possible to speak in a language nobody in the room understands. Lack of understanding does not reduce a language to nothing. So how does 'contemporary tongue speaking Christian' speak? is it because you can't understand it that you imagine it is gibberish? If you Christians spoke in a known tongue, would you believe in the existence of the Gift today?

shdemidemi:


Imagine 120 people storm out of a building to testify(i am using your interpretation of witness now) about a thing in diverse languages. I am sure one can assume they have been drinking from wherever they stormed out from.

One thing that is certain is that the languages they spoke existed. Does the contemporary tongue speaking christian speak any language that can be put in to writing.

vooks:
My brother,
1. EDIFIETH HIMSELF is wrong/ ego trip but
2. EDIFIETH CHURCH is super and most welcome

I have debated fringe beliefs but your inconsistency in rendering this verse beats all of them combined. It is grossly and fatally contradictory

Edifying means the same thing regardless of whether the beneficiary is self or church. Demonstrate with scriptures how edifying self is wrong but edifying church is not

[/b]

We have to see this in the light of why the letter was written.

Was it a letter for self edification or the edification of the body of Christ?

The context at which 'edify' was used as regards the church is different from that of the church. another word for edify is 'build' or 'embolden'.

Do check it please.

Regardless of the purpose of Corinthians, we know tongues edify only it is a matter of whether it is the individual or the whole church edified

EDIFY means EDIFY and unless and until you can demonstrate that one EDIFY means something totally different from the other especially where used in one sentence/paragraph, I highly suggest you abandon this line of argument. If you won't then it is plain meaningless continuing in this discussion.


mbaemeka will tell you there is nothing that I find repulsive as traditions and doctrines of men passing as scriptures. Once again and for the last time, why does the two EDIFY mean different things to you?

shdemidemi:


We have to see this in the light of why the letter was written.

Was it a letter for self edification or the edification of the body of Christ?

The context at which 'edify' was used as regards the church is different from that of the church. another word for edify is 'build' or 'embolden'.

Do check it please.

shdemidemi:


Imagine 120 people storm out of a building to testify(i am using your interpretation of witness now) about a thing in diverse languages. I am sure one can assume they have been drinking from wherever they stormed out from.

One thing that is certain is that the languages they spoke existed. Does the contemporary tongue speaking christian speak any language that can be put in to writing.

The language spoken by the 120 wasn't a known language. The bible ONLY said that those around them understood the language individually in their own spoken language. What that means is that even though the tongue spoken was the same that Paul referred to in 1 Corinthians 14, in this situation someone from say Russia understood him, and yet someone from Spain too and someone from China too etc.