olaric: I doubt this story. You claimed that the church threw you out or asked you to pack out after today's service. Please tell which Winner's branch or parish that is opened for service today especially as there's government ban on churches now.
You also mentioned school, please tell me which is school is in session now.
If you want help, why not go straight to the point and stop playing the victim? Cut the chase and ask for help; it saves us time.
I think I'm of the same opinion with you above...because I have to open my brain and antenna so wide alert for this kind of story...plus, the brother's English construction hmmm, something doesn't line up within me....not to talk of the fact he's in ND 2....
Hey, just my opinion.....I might be right or wrong!
I got your response and let me find time to do a practical insertion of this non intelligible language into those texts or verses I requested you to do....I will do it in practical term and let's see for everyone to experience the outcome. And I will do it with open mind for all to see.
That's a task I will do next. BUT before I do so, whenever you find time,
Can we have you use your explanation to explain what happened in ACTS 2 since you have consistently said we have to use the epistles to explain the gospels and Acts too. That is, you had said earlier if one understands what 1 Corinthians 14 was teaching then Acts will be clearer.....so since you explained 1 Corinthians 14 and maintained its non intelligible language, can you use it, 1 Corinthians 14 to explain Acts 2? Because we all know that what was spoken in Acts 2 was intelligible language but since you said otherwise, let's have you explain Acts 2 using 1 Corinthians 14.
I will appreciate if you point specifically to verse or Paul's word, explanation that contradicts tongues as not intelligible to all men. Let it be specific so that i can know what to explain.
I like that choice of word - not intelligible to all men.
So let's have you practically interpret these verses I mentioned with the non intelligible in replacement for language or languages and we see the outcome.
These verses are 2 to 6 of 1 Corinthians 14. Verses 13 - 14 and 23 - 36.
So, explain it in ABC format and practical format inserting this non intelligible language in those verses where necessary.
Why is you laughing at me naw? . E be like say you don become ghost appearing to me in my dream abi na me dey dream you, I no even understand. But anyway, you're literally pulling my ears in the dream saying to me, "Goshen360, are you also without understanding"?
Anyway, I think we have different gift in teaching....some people need "one step at a time" method of teaching because different understanding of audience while some can handle much at a time.
You, my brother is a good teacher just as I am and we're both students of the word. However, try this most times in your teaching approach: e gbiyanju ke ma ti ibi pelebe fi mu ole je....
1. It is clear from scriptures that what was spoken in Acts was understood by the people that gathered. Hence, we cannot argue on that as we all agreed.
2. So I came to 1 Corinthians 14 with open mind to investigate and practically apply this misunderstanding of the word "unknown"
3. Because I'm from Lagos state, Badagry so I decided to apply the tongue language of badagry man, "Egun"
4. Because the word "unknown" wasn't in originally translation, I simply read it out everywhere it occurred in 1 Corinthians 14 and everywhere I read "tongue or tongues" in KJV I replace with "language or languages"
5. Since the word "unknown" was added by translations for better understanding, I asked myself, what language or languages is unknown anyway? So I quickly brought my "Egun" language in as practical step......
Is you following me slowly.... ....Btw, that's loosed African American English called ebonics just like we have pidgin or broken English in Nigeria.
6. I STOP and pondered on this word "unknown" and decided to do some imagery in the setting of 1 Corinthians 14, that is, I brought in imagination of worshippers with different languages. So here we go....
So I'm the preacher....so I'm the preacher with egun language and in the audience are French, English, Spanish and Yoruba ( let's limit to those four). Now, remember I STOPPED to practically investigate the word "unknown" assuming I want to use this word while I read through 1 Corinthians 14. So, definitely "egun" language is KNOWN to me as the preacher but UNKNOWN to the listeners. Hence, that word "unknown" is not some sort of language(s) that's from nowhere adding the fact that it was added by translations. SO THAT WORD "UNKNOWN" doesn't apply to ME as the preacher BUT to the listener. In this practical case, egun is UNKNOWN to the listeners.
7. So I started reading slowly, inserting my practical languages and at the same time questioning the texts of Apostle Paul. So here we go: I re read the whole of 1 Corinthians 14 with that concept and it makes much clearer.
PART 2.
I did the SAME thing in the steps above BUT IN THIS CASE PART 2, Instead of using my Egun language, I decided to use the commonly taught and believed speaking in tongues taught us in churches in a practical manner but alas, I was caught in several verses of 1 Corinthians 14. How? So in this scenario my language is NOT egun but "unknown" as in UNKNOWN to me and the listeners....like, this below:
Again I STOPPED and asked myself....why will I even speak in such WHEN EVEN ME NOR THE LISTENER DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THIS SO CALLED "unknown"? But I continued anyway to see my final outcome....
So, I used this option to practically interpret 1 Corinthians 14 to the end, i came to conclusions this OPTION 2 DOES NOT LINE UP WITH MANY VERSES OF 1 CORINTHIANS 14, verses such as.....verses 2 to 6, 13 - 14, 23 - 36.
You can practically do this PART 2 applying those verses and see how those verse starring at you in the face with the outcome....or better still, practically apply PART 1 using your language of choice to interpret the whole 1 Corinthians 14.
I hope we go back to RE-learn or unlearn somethings taught to us in the church while we're new born babes in the Lord.
Why is it difficult for you and hoopernikao to accept that there were 2 different forms of tongues manifested in the scriptures? Distinctly mentioned in 1 Corinthians 13:1.
One which was human language (tongues of men) that could be understood by bystanders in their various dialects. Acts 2:6-12
And the second (tongues of angels) which no one understands except by the inspiration of the gift of interpretation? 1 Corinthians 14:2
It looks like we might have to slow down and ask ourselves some questions in order to learn or unlearn....depending what angle we're looking at.
So the question I was asking myself is, what's exactly is this unknown tongues or language of angel.
2. What or why do I need to speak language of Angels for if I'm not praying or speaking to Angels?
3. I think there's a misconception or misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the word "unknown" in 1 cor 14v2.
4. I think MuttleyLaff explained it and I also did some extraction and insertion into the whole of 1 cor 14 and its clearer to me now....
5. I did my study insertion AND ALSO extract that word "unknown" and asked questions while studying and that made the whole 1 cor 14 clearer...You might want to do same.
Bro, this your exegesis nah wah o. Tongues of angels kwa?
Dont you read bible again? I hope you havent started reading Gretchen and Hansel type of book. You need to calm down and start reading properly.
All you put above are just assumptions. You are only trying to defend what isnt there. Wondering who exactly is reading his own meaning into the scriptures.
So, now, Acts 2 and 1 Cor 14 tongues are different? 1 Cor 14 isnt human tongue again as you said? You must be from the other side serously.
See, how you started. You mentioned that unbeliever in Paul's doctrine understood tongues. That Paul taught tongues as human language, that is where you started from. And i have challenged that without you having an explanation, now you then turn now that it is angels language. You will soon see Lucife r language.
Apparently, you couldnt defend 1 Cor 14 with your "tongue is human langauge" again. So, firstly accept your error. That is Christiany
I maintain and tell you, that without reading Acts 2 meaning into your explanation, you cannot find anywhere Paul taught tongues as human language. No where. And to start splitting tongue to angel and human is both a lazy approach to Bible study and lack of sincerity to understand Bible language and style .
Tongues in Acts is what Paul explained., no difference. Go and get that down into you. Jesus didnt promise two different tongues. Stop confusing yourself.
I gave you a clue to Paul's' explanation and writing on tongues but you dont pay attention. Paul taught tongues with interpretation and prophecy, Peter explained Acts 2 as prophecy, other places in [b]Acts has prophecies and interpretation. Cant you read it well.[/b]
Well, we will get there. I think 1 Cor 14 is already getting clearer to you since you have opt that it is now ANGELIC TONGUE and not human.
But please read well, again and again, So, that you dont manipulate Paul's teaching.
Let me or us pick two things from the above:
1. If tongues in Acts is what Paul explained, please help us understand 1 cor 14v2
For if you have the ability to speak in tongues, you will be talking only to God, since people won’t be able to understand you. You will be speaking by the power of the Spirit, but it will all be mysterious.
Here, the speaker is ONLY talking to God because people doesn't understand him
But in Acts 2:
The speakers was speaking to men NOT to God and people understood the speakers.
2. If Peter explained Acts 2 as prophecies and interpretations, doesn't that suggest signs and wonders (miracle)? Because how do you explain that someone a language that wasn't learned and others who owns such languages can clearly understand the speakers. Or better still, explain what you mean by Peter explained Acts 2 as prophecy and interpretation?
Eyin people yi, ( My brother MuttleyLaff; my brother that sounds like Pst Abel Damina, hoopernikao; our dearest Acehart; Finallydead and Myer) ti da ile ru gan ooo....
Anyway, great and excellent job you all have done and so far an insightful discussion and thread, plus it's being peaceful and mature so far aside some side kicks loosed name calling....such as we know sometimes could happen in discussions on this forum.
Most questions in my mind are already answered and I don't know about anyone else that has followed this discussion from beginning. I hope to come up with my contribution in the light of our generation discussion here so far.
I probably did, but please re-post the question here. Scratch that because I quickly went to page 6 to check
Seems, its about 2 Corinthians 5:17 (i.e. new creation) and Hebrews 8:8 (i.e. new covenant)
Goshen360, please tell according to your understanding: 1/ What is the difference between "neos" and "[I]kainos,[/i]" the two different Greek words used for the English word "new" 2/ Please compare and contrast "neos" and "kainos" 3/ What does 2 Corinthians 5:17b say?. Please print it here 4/ Please explain if "neos" is used for a new baby, why isn't it used for instances in 2 Corinthians 5:17 and Hebrews 8:8 5/ Please tell, if not, there is change in the quality of the new creationhood of 2 Corinthians 5:17 and the new covenant/agreement/testament of Hebrews 8:8
Goshen360, new babies are born just like any other regular babies are naturally born, without no added quality nah, lmao, hence why "neos" is used for them, as opposed to "kainos" These are all in Greek, when when switch to Hebrew, its a whole different ball game, which I already have detailing explained before, with examples and whatnot
Brother, permit me to hold my piece because I said from beginning I'm in a learning mood in this thread....my energy will come later...you sabi me tay tay...I'm studying with you guys now. E fe fi kweshun pa mi ni?
MuttleyLaff: Oh. Well. Thank you ... Uh, thank you very much then.
Acts Chapter 2 is segmented into 47 verses, please be specific, what verses your query centres round and what exactly in Acts Chapter 2 is your area(s) of interest. Thanks.
As regards this tongues topic....whatever anyone is pulling out from Acts 2 is welcomed. Readers and learners will definitely study with you guys.
Btw, you didn't answer the kweshun at the beginning of page 6 to you though. Maybe I missed your response or you missed to respond.
I may (likely) have to discontinue responding due to the way the thread is heading as it seems some external factors arent culture enough to separate biblical arguments from emotions. Such persons are not giving symbiotic life and order to this thread and its tending towards another line. In all, i believe that whatsoever, this thread is a godly and educative thread irrespective of the arguments and disagreements...
And my wish is for us to land our discussion in 1 Cor 14 at the least as that is very key to bring all these together. I truly hope we can reach such before they pull the roof down.
Well, I think we've been having a mature and healthy conversation so far and you yourself will have to slow down on slightly loosed hard words used to MuttleyLaff so we can finish up in good faith.
Let's continue to your outlines and rebuttal from others. Also, I need you to finish up on that Acts 2 - Another/Other Tongues because I got some questions for you depending on your explanation on what actually happened in Acts 2....I'm "assuming" you have a different interpretation of what happened but I'll let you explain first before I conclude if my assumption is right or wrong.
I am pleased to see you haven't said your question wasn't satisfactorily answered
No, I'm saying I understand your perspective and interpretation in the light of the words usage in question and hence, you threw more light on the word usage. So questions further asked above for you to now put those explanations in perspective to what I further asked. I get your understanding of neos and kainos now though. You know I'm in a learning mood and just a student learning in this thread/discussion.
^ ^ ^ Now understood and will put that into perspective as the discussion continues while we wait for hoopernikao to comment and hopefully we can move on in the discussion. I have more question(s) though that I will ask from scripture and let you put your explanation above into the scripture.
However, let me ask again another question that readily comes to mind so I dont forget and I'll relax a little again so the discussion can continue.
Back on course, Mrs Goshen360, has delivered a new baby boy. This meaning, she put to bed, a new, that is "neos'' and is not a new that's '' kainos''
Goshen360, the key, is the ability to recognise what is the difference between what is "neos'' and what is '' kainos''
The difference(s) is with, one is "newon the scene and/or newin time" hence it is "neos,'' and the other, is, "newin quality" hence its '' kainos;'' '' kainos'' because of the change for the better (i.e. the upgrade, oomph and/or improvement factor)
You would agree and humbly accept Goshen360, that a baby is no better than another baby, a son is just as good as a daughter is. One doesn't improve on babies based on qualities, lmao, except you are a mad scientist, doing secret "evil" eugenics experiments.
So, this is the reason why in the case of your missus' new born baby, the Greek word '' kainos,'' in that respect and/or regard, isn't used, but it is, the appropriate "neos'' that is used. Your baby boy had not existed before, but the quality of the human being born remains the same, as there is no improvement.
It is not, like as if, your baby has zebra coloured stripped skin, of white and black all, lmao. The truth of the matter, is there's nothing that is better than other previous or future babies, about your baby boy, so Goshen360, this is why your baby boy is "neos'' and not '' kainos''
How do you put your above explanation into the light of these scriptures 2 cor. 5v17 and Heb 8v8-9 ?
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
.....or better still,
.....a new covenant/testament....Heb 8v8-9
Keeping in mind, our new life in Christ is not an upgrade or improvement to our old Adamic life neither is the new covenant an upgrade or compliment or improvement to the old covenant/agreement/testament or are you saying our new life is upgraded or improvement to the old life, new covenant/agreement/testament is an upgraded or improved old covenant/agreement/testament?
@ MuttleyLaff, first dont assume I'm of the opinion that the kainos tongue we're talking about is that of Angels as you mentioned in your response above. That's even another hole entirely so I'm not of such opinion. However, I'm reading and deeply following debates on both sides.
However, let me ask a question: if I say my wife just delivered a new born baby boy. What does that mean? Does this mean the baby existed before or not?
MuttleyLaff didn't answer my question at all maybe I didn't present my questions well but I see hoopernikao had done justice with the difference between kainos and neos as against the response of MuttleyLaff and Acehart.
So as not to distract the flow of the thread/discussion, I'll still rather sit back to allow them resolved the difference of misconception or misunderstanding of bible words leading to differences in interpretation.
I'm enjoying the flow of conversation though and learning.
MuttleyLaff: Yes ooo. Bring it on. We dey pick lantern use, go stare tiger, korokoro for hin eyes. Just make sure you're standing on solid ground.
First, I completely agree that what was spoken in Acts was understood by other foreign nationals. However, can you explain:
1. How it is a "new" (kainos) language the Apostles spoke as against an already existing foreign (allotrios) language which others could understand......as per the explanation of hupernikao
2. The language the Apostles spoke to other men was spoken men to men. Is it the same language Paul taught about in 1 cor 14vs2?
For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries"
3. If you say it's the same, please explain why one was spoken to God and the other spoken to men....that is, 1 cor 14vs2 says, the speaker does not speak to men but to God
3b. Why doesn't any man understand the speaker of 1 cor 14vs2 but the speakers Acts 2 was understood by the foreign nationals that was present?
MuttleyLaff: ''These are the miraculous signs that will accompany believers: They will use the power and authority of my name to force demons out of people. They will speak new languages (i.e. new tongues)" - Mark 16:17
"For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries" - 1 Corinthians 14:2 KJV
Here is an illustration of what 1 Corinthians 14:2 is saying: If Acehart, hupernikao and Goshen360 speak and understand only Igbo, but I, MuttleyLaff, bilingual in Igbo and Hausa, start to begin speaking, preaching or praying in Hausa, then the Hausa tongue or language would be unknown to Acehart, hupernikao and Goshen360, none of the trio, Acehart, hupernikao and Goshen360 would understand what I said, preached or prayed in Hausa language/tongue. I in effect wouldnt be communicating with any other them, as it all be mysteries to them what I said, preached or prayed in the Hausa tongue. It is only Go, the "Arinu lode, Olumọran ọkan", ( i.e. He who sees the inside and He who knows whats in the heart) who will understand what I said, preached or prayed in that Hausa tongue, not you, as God understands all languages or tongues.
Now cycling back to Mark 16:17, with special focus placed on "new tongues" or "new languages" and its very important, the plural designation. This Mark 16:17 prophetic verse, as declared by Yehushua Ha Mashsiach, aka, our Lord and Saviour of the whole wide world has already been fulfilled. Before furthering on, let's first recollect the above 1 Corinthians 14:2 illustration with Acehart, hupernikao and Goshen360 used as reference in it. Now, what if by some miraculous feat and/or means, Acehart, hupernikao and Goshen360 happen to one day, woke up and started speaking in a Hausa language/tongue, doesn't that mean that Acehart, hupernikao and Goshen360 were then speaking in a new language/tongue ni, hmm?
At the first recorded instance of fulfilling this Jesus' uttered prophecy (i.e. Act 2:4), the disciples began speaking in new tongues, such that the visiting pilgrims, Israelites that have travelled far from all parts of Israel to Jerusalem for the Passover festival began hearing the disciples preach and proclaim the message of the Gospel in the hearing, listening and understanding ears of each of these congregated Israelites (i.e. Acts 2:5-11), albeit the disciples never until that moment had the ability to communicate in those tongues before. It was all new to them, as much as it was shocking to all who heard them (i.e. Acts 2:12)
We need to remember that, Jesus, three verse before Mark 16:17, actually did, tongue lash the disciples for not first believing that He has resurrected, lmao (i.e. not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen) It was after the tongue lashing that He now prophesied about speaking in new tongues/languages and of course the purpose for that is to override unbelief. Whose unbelief, are we talking off us here then? Whose unbelief, do you think this primarily is? Why are miraculous signs required/needed?
You will have some hard questions to explain here in your writings above ooo.....she you are ready sir?
One person eat meat sacrificed to idol as his conscience defiled. Another person eat same meat and sees it as ordinary meat and his conscious not defiled. Hence, whatsoever is not of faith is sin.....mine paraphrased
This thread is going somewhere and it was a nice comparison reading both commentaries on Mark 16vs17
Let me wait for both hupernikao and Acehart to engage themselves in debate, question and answer before I ask a question. Both of them saying two different things completely in respect to "new" tongues as in Mark 16vs17.
Dont forget where we started from, and as i said we will need to examine each places in the scriptures that pointed to tongue.
I mentioned that every where tongue is used it is mostly qualified and this is not accidental, hence we must not over look that in our explanation. Having looked at stammering. I will now consider Jesus' commentary on tongues.
Mark 16:17, JESUS COMMENTARY ON TONGUES 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
It is not surprising that Jesus is the first person in NT to comment about tongues. Let us pay attention to him words. he called it NEW TONGUES. The word used here for new is translated from the Greek word kainos. I will give you places it was used and what it means.
KAINOS new, recently made, fresh, recent, unused, unworn, of a new kind, unprecedented, novel, uncommon, unheard of.
Note that when ever kainos is used it always point to something totally knew with respect to what it qualifies.
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins..
New testament. New relative to the testament. It means the testament was never used before, a new kind, unworn, unheard.
Whenever kainos is used it points to something absolutely new. Paul in 2 Cor 5:17 used new creation
17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
New creature, will refer to a creature that is different from the existing creature. That is a new one from what used to be. New creature will not be localized but meaning "this is different from all forms of existing creature".
You can take time to check every other usage of Kainos .
Now to our discussion. Note that there are several word available for Jesus to used if he want to refer to a foreign language, that is an existing one.
The one foreign never occurred in Hebrew/Greek lexicon but its relative exist that is the word "STRANGE". There are 3 words used as strange in NT but Jesus never used any of this to describe tongues.
Strange: allotrios foreign, strange, not of one's own family, alien, an enemy.
This should be the closest word Jesus would have used if he is referring to a foreign tongue. It means something alien or not part of your tribe.
Acts 7:6 And God spake on this wise, That his seed should sojourn in a strange land; and that they should bring them into bondage, and entreat them evil four hundred years.
Strange land will not mean a new (kainos) land as the land exist before. Strange there will mean unfamiliar.
Strange: xenos a guest or (vice-versa) entertainer:—host, strange(-r). This is very clear. It is refering to a person.
3Jo 1:5 Beloved, thou doest faithfully whatsoever thou doest to the brethren, and to strangers;
Strange: xenizō to receive as a guest, to entertain, hospitably
The closest in all these 3 to what Jesus is saying is allotrios, foreign, strange, not of one's own family, alien, an enemy. Buthe never used that. Jesus used a very strong term. kainos.
That means the tongue that has no prior usage, existence or tribe. If Jesus wants to refer to a foreigner's tongue he would use strange (allotrios).
Observe Jesus' use of Kainos in his teachings
Mat 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
Mar 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
new here mean the testament never exist before now.
Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
Jhn 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
Commandment that was never in existence before.
Paul Commentary?
2Co 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
The testament has no past.
2Co 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
No past of such creature. New with respect to the existing creature.
Hebrews?
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
The covenant has no past or existing record.
Revelation
Rev 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.
The name has no past record, not bore before by anyone.
We can go on and on. Now to Mark 16:17
When Jesus used kainos, it implies, what has no existence and like i said that is not localized, it must be same everywhere you go, Believers are to be raised from all nations, when they read kainos glossa, they must see it as a tongue that has no previous existence in human race. It cannot be kainos when it is used in China or Nigeria, or UK, that will be allotrios a stranger, foreigner's tongue.
Hence, we must not loose this facts in our interpretation of the doctrine of tongues. New testament, is relative to the old testament, new covenant is relative to the old covenant, new creature (man in Christ) is relative to the old creature (Adamic), hence New tongue is relative to the human tongues, a new tongue/language as relative to existing or human language. It is not a tongue of a tribe or a human nation but the people of God.
This verse and its parallels in the synoptic gospels are referred to as “The Great Commission”. Please permit me to infer from the Oxford dictionary meaning of the word “commission“ every now and then in my explanation.
Commission (verb):
1.order or authorize the production of (something). 2. bring (something newly produced) into working condition.
I would like to stick with the second meaning of as it would help me make sense.
One of principles used in interpreting the scriptures is the principle of questioning the situation; I mean one asks: who is speaking? Who is being spoken to? who said it? where was it spoken? etc. For instance: Eliphaz says to Job, “you shall decree a thing and it would come to pass. God then says, “Everything Eliphaz said is a lie”. If I then try to adopt Eliphaz’s word without knowing what God’s reply was, I’ll be in error. Another instance is Jesus’ letter to the seven churches in Asia Minor: if Jesus said anything to the church in Philadelphia, it is strictly for Philadelphia and it shouldn’t be applied to Ephesus.
The dictionary says: “bring something newly produced“. So what was newly produced? The Apostles were newly produced. (Please remember that Jesus sent his disciples in twos in Mark 6:6-7 to preach and cast out devils (without the instruction to speak in new tongues); and they were sent to preach to the Jews only). So the principle of questioning comes into focus: who was Jesus speaking to? The Apostles. (Please notice that this new instruction is to His eleven Apostles (Judas excluded); the previous instruction to the seventy and twelve men in Jesus’ fold referred to as His disciples (Judas included).)
It’s quite straightforward to see that casting out demons in the previous instruction still abides and the method to exorcise the demon-possessed remains. So this instruction concerning casting out of demons is “old”. What is “new” is the instruction concerning “tongues”. The commission began in Mark 16:15 with the instruction to preach to the world; in contrast to the instruction to preach only within the borders of Israel. Now the dilemma comes: they are Galileans or nationals of the Jewish nation who can only speak their native language. The task or working condition (as the dictionary puts it) to preach the gospel in their old (native) language to non-Jewish nationals would be an impossible or tedious one. So, something new has to replace what was old.
Going to the Thayer’s Biblical dictionary translation of the Greek word for “New” - Kainos, meaning:
1. With respect to form: Recently made, fresh, recent, unused, unworn. 2. With respect to substances: Novel, uncommon, unheard of
Since language is a form rather than a substance, let me dwell in the former definition. The first definition is the same description given to the donkey which no man has ridden on(Luke 19:30); and to Jesus when the guards replied: “No one ever spoke the way this man does” (John 7:46). That donkey was part of a group of animals referred to as “donkeys”; but what set it apart from other donkeys was its quality- purity and newness. Jesus was part of a group of creatures referred to as “man“; but what set Him apart was the mode of His language (speech). The writeup says: “tongue” means “language” or “dialect”. Combining the two definitions and inferring from the illustrations of the donkey and Jesus, we would see that the categorization of this new language belongs is something generic; that generic thing is human languages; but what will differ is the quality of what proceeds from the mouths of the Apostles which will be something unique and fresh while using human language.
Paul then defines this new tongue as: Tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe, but to the unbelieving' (1 Corinthians 14:22). Do the unbelieving understand what isn’t peculiar? - I ask regarding languages.
(Please remember the verse says: these “signs” will accompany those who have believed. The verse didn’t say, shall accompany those who will believe. Were these signs necessary at the beginning (commissioning) of Christianity? Sure, so that Christianity can take root in places beautiful feet haven’t stepped upon.)
I’d like to discontinue for now so that I may rest and perhaps I may get a response to what I have written so far when I awake in the morning.
Good night ma’am
Let me read side - by - side and compare what was said by both.
MuttleyLaff: "To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:" - 1 Corinthians 12:10
Tbh and if truth be told brother, you actually are on the forefront of those, I sincerely hope will be grabbed, arrested and get convicted through the workings and help of the Holy Spirit about this misunderstood, misused and abused wonderful spiritual gift. It is one, out of the 9 possible different displayed evidences of having the Holy Spirit that could publicly be seen of anyone that's a believer (i.e. 1 Corinthians 12:7-11)
Again, I pitch my tent and keenly following, learning and enjoying the conversation
ThinkFreely: I learnt that humans dont boss this planet, we are at the mercy of everything around us.
I also learnt that it’s a whole lot easier for humans to go extinct than I thought. We just need a well adapted microbe to emerge, then we might all be gone.
I learnt that religious houses are fake and can’t really help anybody. They are out their for business.
This part in my opinion is half truth because NOT all religious houses are fake but I believe greater percentage are fake. A country that has more religious houses than manufacturing companies is heading towards disaster waiting to collapse. A country that pays more tithes to religious houses than paying taxes to their government and to hold such government accountable is already selling the future of their unborn generations to failure.
We see greater percentages of religious houses around but we see few religious houses helping during this pandemic season. We have failed to plan and now planning to fail.
tammie24: we all have our reservations on how some of these so called pastors coordinate themselves and church but rather than opening a thread to bash them Which exposes christians to unnecessary bashing from unbelievers Why don't you let them be and allow God to be the judge. Trust me You are not the only angry Christian
My brother I understand you buy your philosophy and presentation is the SAME idea that has got us to where we are today....if we must amend the future for our generation unborn, it has to begin with us and it must begin now with us.
In this short video of Daddy Freeze, he shared the same thoughts and lessons I had being nursing for few weeks especially since this pandemic hit the world. You cannot hate Daddy Freeze on this one because the truth staring at you in the face while reality dawned on you.
If there's any human being under heaven including myself that have not learnt anything from this pandemic, I personally do not think such individual will ever learn anything for the sake of the future and the unborn generations.
So, I break it down and open it to the floor as a discussion. What has this pandemic thought you or us in the journey of life as it relates to:
1. Individual 2. Political as it relates to Nigeria/other countries 3. Religion 4. International 5. Business and occupations
Its not the first, second or third ocassion, him doing these his false accusations that he keeps getting wrong. I have never struggled with him over a woman, so I don't understand his obsession for having it in for me and desperately trying to find me out.
Religion / Re: This Was What Winners Church Did To Me. by Goshen360(m): 12:40am On May 27, 2020 
....Btw, that's loosed African American English called ebonics just like we have pidgin or broken English in Nigeria. 
