-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What do you think the word "perfect" means in 1Cor. 13:10?
- Thread starter music4Him
- Start date
M4H, do you know that MEE probably does not agree with your assessment/usage of Tongues? It just shows among "users" (he he) there is not even agreement. Tongues is absolutely always real human languages. It was a way for a person to share the gospel with those of another language. Tongues needed to profit the "body" when used. It was supernatural though. The idea of learning a language over time be in no way a "sign" to unbelieving Isreal so tongues is not learning a language, that is just called being smart, way smarter then me in fact. I know, no argument from you (ha ha).
Carol and MEE, God dealt with Adam and Eve differently then you and me. (he spoke audibly to them, even walked in the Garden with them and put them out of the garden Himself) He dealt with the people of Noah's time in a different way then he ever will again. No more floods to destroy mankind. Then the Law and covenants, each with variables. Then He comes Himself to die and rise and Grace is born. He establishes his church with signs and wonders and then we move into the latter days, where faith and love abound in humbleness. A changing God, no way! Changing the way he deals eith his creation and people, that is obvious. Do we deal with our children different as they grow?? Yes, but we are the same? right? It is just at different points in our childrens life they need to be treated differently and so we adapt. It is the same with God and the progression of time. The world grew and God carefully changed His manor of dealing with the world, He never changed His manor of love, however. Am I making any sense at all?? Hopefully I am.
In Christ,
Brian
Carol and MEE, God dealt with Adam and Eve differently then you and me. (he spoke audibly to them, even walked in the Garden with them and put them out of the garden Himself) He dealt with the people of Noah's time in a different way then he ever will again. No more floods to destroy mankind. Then the Law and covenants, each with variables. Then He comes Himself to die and rise and Grace is born. He establishes his church with signs and wonders and then we move into the latter days, where faith and love abound in humbleness. A changing God, no way! Changing the way he deals eith his creation and people, that is obvious. Do we deal with our children different as they grow?? Yes, but we are the same? right? It is just at different points in our childrens life they need to be treated differently and so we adapt. It is the same with God and the progression of time. The world grew and God carefully changed His manor of dealing with the world, He never changed His manor of love, however. Am I making any sense at all?? Hopefully I am.
In Christ,
Brian
Ge 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
Brian, did God really walk with Adam & Eve? Look at the above! How can the voice of God walk in the garden?
Just something to think about!
MEE
Briguy,
We are still living in the last days, which Peter described in Acts 2. The last days are characterized by the outpouring of the Spirit. Toward the end of the last days, if one takes a futurist view of Revelation, there will be prophets prophesying still.
Briguy wrote,
**Tongues is absolutely always real human languages.**
Paul suggests that there might be tongues of angels. Without revelation from God, a reasonable person cannot exclude this possibility, since scripture mentions it. Do you claim an extra-Biblical revelation that all tongues are human tongues?
**It was a way for a person to share the gospel with those of another language. Tongues needed to profit the "body" when used.**
In Acts 2, tongues were used to proclaim the marvelous works of God. Peter preached the Gospel in a common tongue, apparently, rather than a supernatural one.
In I Corinthians 14, preaching the Gospel in tongues is not in view. Paul does write about praying in tongues. In I Corinthians 14, Paul says that no man understands the speaker in tongues without interpretation. So tongues were not being used in the way they were in Acts 2. Paul's rules are for church meetings.
**The idea of learning a language over time be in no way a "sign" to unbelieving Isreal so tongues is not learning a language, that is just called being smart, way smarter then me in fact.**
I Corinthians does not say that tongues is a 'sign to unbelieving Israel' but rather a 'sign to them that believe not.'
The sign seems to be the prediction that people who speak in tongues will not believe, a sign fulfilled if unbelievers here tongues and say 'ye are mad' in unbelief.
We are still living in the last days, which Peter described in Acts 2. The last days are characterized by the outpouring of the Spirit. Toward the end of the last days, if one takes a futurist view of Revelation, there will be prophets prophesying still.
Briguy wrote,
**Tongues is absolutely always real human languages.**
Paul suggests that there might be tongues of angels. Without revelation from God, a reasonable person cannot exclude this possibility, since scripture mentions it. Do you claim an extra-Biblical revelation that all tongues are human tongues?
**It was a way for a person to share the gospel with those of another language. Tongues needed to profit the "body" when used.**
In Acts 2, tongues were used to proclaim the marvelous works of God. Peter preached the Gospel in a common tongue, apparently, rather than a supernatural one.
In I Corinthians 14, preaching the Gospel in tongues is not in view. Paul does write about praying in tongues. In I Corinthians 14, Paul says that no man understands the speaker in tongues without interpretation. So tongues were not being used in the way they were in Acts 2. Paul's rules are for church meetings.
**The idea of learning a language over time be in no way a "sign" to unbelieving Isreal so tongues is not learning a language, that is just called being smart, way smarter then me in fact.**
I Corinthians does not say that tongues is a 'sign to unbelieving Israel' but rather a 'sign to them that believe not.'
The sign seems to be the prediction that people who speak in tongues will not believe, a sign fulfilled if unbelievers here tongues and say 'ye are mad' in unbelief.
Briguy,
So you do not believe that casting out demons occurs today? That is a very extreme view? What do you think people who are demonized should do? Is there no hope for them to be delivered in your opinion? What do you do with testimonies of people who were delivered from demons?
Btw, I can't think of anyone who heals every sick person they see, and I have never seen anyone heal masses. But I don't believe these gifts normally operate that way. Jesus' gifts often operated one-on-one, though He used them to heal masses, too. The Spirit was given to Christ without measure.
I know someone who prayed for a blind boy at an orphanage, and he said he could see. He could follow here around after that. One day, someone got hit by the bus she was on. She was overcome with compassion and started praying and commanded the man's spirit to come back inside his body in the name of Jesus. He hadn't been breathing before, but after this, he exhaled. She opened her eyes and realized that she had done this in the name of Jesus in front of all those Muslims on the side of the street. No one tried to hurt or kill her for it. She also cast a demon out of a crazy woman in front of her Muslim fellow boarding house tenant. The woman came to her senses when she cast the demon out. This young woman told the Muslim woman she had cast the demon out of to repent and believe in Jesus. The woman did not want to and eventually went back to the way she was. The Muslim roommate didn't like her insistence that the woman had to believe in Jesus. The woman who did these things here in Indonesia doesn't go into crowds and heal all the sick, but on various occasions, some of these gits have operated in her life.
The debated ending to Mark says 'these signs shall follow them that believe.' It does not say that every individual will be able to do any of the signs whenever they want. Hebrews says that signs and wonders took place according to the will of God.
So you do not believe that casting out demons occurs today? That is a very extreme view? What do you think people who are demonized should do? Is there no hope for them to be delivered in your opinion? What do you do with testimonies of people who were delivered from demons?
Btw, I can't think of anyone who heals every sick person they see, and I have never seen anyone heal masses. But I don't believe these gifts normally operate that way. Jesus' gifts often operated one-on-one, though He used them to heal masses, too. The Spirit was given to Christ without measure.
I know someone who prayed for a blind boy at an orphanage, and he said he could see. He could follow here around after that. One day, someone got hit by the bus she was on. She was overcome with compassion and started praying and commanded the man's spirit to come back inside his body in the name of Jesus. He hadn't been breathing before, but after this, he exhaled. She opened her eyes and realized that she had done this in the name of Jesus in front of all those Muslims on the side of the street. No one tried to hurt or kill her for it. She also cast a demon out of a crazy woman in front of her Muslim fellow boarding house tenant. The woman came to her senses when she cast the demon out. This young woman told the Muslim woman she had cast the demon out of to repent and believe in Jesus. The woman did not want to and eventually went back to the way she was. The Muslim roommate didn't like her insistence that the woman had to believe in Jesus. The woman who did these things here in Indonesia doesn't go into crowds and heal all the sick, but on various occasions, some of these gits have operated in her life.
The debated ending to Mark says 'these signs shall follow them that believe.' It does not say that every individual will be able to do any of the signs whenever they want. Hebrews says that signs and wonders took place according to the will of God.
Link, read the scriptures below
1 Corth 13
[1] Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
1 Cor 14
21] In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
[22] Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
Is verse 13 that proof you have of tongues being of Angels. It is a figure of speech not a statement of fact. Paul is making the point about no matter how great a person is without love they are nothing. The point is not that he could speak an angelic language, which we can't be sure how they speak. We do see angels in revelations using regular words so who knows but paul was simply making a greater point and not saying a person could or couldn't speak in a tongue of Angels.
Alos, in 14: 21 and 22. Those verses are right together for a reason. Verse 21 references Isaiah 28: which says God will speak to this people through men of other Tongues. The people are the people of Isreal, because that is what the Law refers to and what Isaiah 28 says, and Isaiah 28 speaks of God's judgement of Isreal by its destruction. Anyway, the unbelieve verse is right after that and is part of that same thought. I don't see how that could be denied. Verse 21 would have no reason what-so-ever to be there if the "those who believe not" were not the people of Isreal. Please look at it again and see how logical it is. Tongues was truely a "sign" that pointed to what Isaiah 28 talked about and that is why Paul quoted it directly.
In Christ, Brian
1 Corth 13
[1] Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
1 Cor 14
21] In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
[22] Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
Is verse 13 that proof you have of tongues being of Angels. It is a figure of speech not a statement of fact. Paul is making the point about no matter how great a person is without love they are nothing. The point is not that he could speak an angelic language, which we can't be sure how they speak. We do see angels in revelations using regular words so who knows but paul was simply making a greater point and not saying a person could or couldn't speak in a tongue of Angels.
Alos, in 14: 21 and 22. Those verses are right together for a reason. Verse 21 references Isaiah 28: which says God will speak to this people through men of other Tongues. The people are the people of Isreal, because that is what the Law refers to and what Isaiah 28 says, and Isaiah 28 speaks of God's judgement of Isreal by its destruction. Anyway, the unbelieve verse is right after that and is part of that same thought. I don't see how that could be denied. Verse 21 would have no reason what-so-ever to be there if the "those who believe not" were not the people of Isreal. Please look at it again and see how logical it is. Tongues was truely a "sign" that pointed to what Isaiah 28 talked about and that is why Paul quoted it directly.
In Christ, Brian
Hi Carol, I don't want to get side tracked with the God walking thing so let me back you up one notch. The point I was making was that God has dealt differently with His people at different times in history. There were periods where supernatural signs and wonders happened a lot and times when they did not, or at least where the Bible does not mention any. The early church saw many signs and wonders (miracles, healings, etc...) Now, in 2005 we do not see those signs and wonders like the early church did. The whole point is that we are in a different dispensation, but we still serve and love the God. God is the same, we both believe that. You do see a difference from Adam to Noah to Moses to the prophets to Jesus to the apostles to now, right?? Things are different, the world has changed but God remains the same but His actions are perfect for each time period. Lets stick to this line of reasoning for a bit and see if we can find common ground.
In Christ,
Brian
In Christ,
Brian
Link, do you know the woman or know someone that knows her? Have you seen her do a healing yourself? - not that she did not do what you said, but I am just curious. Either way, even if true, three answers to prayer do not make the signs and wonders that followed the early believers, in particular the apostles.
In Christ, Brian
If a person is demon possessed (I have never seen such a person) then the demon may leave in response to prayer but not by the casting out that a person in the early church could have done, by their own gift(power).
In Christ, Brian
If a person is demon possessed (I have never seen such a person) then the demon may leave in response to prayer but not by the casting out that a person in the early church could have done, by their own gift(power).
1 Corth 13:1
1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
I understand that to say....
If I speak in tongues of men (my native language) and of angels <mesengers> (would that be a tongue not of my native language and or prophecing?) and if I have not love (or to say I do not use the gift given to me by the Spirit with love or out of love for another)....then I become of no effect. No one will listen (I'll be like a tinkeling cymbal).
I think the most important thing (whether I'm speaking in tongues or not) is if I am speaking to a person who doen't know Jesus I better be speaking in love and tell them the good news of salvation and that Jesus died for their sins and paid their debt so they don't have to perish if they'll believe on the Lord. Thats love! The gifts of the Spirit are there so hopefully there is no barriers to tell the lost people of this love.
Music4Him
1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
I understand that to say....
If I speak in tongues of men (my native language) and of angels <mesengers> (would that be a tongue not of my native language and or prophecing?) and if I have not love (or to say I do not use the gift given to me by the Spirit with love or out of love for another)....then I become of no effect. No one will listen (I'll be like a tinkeling cymbal).
I think the most important thing (whether I'm speaking in tongues or not) is if I am speaking to a person who doen't know Jesus I better be speaking in love and tell them the good news of salvation and that Jesus died for their sins and paid their debt so they don't have to perish if they'll believe on the Lord. Thats love! The gifts of the Spirit are there so hopefully there is no barriers to tell the lost people of this love.
Music4Him
M4H, you hit the nail o the head for what is important. To Love others is our command from Christ. Loving others is serving them. For the lost it is serving and sharing the reason you serve. It is a message plus love in action. Tongues in the early church were used in the gathered assembly to share a message with someone of a different language and then an interpreter would interpret the message for the rest of the assembly and that way the whole gathered assembly was edified. The ability for a person to speak a language that they did not know beforehand was a miracle and the miracle was a sign to the Jews that a judgement was coming because of their unbelief.
M4H, From your post it could be concluded that you have shared the gospel with someone in another language. Is that true? or are you saying you wold like to use the gift like that?
Not to lose focus, True love(charity/brotherly love)for eachother is what the passage is all about. Paul never wants Christians to put a gift above that and those in the Corinth church were so into the "showy" gifts they needed to be rebuked by Paul for forgetting Love which is above all else.
Thanks for your nice post, I enjoyed it (for a change - ha ha)
In Christ,
Brian
M4H, From your post it could be concluded that you have shared the gospel with someone in another language. Is that true? or are you saying you wold like to use the gift like that?
Not to lose focus, True love(charity/brotherly love)for eachother is what the passage is all about. Paul never wants Christians to put a gift above that and those in the Corinth church were so into the "showy" gifts they needed to be rebuked by Paul for forgetting Love which is above all else.
Thanks for your nice post, I enjoyed it (for a change - ha ha)
In Christ,
Brian
Brian, if you mean, would I use the gift of tongues in love, to be able to tell a sinner of another language/nationality about Jesus. Yes! If the Spirit wills it.
Also now that you asked, I am a singer and I minister mainly in music and on rare occasions (when the Spirit is moving) I sing in tongues.
One song that I wrote (in English ) called "Jesus, Holy Is Your Name", I found out (after a quick language generator online interpretation) I can sing it in Spanish. Which totally surprises me, because I don't know Spanish fluently. Also when I sang the song, there were people who spoke Spanish in the church to confirm.
This old song says it best~
O for a thousand tongues to sing
My great Redeemer’s praise,
The glories of my God and King,
The triumphs of His grace!
My gracious Master and my God,
Assist me to proclaim,
To spread through all the earth abroad
The honors of Thy name.
Jesus! the name that charms our fears,
That bids our sorrows cease;
’Tis music in the sinner’s ears,
’Tis life, and health, and peace.
He breaks the power of canceled sin,
He sets the prisoner free;
His blood can make the foulest clean,
His blood availed for me.
Also now that you asked, I am a singer and I minister mainly in music and on rare occasions (when the Spirit is moving) I sing in tongues.
One song that I wrote (in English
) called "Jesus, Holy Is Your Name", I found out (after a quick language generator online interpretation) I can sing it in Spanish. Which totally surprises me, because I don't know Spanish fluently. Also when I sang the song, there were people who spoke Spanish in the church to confirm. This old song says it best~
O for a thousand tongues to sing
My great Redeemer’s praise,
The glories of my God and King,
The triumphs of His grace!
My gracious Master and my God,
Assist me to proclaim,
To spread through all the earth abroad
The honors of Thy name.
Jesus! the name that charms our fears,
That bids our sorrows cease;
’Tis music in the sinner’s ears,
’Tis life, and health, and peace.
He breaks the power of canceled sin,
He sets the prisoner free;
His blood can make the foulest clean,
His blood availed for me.
I know her very well. I married her. Btw, I didn't see those miracles first hand, since they were before I married her. I have witnessd some other gifts, dreaming the future, and things of that nature. She didn't do them all the time. They happened from time to time as she was faithful to minister.
It is not clear from I Corinthians 13 that 'tongues of angels' is hyperbole. Giving all ones good away is possible. Is speaking in the tongues of men hyperbole? If it is not clear that tongues of angels is hyperbole, the reasonable thing to do is leave open the option that it is possible.
You say we live in a different dispensation than the apostles. Can you show me chapter and verse please? Btw, from what I can gather 'dispensation' in scripture refers to dispensing, but not to a time period. Be that as it may, from what I see in the Bible, we are in the same time period as the apostles, the last days, which are characterized by an outpouring of the Spirit as Peter points out. I see no scripture to put us in a different time period.
It is not clear from I Corinthians 13 that 'tongues of angels' is hyperbole. Giving all ones good away is possible. Is speaking in the tongues of men hyperbole? If it is not clear that tongues of angels is hyperbole, the reasonable thing to do is leave open the option that it is possible.
You say we live in a different dispensation than the apostles. Can you show me chapter and verse please? Btw, from what I can gather 'dispensation' in scripture refers to dispensing, but not to a time period. Be that as it may, from what I see in the Bible, we are in the same time period as the apostles, the last days, which are characterized by an outpouring of the Spirit as Peter points out. I see no scripture to put us in a different time period.
--------------------------------------------------
Be that as it may, from what I see in the Bible, we are in the same time period as the apostles, the last days, which are characterized by an outpouring of the Spirit as Peter points out. I see no scripture to put us in a different time period.
--------------------------------------------------
I agree~
BTW, When I read the post where you mentioned that special lady I had a feeling you was going to say that lady was your wife.
Did Paul give his body to be burned? NO!
Did Paul give away all of his goods to the poor? No!
Did Paul have ALL faith so that he could remove mountains? NO!
Did Paul have the gift of Prophecy so that he could understand all mysteries? NO!
Did Paul have the gift of the tongues have angels? Absolutely not!
These truths are self-evident.
DHK
DHK,
Show from scripture where it says Paul never gave all he had to the poor. Apparently, there were times Paul was naked and hungry, he knew how to be without and to abound. So there may well have been times he had nothing. Paul also told how he supported the weak, working with his own hands. It is quite possible Paul gave the last of his possession away on some occasion, or many occasions, in his ministry. We cannot know.
Paul could have 'given his body to be burned' through martyrdom. Tradition says he was beheaded.
But you are missing the bigger point here. It is very much _possible_ to give all ones possessions away. Jesus even comanded this of the rich young ruler. It is also very much _possible_ to give ones posessions to the poor. So it very well may be _possible_ to speak in the tongues of men and of angels.
It is possible to speak in the tongues of men. Why would it be impossible to speak in the tongues of angels? Paul spoke in tongues, and he doesn't specify which ones.
Show from scripture where it says Paul never gave all he had to the poor. Apparently, there were times Paul was naked and hungry, he knew how to be without and to abound. So there may well have been times he had nothing. Paul also told how he supported the weak, working with his own hands. It is quite possible Paul gave the last of his possession away on some occasion, or many occasions, in his ministry. We cannot know.
Paul could have 'given his body to be burned' through martyrdom. Tradition says he was beheaded.
But you are missing the bigger point here. It is very much _possible_ to give all ones possessions away. Jesus even comanded this of the rich young ruler. It is also very much _possible_ to give ones posessions to the poor. So it very well may be _possible_ to speak in the tongues of men and of angels.
It is possible to speak in the tongues of men. Why would it be impossible to speak in the tongues of angels? Paul spoke in tongues, and he doesn't specify which ones.
1 Corinthians 13:1-3 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
Your exegesis of this passage is very poor. You are straining at a gnat, trying very hard and very poorly, I might add, to force your theology into some verses that mean the exact opposite of what you want them to mean.
To speak with the tongues of men--no great feat. Paul wouldn't have even mentioned it if he didn't have something so obvious to the naked eye. It is not just his man's language that he intends here. It is all mans' langauges. Though I could speak in the languages of all men. Paul couldn't. The statement is a conditional one, a conjecture. It starts with "though," or "if." He is speaking as "if it were possible," but he knows it isn't.
"Though (or if) I speak with the tongues of angels." A big IF--he couldn't. An angel came and spoke to Manoah, the father of Samson, Elizabeth and Zecahariah, Joseph and Mary, Joshua, Abraham, Lot, Jacob, etc. They came and spoke to different individuals at different times in history using different languages, and yet never making a mistake in grammar no matter what language they spoke in. They could be depended on to speak eloquently, communicate God's truth accurately, be grammatically correct always, and be perfectly eloquent in every language of the world that is spoken. Can you or any other person you know do that? Of course not. That is the tongues of languages. It is the ability to speak like an angel can speak, do what an angel can do in the linguistics field. Man cannot do that. Man is not supernatural. Man is finite, a frail creature of dust. He lives in a natural world not a supernatural world. No man has the ability to speak in the tongues of angels, and no man ever did. Paul never claimed he did. He said "If I could." But I can't, he continues (or implies). Even if he could, and he didn't have love, he would become as souding brass or a tinkling cymbol. It would profit him nothing. It was an illustration used by conjecture.
"And though I have the gift of prophecy and understand all mysteries"
Could Paul do that? Absolutely not! No man can understand ALL mysteries. If they could they would be God. That is a blasphemous conclusion, and a blasphemous assumption for you to make about Paul. He wasn't saying that. He wasn't all knowing. He didn't know all mysteries. It was impossible for him to do so. The statement is "IF," or "Though."
"and all knowledge" That's a good one isn't it. If you believe that is possible for Paul, then you believe it is possible for Paul to be God--omniscient. Just what is it that you are saying that it is possible for Paul to be or do?? The statement is IF or THOUGH! It was impossible for him to have or possess all knowledge. He isn't or wasn't God.
"All faith" Paul would deny this vehemently as well. He did not have ALL FAITH. What man can say that he does? Does any man have all faith? No. Neither did Paul. He says IF, or THOUGH. He never did.
"so that I could remove mountains" What mountains did Paul remove? Provide the evidence please. It is a conditional statement. He is speaking of love. Read the last part of the verse and understand the meaning.
"And though I give all my goods to feed the poor" If you have historical evidence to back this up then give it. We don't base our lives on conjectures, or baseless imaginitave guessing. There is no substance to the thought that Paul gave all his goods to the poor prior to his death. When you make an assumption back it up. Don't argue from silence. Venus is made of blue cheese too.
"And though I give my body to be burned" We know that Paul did not give his body to be burned. You admitted as much. He was beheaded. Whatever happened after that is irrelevant. He didn't GIVE his body to be burned. He was beheaded. It doesn't matter what they did to his body. They may have eaten it for a steak dinner. That is not the point. He was beheaded. Once he was beheaded he had no choice in GIVING his body to be burned, buried, cremated, eaten for dinner, etc. It wasn't given for any reason; it was beheaded, and that against his will.
DHK
2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
Your exegesis of this passage is very poor. You are straining at a gnat, trying very hard and very poorly, I might add, to force your theology into some verses that mean the exact opposite of what you want them to mean.
To speak with the tongues of men--no great feat. Paul wouldn't have even mentioned it if he didn't have something so obvious to the naked eye. It is not just his man's language that he intends here. It is all mans' langauges. Though I could speak in the languages of all men. Paul couldn't. The statement is a conditional one, a conjecture. It starts with "though," or "if." He is speaking as "if it were possible," but he knows it isn't.
"Though (or if) I speak with the tongues of angels." A big IF--he couldn't. An angel came and spoke to Manoah, the father of Samson, Elizabeth and Zecahariah, Joseph and Mary, Joshua, Abraham, Lot, Jacob, etc. They came and spoke to different individuals at different times in history using different languages, and yet never making a mistake in grammar no matter what language they spoke in. They could be depended on to speak eloquently, communicate God's truth accurately, be grammatically correct always, and be perfectly eloquent in every language of the world that is spoken. Can you or any other person you know do that? Of course not. That is the tongues of languages. It is the ability to speak like an angel can speak, do what an angel can do in the linguistics field. Man cannot do that. Man is not supernatural. Man is finite, a frail creature of dust. He lives in a natural world not a supernatural world. No man has the ability to speak in the tongues of angels, and no man ever did. Paul never claimed he did. He said "If I could." But I can't, he continues (or implies). Even if he could, and he didn't have love, he would become as souding brass or a tinkling cymbol. It would profit him nothing. It was an illustration used by conjecture.
"And though I have the gift of prophecy and understand all mysteries"
Could Paul do that? Absolutely not! No man can understand ALL mysteries. If they could they would be God. That is a blasphemous conclusion, and a blasphemous assumption for you to make about Paul. He wasn't saying that. He wasn't all knowing. He didn't know all mysteries. It was impossible for him to do so. The statement is "IF," or "Though."
"and all knowledge" That's a good one isn't it. If you believe that is possible for Paul, then you believe it is possible for Paul to be God--omniscient. Just what is it that you are saying that it is possible for Paul to be or do?? The statement is IF or THOUGH! It was impossible for him to have or possess all knowledge. He isn't or wasn't God.
"All faith" Paul would deny this vehemently as well. He did not have ALL FAITH. What man can say that he does? Does any man have all faith? No. Neither did Paul. He says IF, or THOUGH. He never did.
"so that I could remove mountains" What mountains did Paul remove? Provide the evidence please. It is a conditional statement. He is speaking of love. Read the last part of the verse and understand the meaning.
"And though I give all my goods to feed the poor" If you have historical evidence to back this up then give it. We don't base our lives on conjectures, or baseless imaginitave guessing. There is no substance to the thought that Paul gave all his goods to the poor prior to his death. When you make an assumption back it up. Don't argue from silence. Venus is made of blue cheese too.
"And though I give my body to be burned" We know that Paul did not give his body to be burned. You admitted as much. He was beheaded. Whatever happened after that is irrelevant. He didn't GIVE his body to be burned. He was beheaded. It doesn't matter what they did to his body. They may have eaten it for a steak dinner. That is not the point. He was beheaded. Once he was beheaded he had no choice in GIVING his body to be burned, buried, cremated, eaten for dinner, etc. It wasn't given for any reason; it was beheaded, and that against his will.
DHK
DHK,
You are the one making the text say something it does not. The text does not say whether it is possible to speak in the tongues of angels or not. You are the one saying it is impossible, not the Bible. The Bible just mentions the possibility. So if you were to be reasonable, you would leave it at that. Maybe it's possible. To get the idea that there is no such thing as tongues of angels from a verse that says 'though I speak in the tongues of men and of angels' or 'if I speak in the tongues of men and of angels' is downright irrationale.
The Bible does not say what 'tongues of angels' are. Maybe they have their own lagnuages. I don't see where they spoke all that many languages in scripture-- Greek and Hebrew and possibly Aramaic. I don't doubt that they can speak any language. But the Bible does not say what language they use to speak with one another or with God when humans aren't around. These are things we don't know.
There is no hint that Paul knew how he would going to die, whether from martyrdom: burning, beheading, being beaten to death, or otherwise. Jesus gave Peter a clue about his death. Dying by fire for the sake of the Gospel is a real possibility. It has happened to people before. So if this is possible, we see that Paul lists some real possibilities in the list.
You are the one making the text say something it does not. The text does not say whether it is possible to speak in the tongues of angels or not. You are the one saying it is impossible, not the Bible. The Bible just mentions the possibility. So if you were to be reasonable, you would leave it at that. Maybe it's possible. To get the idea that there is no such thing as tongues of angels from a verse that says 'though I speak in the tongues of men and of angels' or 'if I speak in the tongues of men and of angels' is downright irrationale.
The Bible does not say what 'tongues of angels' are. Maybe they have their own lagnuages. I don't see where they spoke all that many languages in scripture-- Greek and Hebrew and possibly Aramaic. I don't doubt that they can speak any language. But the Bible does not say what language they use to speak with one another or with God when humans aren't around. These are things we don't know.
There is no hint that Paul knew how he would going to die, whether from martyrdom: burning, beheading, being beaten to death, or otherwise. Jesus gave Peter a clue about his death. Dying by fire for the sake of the Gospel is a real possibility. It has happened to people before. So if this is possible, we see that Paul lists some real possibilities in the list.
Read the Book of Acts and 2Timothy. Paul was awaiting his second trial. No man stood with him at his first, but all men forsook him. He knew this time that he was going to die. "He was ready to be offered up." "His time was at hand." And no doubt he knew the method of his death as well. As even you yourself conceded, (as most other sources) Paul was beheaded. Please don't concoct a story that have one believe that he would give his body to be burned whether before or after the time of his death. Such a suggestion is ludicrous knowing their reverence for the body in its burial. Lets make sense here. You are really trying to stretch these verses and make them tell quite a story.
The essence of what Paul is teaching is this:
He says:
If I could be God, and if I could be a god without love, then I would be nothing at all, that is I would be no god at all, for God is love.
If the things mentioned are real possibilities then it is a real possibility that Paul claimed deity. But you don't figure that into your equation. Each statement made is equivalent to the other. They are parallel statements. But Paul said: "If I could have all knowledge Only God is omniscient, and has all knowledge.
DHK
The essence of what Paul is teaching is this:
He says:
If I could be God, and if I could be a god without love, then I would be nothing at all, that is I would be no god at all, for God is love.
If the things mentioned are real possibilities then it is a real possibility that Paul claimed deity. But you don't figure that into your equation. Each statement made is equivalent to the other. They are parallel statements. But Paul said: "If I could have all knowledge Only God is omniscient, and has all knowledge.
DHK
DHK,
We are talking about I Corinthians, which was written much earlier, before Paul was arrested, because he was still planning on going back to Corinth.
I am not saying Paul suspected his body would be burned. I am saying we do not know if Paul knew about the manner of his death. It was possible for Paul to give his body to be burned. Giving ones body to be burned is not impossible.
Your point about claiming deity doesn't make sense, either. If 'known as I am known' or having all mysteries and all knowledge did mean omniscience, claiming omniscience is not the same as claiming deity. having the same attribute as another is not the same thing as being another.
If Johnny Ray is the best SPAMMER on the net, and I learn to spam just as good as Johnny Ray, that doesn't mean I become Johnny Ray.
God is also allpowerful. If someone else could become omniscient, it doesn't mean that person is all-powerful.
Btw, I am not arguing that people will become omnisient, just discussing your argument.
What we have here is a list of things from Paul-- some are possible and some are hyperbole. So you have no basis for discounting the possibility of tongues of angels as possible. If some of the things in the list are possible, then you have no basis for saying tongues of angels isn't. If all of the things in the list were impossible, then you might have a case. But they aren't all impossible, so you don't have a case.
You can't know for sure that there are no tongues of angels because the Bible does not say that there aren't. Unless you are claiming an extra-biblical revelation you want to base doctrine on. Did an angel come and tell you there were no tonges of angels?
You cannot know that if there were tongues of angels it would be impossible for people to use them. You cannot know that if there are tongues of angels that God would not give such a language to someone as a message in tongues. Why not? Because these Bible does not teach these things you think you are so certain about. Are you basing your ideas on some kind of extra-Biblical revelation from God or angels? Otherwise, it is irrational for you to be so insistant that you know what you are talking about.
The Bible says 'though I speak in the tongues of men and of angels.' Leave it at that. Paul mentions the possibility of speaking in tongues of angels. Either he meant it literally or as hyperbole. Either way, he brought up the possibility, and makes no sense to take the stance that such a thing is not possible when you have no scripture or other evidence to be so insistent.
We are talking about I Corinthians, which was written much earlier, before Paul was arrested, because he was still planning on going back to Corinth.
I am not saying Paul suspected his body would be burned. I am saying we do not know if Paul knew about the manner of his death. It was possible for Paul to give his body to be burned. Giving ones body to be burned is not impossible.
Your point about claiming deity doesn't make sense, either. If 'known as I am known' or having all mysteries and all knowledge did mean omniscience, claiming omniscience is not the same as claiming deity. having the same attribute as another is not the same thing as being another.
If Johnny Ray is the best SPAMMER on the net, and I learn to spam just as good as Johnny Ray, that doesn't mean I become Johnny Ray.
God is also allpowerful. If someone else could become omniscient, it doesn't mean that person is all-powerful.
Btw, I am not arguing that people will become omnisient, just discussing your argument.
What we have here is a list of things from Paul-- some are possible and some are hyperbole. So you have no basis for discounting the possibility of tongues of angels as possible. If some of the things in the list are possible, then you have no basis for saying tongues of angels isn't. If all of the things in the list were impossible, then you might have a case. But they aren't all impossible, so you don't have a case.
You can't know for sure that there are no tongues of angels because the Bible does not say that there aren't. Unless you are claiming an extra-biblical revelation you want to base doctrine on. Did an angel come and tell you there were no tonges of angels?
You cannot know that if there were tongues of angels it would be impossible for people to use them. You cannot know that if there are tongues of angels that God would not give such a language to someone as a message in tongues. Why not? Because these Bible does not teach these things you think you are so certain about. Are you basing your ideas on some kind of extra-Biblical revelation from God or angels? Otherwise, it is irrational for you to be so insistant that you know what you are talking about.
The Bible says 'though I speak in the tongues of men and of angels.' Leave it at that. Paul mentions the possibility of speaking in tongues of angels. Either he meant it literally or as hyperbole. Either way, he brought up the possibility, and makes no sense to take the stance that such a thing is not possible when you have no scripture or other evidence to be so insistent.