In a thread, it was mentioned about gifts, and in particular the rejection of the charismatic, I wonder if it might be profitable for the BB to again revisit this topic.
I will start by referring the reader to the long used portion of the Corinthian letter which Paul says, "Though I speak with the tongues of ...."
First, these are actual languages. The languages of this earth and that language of the angelic, in which others of that land pr place readily understand. For example, if I could speak a Celtic tongue, would it be profitable in trying to communicate the gospel to South Americans without an interpreter?
Second, the language is translatable, by others of that group. That is, scholars can translate and verify the translation, and not just a single person. Therefore the communication is not just a private communication, but that done to more than one. Just as men is plural, the translators indicate consistency by making angels plural, although the original may also be singular. It is important to stress one does not pray to angels, but to God. So such a language as the angels use is not a private conversation of unique code, but open source.
Paul goes on to emphasize the prominence and character of love in this chapter, and I find it remarkable that in general that emphasis is ignored, and treated as unimportant by those who desire to push something anointed or signify something ordained as a gift, placing them as special or marked for better use. What should be emphasized is largely ignored in favor of what is doubtful.
I will post more on this as the thread bears.
I will start by referring the reader to the long used portion of the Corinthian letter which Paul says, "Though I speak with the tongues of ...."
First, these are actual languages. The languages of this earth and that language of the angelic, in which others of that land pr place readily understand. For example, if I could speak a Celtic tongue, would it be profitable in trying to communicate the gospel to South Americans without an interpreter?
Second, the language is translatable, by others of that group. That is, scholars can translate and verify the translation, and not just a single person. Therefore the communication is not just a private communication, but that done to more than one. Just as men is plural, the translators indicate consistency by making angels plural, although the original may also be singular. It is important to stress one does not pray to angels, but to God. So such a language as the angels use is not a private conversation of unique code, but open source.
Paul goes on to emphasize the prominence and character of love in this chapter, and I find it remarkable that in general that emphasis is ignored, and treated as unimportant by those who desire to push something anointed or signify something ordained as a gift, placing them as special or marked for better use. What should be emphasized is largely ignored in favor of what is doubtful.
I will post more on this as the thread bears.