-
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!
Have the "gifts of the spirit" ceased?
- Thread starter Rosell
- Start date
Originally posted by music4Him:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gina L:
Ok, it's been 24 hours. If we were goldfish anyhow.
Topic reopened, my apologies for trying to shut it prematurely.
Gina
MEE
DHK wrote,
**Your point was that Paul would be dead before he would see the completion of the canon of Scripture. That is true. Then you prceeded to try to fit the Resurrection of the dead into that same passage. Ironically Paul is still dead and the resurrection of the dead has not taken place. The same arguments that you have used against me in that respect, I use against you.**
I still don't get what you were trying to say. I am arguing that the gifts have not ceased. So since Paul is dead until the resurrection, and I am arguing that Paul will experience 'the perfect' at or after the resurrection, what I am saying makese sense. Did you forget that Paul would be alive at the resurrection (or interpret the resurrection timetable differently from the way I do)? Maybe I'm missing something. Could you show me how the fact that Paul is still dead and has not experienced the benefits of the perfect argues in your favor? From where I sit, it argues in favor of what I'm saying.
You wrote,
****1 Corinthians 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
Notice the adverbs here: "first," "secondarily," "thirdly," "after that," "then." These denote a definite progression of the most important gift to the least important gift. The apostolic gift was the most important of all the gifts and only held by a few. Tongues was the least important of all the gifts.
In one of your last posts you were concerned about obeying ALL the commands of Christ. What about this one.***
I don't understand what you are saying again. What command are you talking about? I don't see any commands in the verse you mention.
it is clear that Paul places apostles 'first.' But does he say that tongues is the least of all gifts? No, he doesn't. Paul doesn't list every gift in this verse. He lists certain gifts and puts tongues on the bottom. Do I believe that tongues the least of all gifts? I don't have scriptural basis for saying that, so I would answer 'no' to that question. Is it ranked low on Paul's list? Yes. I do not hold the position that tongues is the most important of all gifts, so I don't know why you would want to argue the point with me.
***--Tongues, the least important of all the gifts, was the gift that the immature believers sought after. The carnal Christians sought after it because it was a showy gift. They had the idea that if they could speak in tongues people would think they were more spiritual, whereas the opposite was true. They were more carnal, and it showed. **
Your interpretation here seems a bit too negative toward tongues. Paul does command believers to desire the better gifts, and it is clear he wants them to be Christians to be more enthusiastic about prophecy than about tongues. He doesn't forbid desiring the lesser gifts, and he does encourage praying to be able to interpret tongues. If the gift is used the way Paul instructs, it is not showy. Paul had a problem with the Corinthians using the gift wrongly, partly because they wanted to be showing, and partly because they were childish in their understanding of how to use the gifts. There is nothing carnal about the gift of tongues. Paul made this clear when he wrote, "I speak in tongues more than ye all."
DHK wrote,
**Every pronoun (whether in Greek or English) must have an antecedent. **
Notice that there is no word 'rhema' in the context to serve as an antecedant.
In Greek, there is no 'that' in the passage. There is a Greek word which we might see rendered that which is perfect' or 'perfection' or 'the perfect thing.' Btw, I didn't say I knew Greek, but I couldn't see you making your argument if you did.
***You want to "plug in" resurrection which is ludicrous to say the least. For resurrection is not even mentioned in these three chapters (12-14)***
Hmm. I notice how you arbitrarily limit the context to chapter 14. Hehehe. Pretty sneaky,
because chapter 15 mentions the resurrection.
I am not trying to 'plug in' anything from a grammatical point of view. I believe Paul is saying 'that which is perfect', and that 'that' is not a physical object or a substantive thing. We might also say 'the perfect' to do away with the double meaning of 'that.' Paul talks about when 'the perfect' comes.
The point I am making has nothing to do with plugging in a word. I don't see the grammatical gender of the word for 'perfect' here as a blank to fill in with another neuter word. I'm saying that we need to consider what Paul has in mind to talk about in this letter. Later on, in chapter 15 he expands on something that would make tongues, prophecy, and even pre-resurrection knowledge about God, seem like childhood- the state of the believer in the resurrection. Nowhere in the whole letter does Paul go into a discourse on how the written New Testament would be completed, so there is no reason to read that into this passage.
Earlier, I pointed out that the Two Witnesses would prophesy. You said what happened in the tribulation had nothing to do with this dispensation.
I dont' have a problem with seeing time periods in scripture. But is dangerous not to believe scripture in the name of dispensations.
I Corinthians 13 says that when the perfect comes, the in part will be done away with. It also identifies prophecy as the 'in part.' If prophecy has already been done away with, then it is gone, and it won't be around for the two witnesses either. If the two witnesses prophesy, then the gift has not been done away with. This is just a matter of scripture and plain reason. Claiming that the two witnesses live in a different dispensation doesn't have any bearing on the issue. I Corinthians 13 doesn't say that the in part will be done away with, but only until the two witnesses come. It says that that which is part will be done away when the perfect comes.
On the issue of Akkadian and Aramaic, please consider the short-term context. After Isaiah wrote these words, God 'spoke to' the Jews by having foreignors come drag them into captivity, marching them to Bablyon. We need to take the short-term fulfillment into consideration when we interpret the passage. But Paul's point that he makes from these verses is not about the destruction of Jerusalem. It is about unbelievers reacting to tongues with unbelief, and tongues being a sign to unbelievers.
. It isn't even in the context. The context is speaking of "revelation," God's Word, in the larger context of the spiritual gifts. A neuter noun meaning Word just happens to fit that context.
**Your point was that Paul would be dead before he would see the completion of the canon of Scripture. That is true. Then you prceeded to try to fit the Resurrection of the dead into that same passage. Ironically Paul is still dead and the resurrection of the dead has not taken place. The same arguments that you have used against me in that respect, I use against you.**
I still don't get what you were trying to say. I am arguing that the gifts have not ceased. So since Paul is dead until the resurrection, and I am arguing that Paul will experience 'the perfect' at or after the resurrection, what I am saying makese sense. Did you forget that Paul would be alive at the resurrection (or interpret the resurrection timetable differently from the way I do)? Maybe I'm missing something. Could you show me how the fact that Paul is still dead and has not experienced the benefits of the perfect argues in your favor? From where I sit, it argues in favor of what I'm saying.
You wrote,
****1 Corinthians 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
Notice the adverbs here: "first," "secondarily," "thirdly," "after that," "then." These denote a definite progression of the most important gift to the least important gift. The apostolic gift was the most important of all the gifts and only held by a few. Tongues was the least important of all the gifts.
In one of your last posts you were concerned about obeying ALL the commands of Christ. What about this one.***
I don't understand what you are saying again. What command are you talking about? I don't see any commands in the verse you mention.
it is clear that Paul places apostles 'first.' But does he say that tongues is the least of all gifts? No, he doesn't. Paul doesn't list every gift in this verse. He lists certain gifts and puts tongues on the bottom. Do I believe that tongues the least of all gifts? I don't have scriptural basis for saying that, so I would answer 'no' to that question. Is it ranked low on Paul's list? Yes. I do not hold the position that tongues is the most important of all gifts, so I don't know why you would want to argue the point with me.
***--Tongues, the least important of all the gifts, was the gift that the immature believers sought after. The carnal Christians sought after it because it was a showy gift. They had the idea that if they could speak in tongues people would think they were more spiritual, whereas the opposite was true. They were more carnal, and it showed. **
Your interpretation here seems a bit too negative toward tongues. Paul does command believers to desire the better gifts, and it is clear he wants them to be Christians to be more enthusiastic about prophecy than about tongues. He doesn't forbid desiring the lesser gifts, and he does encourage praying to be able to interpret tongues. If the gift is used the way Paul instructs, it is not showy. Paul had a problem with the Corinthians using the gift wrongly, partly because they wanted to be showing, and partly because they were childish in their understanding of how to use the gifts. There is nothing carnal about the gift of tongues. Paul made this clear when he wrote, "I speak in tongues more than ye all."
DHK wrote,
**Every pronoun (whether in Greek or English) must have an antecedent. **
Notice that there is no word 'rhema' in the context to serve as an antecedant.
In Greek, there is no 'that' in the passage. There is a Greek word which we might see rendered that which is perfect' or 'perfection' or 'the perfect thing.' Btw, I didn't say I knew Greek, but I couldn't see you making your argument if you did.
***You want to "plug in" resurrection which is ludicrous to say the least. For resurrection is not even mentioned in these three chapters (12-14)***
Hmm. I notice how you arbitrarily limit the context to chapter 14. Hehehe. Pretty sneaky,
I am not trying to 'plug in' anything from a grammatical point of view. I believe Paul is saying 'that which is perfect', and that 'that' is not a physical object or a substantive thing. We might also say 'the perfect' to do away with the double meaning of 'that.' Paul talks about when 'the perfect' comes.
The point I am making has nothing to do with plugging in a word. I don't see the grammatical gender of the word for 'perfect' here as a blank to fill in with another neuter word. I'm saying that we need to consider what Paul has in mind to talk about in this letter. Later on, in chapter 15 he expands on something that would make tongues, prophecy, and even pre-resurrection knowledge about God, seem like childhood- the state of the believer in the resurrection. Nowhere in the whole letter does Paul go into a discourse on how the written New Testament would be completed, so there is no reason to read that into this passage.
Earlier, I pointed out that the Two Witnesses would prophesy. You said what happened in the tribulation had nothing to do with this dispensation.
I dont' have a problem with seeing time periods in scripture. But is dangerous not to believe scripture in the name of dispensations.
I Corinthians 13 says that when the perfect comes, the in part will be done away with. It also identifies prophecy as the 'in part.' If prophecy has already been done away with, then it is gone, and it won't be around for the two witnesses either. If the two witnesses prophesy, then the gift has not been done away with. This is just a matter of scripture and plain reason. Claiming that the two witnesses live in a different dispensation doesn't have any bearing on the issue. I Corinthians 13 doesn't say that the in part will be done away with, but only until the two witnesses come. It says that that which is part will be done away when the perfect comes.
On the issue of Akkadian and Aramaic, please consider the short-term context. After Isaiah wrote these words, God 'spoke to' the Jews by having foreignors come drag them into captivity, marching them to Bablyon. We need to take the short-term fulfillment into consideration when we interpret the passage. But Paul's point that he makes from these verses is not about the destruction of Jerusalem. It is about unbelievers reacting to tongues with unbelief, and tongues being a sign to unbelievers.
. It isn't even in the context. The context is speaking of "revelation," God's Word, in the larger context of the spiritual gifts. A neuter noun meaning Word just happens to fit that context.
I understand your point now. The only problem is that the resurrection does not fit the context, and has to be forced in order to be put into the context. Furthermore, "anastasis" the Greek word for "resurrection" is a feminine noun, and therefore could not possibly fit the context. The noun must be a neuter noun: not feminine or masculine--but neuter, as the words or phrase, "that which is perfect" is neuter. "That which is perfect" is come. That particular phrase is in the neuter gender, and therefore requires a neuter noun to refer to.
To those who believe that the gifts are still for today this verse:
1 Corinthians 12:31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.
--is a command. Covet or desire earnestly the BEST gifts. Tongues was on the bottom of the list, the least important of all the gifts listed. Paul was suggesting that the Corinthians seek after gifts such as prophecy or teahing--the better gifts, not tongues.
The gifts are listed in obvious order of importance. The numerical adverbs tell us that. Tongues is on the bottom of the list--the gift having the least importance in that list. So, yes, of the gifts that are listed in that verse Paul does tell us indirectly that tongues is the least important.
Paul had the problem he did with the Corinthians because they were abusing the gift. They were using the gift wrongly. They were doing so because they were a carnal church--carnal believers, as he describes in 1Cor.3:1-4.
1 Corinthians 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
Paul used tongues. He used them when they were needed, and only when they were needed. The carnal Corinthians made a show of them, and abused the gift. Paul writes to correct the abuse of this gift. He spends the entire 14th chapter doing so.
"to teleiov"
MKJV "the perfect thing"
KJV "that which is perfect"
ISV "what is complete"
The word "to" is neuter. It defines the word "perfect" which is also neuter. Whatever translation you wish to give it, a neuter noun is required to fit the context. The perfect thing referred to is in the neuter gender. I hope the above translations make that clear. BTW the ISV makes a very good case for the Bible, as it more accurately translates the sense of the word teleios, "complete." That is what happened. The word of God came to a completion. It was finished or completed with the completion of the Book of Revelation.
Chapter 15 is like a different book in itself. It has nothing to do with the previous chapters. Paul, in that chapter, answers questions on the topic of the Resurrection. Some of the Corinthians were at the point of denying the Resurrection. That has nothing to do with Spiritual gifts. Neither does taking your brother to court (ch.6), marital problems (ch. 7), Incest (ch. 5), abuse of the Lord's Supper (ch. 11), etc.Hmm. I notice how you arbitrarily limit the context to chapter 14. Hehehe. Pretty sneaky,because chapter 15 mentions the resurrection.
1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
--The Corinthians had written a letter to Paul. Paul is answering that letter. It is about various problems that they were having.
1 Corinthians 12:1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.
--This verse introduces the next three chapters.
The gifts are listed and elaborated upon in chapter 12.
Chapter 13 they are discussed in the context of love (vs.1-7), and of revelation (8-13).
Chapter 14 carries on from chapter 13 with a discussion between tongues and prophecy, two of the gifts mentioned in 13:8. These three chapters are one unit speaking of the spiritual gifts. There is nothing in here about the resurrection.
The problem is: you cannot ignore grammar. Neither can you ignore the phrase "that which is perfect," nor the gender that it is written in. It must refer to something, and it must refer to something that is neuter in gender. The Holy Spirit had a purpose in writing it that way.
You don't see the need for a neuter noun or pronoun to refer to another neuter noun? That makes about as much sense as saying: "When this thread reahes 20 pages Gina said that HE himself would close the thread" Good for her. The genders of pronouns and nouns are important. You cannot substitute a feminine noun like "resurrection" for a neuter pronoun and noun like "the perfect thing." If you do you will be insulting Gina by calling her a him.
I don't follow your logic at all. It was God that said these gifts would cease. Even if we take your position that "the perfect" refers to the resurrection, then they would cease by that time, according to your interpretation. It is after the resurrection that the Tribulation takes place. So you end up with the same problem you are accusing me of--no prophecy. Your argument makes no sense. You are speaking of a completely different dispensation where these verses have no application.
As I pointed to you above, your interpretation of this passage:
"When that which is perfect (resurrection) is come then that which is in part (prophecy) shall be done away." The resurrection happens before the Tribulation. You are defeating your own argument.
Paul quoted the prophecy in the context of the gift of tongues. That is all that is needed to know. The prophecy relates to the gift of tongues that was spoken in Acts 2, Acts 10, and Acts 19, the three places where tongues are mentioned in the Book of Acts. We must take the prophecy in the context of what Paul was using it.
Your argument is with God here, not with fate or luck, as you imply. The Holy Spirit of God put a neuter pronoun in 1Cor.10 for a very definite purpose. It DID NOT just happen to be there.
DHK
DHK wrote,
***I understand your point now. The only problem is that the resurrection does not fit the context, and has to be forced in order to be put into the context. Furthermore, "anastasis" the Greek word for "resurrection" is a feminine noun, and therefore could not possibly fit the context. The noun must be a neuter noun: not feminine or masculine--but neuter, as the words or phrase, "that which is perfect" is neuter. "That which is perfect" is come. That particular phrase is in the neuter gender, and therefore requires a neuter noun to refer to.***
Have you ever studied any languages that have gender markings on nouns? Maybe Spanish or French, even? I studied linguistics in college and studied Sanskrit, Classical Armenian, Arabic, Hebrew, and another language or two there. I don't know Greek (and didn't mean to imply that I did earlier.) But it seems obvious to me that you don't know Greek either, and that you don't know what you are talking about in regard to gender markings.
First, "the perfect thing" here is Greek is not a blank to fill in with the word you want. It is a word. So this whole line of reasoning you are following is flawed.
Two words with different gender marking can refer to the same concept. Let me give you an example. Spanish has two gender markings. Masculine words end with 'o' and feminine words end with 'a.' Often females get marked with 'a', but there are plenty of things, ideas, and concepts that have no real gender but get stuck with grammatical gender.
My Spanish is extremely rusty, so I hope I get this right. The word for cheese is 'queso.' And the word for 'food' is 'comida.' The word for cheese takes the masculine ending, 'o' but the word for 'food' takes the feminine, 'a'.
So let's say you are talking in Spanish, and you say you are going to eat 'comida.' Then you say that you are going to eat 'queso.' Will your Spanish speaking friends tel you that you cannot eat queso because queso is a masculine word and comida is feminine, so queso can't be feminine. (Cheese can't be food?) No. That would be nonsensical. Similar concepts can be expressed with different gender words.
Your whole line of reasoning here doesn't make sense at all.
DHK wrote
***To those who believe that the gifts are still for today this verse:
1 Corinthians 12:31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.
--is a command. Covet or desire earnestly the BEST gifts. Tongues was on the bottom of the list, the least important of all the gifts listed. Paul was suggesting that the Corinthians seek after gifts such as prophecy or teahing--the better gifts, not tongues.***
That particular command says to covet earnestly the best gifts. So I wouldn't take it as a command to desire tongues. But it doesn't forbid desiring or praying for tongues either. Since Paul says "I would that ye all spake with tongues' then we can conclude that it is not a sin to pray for tongues. The gift of tongues is a good thing, but they are not as good as gifts like teaching or prophecy, for example.
**The gifts are listed in obvious order of importance. The numerical adverbs tell us that. Tongues is on the bottom of the list--the gift having the least importance in that list. So, yes, of the gifts that are listed in that verse Paul does tell us indirectly that tongues is the least important. ***
Tongues is at the bottom of that particular list. Paul doesn't say that this list of gifts is exhaustive, and it is clear from scripture that there are other gifts. So there may be some gifts not in that list that are lower.
***Paul had the problem he did with the Corinthians because they were abusing the gift. They were using the gift wrongly. They were doing so because they were a carnal church--carnal believers, as he describes in 1Cor.3:1-4.***
Then I think we are more or less in agreement on this point, if we both agree that there is nothing wrong with the gift of tongues.
**Paul used tongues. He used them when they were needed, and only when they were needed. The carnal Corinthians made a show of them, and abused the gift. Paul writes to correct the abuse of this gift. He spends the entire 14th chapter doing so.**
The COrinthians were using the gift wrongly, but I don't see in the chapter where Paul specifies that the reason they did so was to make a show of the gift. Paul tells them to be men in their understanding, in the chapter, rather than children. The implication is that they were misusing tongues because they lacked mature understanding. It is possible that some people jsut wanted to show off. But the issue Paul hit on was their childish understanding. Maybe they spoke in tongues without interpretation because they thought it was a spiritual thing to do, and didn't realize it didn't help the church. This would explain why Paul discusses the issue of edification. Can you find any verse in the context that indicates that the Corinthians misused tongues because their motivation was to show off?
***Chapter 15 is like a different book in itself. It has nothing to do with the previous chapters. Paul, in that chapter, answers questions on the topic of the Resurrection. Some of the Corinthians were at the point of denying the Resurrection. That has nothing to do with Spiritual gifts. Neither does taking your brother to court (ch.6), marital problems (ch. 7), Incest (ch. 5), abuse of the Lord's Supper (ch. 11), etc. ***
I see no reason to accept your assertion that chapter 15 is not related to the previous chapters. Chapter 6 mentiosn that the Corinthians would judge angels, soemthing that will likely occur after ther resurrection. Chapter 2 talks about the things that God has prepared for them that love Him, which have been revealed by the Spirit.
***The problem is: you cannot ignore grammar. Neither can you ignore the phrase "that which is perfect," nor the gender that it is written in. It must refer to something, and it must refer to something that is neuter in gender. ***
Please see above treatment of the gender issue. There is no need to 'plug in' any word, whether resurrection, or Bible, or what have you. The Holy Spirit had Paul write a word there, not a big blank for us to fill in with whatever we wanted. "The perfect" has a meaning of it's own. The question is not "What word are we going to substitute for 'that which is perfect'?" The question is "What is Paul talking about when he refers to "that which is perfect?"
I'd like to clarify my argument. I am not saying that "that which is perfect" is exactly the resurrection, but rather the perfection that will occur at the resurrection or afterward. A lot of things will change at the resurrection. The creation is in childbirth as it were, waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God.
We have not yet seen what we will be. But when He appears, we will be like Him for we shall see Him as He is. Our state at the resurrection will make our current state seem like childhood.
The Holy Spirit had a purpose in writing it that way.
**You don't see the need for a neuter noun or pronoun to refer to another neuter noun? That makes about as much sense as saying: "When this thread reahes 20 pages Gina said that HE himself would close the thread" Good for her. The genders of pronouns and nouns are important. You cannot substitute a feminine noun like "resurrection" for a neuter pronoun and noun like "the perfect thing." If you do you will be insulting Gina by calling her a him. **
You are talking apples and oranges. We aren't talking about a pronoun refering to an antecedent. We are talking about related concepts that happen to be expressed with words of different genders. 'Cheese' and 'food' are closely related concepts, but that doesn't mean they ahve the same gender in Spanish.
***I don't follow your logic at all. It was God that said these gifts would cease. Even if we take your position that "the perfect" refers to the resurrection, then they would cease by that time, according to your interpretation. It is after the resurrection that the Tribulation takes place. So you end up with the same problem you are accusing me of--no prophecy. Your argument makes no sense. You are speaking of a completely different dispensation where these verses have no application. **
If I mentioned that I am post-trib, things might make more sense. I didn't mean to open up a whole can of words. I guess I'm so used to the order of things in Revelation that I overlooked the fact that so many Baptists are pre-trib.
In the book of Revelation, the resurrection clearly occurs at the end of the tribulation. There is no reference to the resurrection occuring before the Great Tribulation. I have never seen any good scriptural evidence of a pre-trib rapture or a pre-trib resurrection. Jesus spoke of two resurrections. In Revelation, two resurrections occur at the end of the book AFTER the two witnesses.
You still have the same problem, though. You say prophecy has ceased, but yet it will occur at the end. So if you argue that prophecy will cease and start up again, according to scripture, what scriptural argument could you offer to someone who argued that prophecy and tongues started up again around 1900 because we were getting close enough to the Second Coming. This isn't an argument I hold to. But if you say prophecy has ceased, and it is clearly going to happen at the end, what can you say to arguments that prophecy has started back again?
***Paul quoted the prophecy in the context of the gift of tongues. That is all that is needed to know. The prophecy relates to the gift of tongues that was spoken in Acts 2, Acts 10, and Acts 19, the three places where tongues are mentioned in the Book of Acts. We must take the prophecy in the context of what Paul was using it.***
So, do you think the actual point Paul was making is irrelevant to how we interpret his use of OT scripture?
You have two problems with your argument:
1. If tongues is a sign to Jews per se, this is not an argument that tongues will cease.
2. You haven't made a solid case that tongues is a sign of the Jews being dispersed, the temple being destroyed, etc.
There was a short-term fulfillment of God 'speaking to' Jews through foreign tongues when they got dragged away to Babylon. They stayed there for a very long time. Foreignors kept talking to them for a long time. It didn't stop when they were dragged into captivity. It started up on a large scale basis when they went into captivity.
What kind of sign is tongues to unbelievers? One kind of sign is a fullfilled prophecy that people can see fulfilled. For example, if someone prophecies that the sun will go backwards as a sign that the king will live, and the king sees it, it is evidence to the king that he will live. Tongues is a sign to unbelievers. They hear the tongues and don't believe. This is a fulfilled sign because they can look up a prophecy about it- a scripture that says that they will hear tongues and still not believe what God is saying.
Consider the spiritual state of a lot of Jews. Here we are over 1900 years after I Corinthians 14 was written. People are still speaking in tongues, and many Jews still do not believe. So if tongues is a sign specifically to Jews, there is no reason to think that tongues ceased. So many Jews are still in unbelief about what God has said about Christ. Why should tongues have ceased? The Jews didn't suddenly believe in Jesus, and tongues cease, all when the New Testament was written. Your argument doesn't give any Biblical reason to think that tongues has ceased.
Link Hudson
***I understand your point now. The only problem is that the resurrection does not fit the context, and has to be forced in order to be put into the context. Furthermore, "anastasis" the Greek word for "resurrection" is a feminine noun, and therefore could not possibly fit the context. The noun must be a neuter noun: not feminine or masculine--but neuter, as the words or phrase, "that which is perfect" is neuter. "That which is perfect" is come. That particular phrase is in the neuter gender, and therefore requires a neuter noun to refer to.***
Have you ever studied any languages that have gender markings on nouns? Maybe Spanish or French, even? I studied linguistics in college and studied Sanskrit, Classical Armenian, Arabic, Hebrew, and another language or two there. I don't know Greek (and didn't mean to imply that I did earlier.) But it seems obvious to me that you don't know Greek either, and that you don't know what you are talking about in regard to gender markings.
First, "the perfect thing" here is Greek is not a blank to fill in with the word you want. It is a word. So this whole line of reasoning you are following is flawed.
Two words with different gender marking can refer to the same concept. Let me give you an example. Spanish has two gender markings. Masculine words end with 'o' and feminine words end with 'a.' Often females get marked with 'a', but there are plenty of things, ideas, and concepts that have no real gender but get stuck with grammatical gender.
My Spanish is extremely rusty, so I hope I get this right. The word for cheese is 'queso.' And the word for 'food' is 'comida.' The word for cheese takes the masculine ending, 'o' but the word for 'food' takes the feminine, 'a'.
So let's say you are talking in Spanish, and you say you are going to eat 'comida.' Then you say that you are going to eat 'queso.' Will your Spanish speaking friends tel you that you cannot eat queso because queso is a masculine word and comida is feminine, so queso can't be feminine. (Cheese can't be food?) No. That would be nonsensical. Similar concepts can be expressed with different gender words.
Your whole line of reasoning here doesn't make sense at all.
DHK wrote
***To those who believe that the gifts are still for today this verse:
1 Corinthians 12:31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.
--is a command. Covet or desire earnestly the BEST gifts. Tongues was on the bottom of the list, the least important of all the gifts listed. Paul was suggesting that the Corinthians seek after gifts such as prophecy or teahing--the better gifts, not tongues.***
That particular command says to covet earnestly the best gifts. So I wouldn't take it as a command to desire tongues. But it doesn't forbid desiring or praying for tongues either. Since Paul says "I would that ye all spake with tongues' then we can conclude that it is not a sin to pray for tongues. The gift of tongues is a good thing, but they are not as good as gifts like teaching or prophecy, for example.
**The gifts are listed in obvious order of importance. The numerical adverbs tell us that. Tongues is on the bottom of the list--the gift having the least importance in that list. So, yes, of the gifts that are listed in that verse Paul does tell us indirectly that tongues is the least important. ***
Tongues is at the bottom of that particular list. Paul doesn't say that this list of gifts is exhaustive, and it is clear from scripture that there are other gifts. So there may be some gifts not in that list that are lower.
***Paul had the problem he did with the Corinthians because they were abusing the gift. They were using the gift wrongly. They were doing so because they were a carnal church--carnal believers, as he describes in 1Cor.3:1-4.***
Then I think we are more or less in agreement on this point, if we both agree that there is nothing wrong with the gift of tongues.
**Paul used tongues. He used them when they were needed, and only when they were needed. The carnal Corinthians made a show of them, and abused the gift. Paul writes to correct the abuse of this gift. He spends the entire 14th chapter doing so.**
The COrinthians were using the gift wrongly, but I don't see in the chapter where Paul specifies that the reason they did so was to make a show of the gift. Paul tells them to be men in their understanding, in the chapter, rather than children. The implication is that they were misusing tongues because they lacked mature understanding. It is possible that some people jsut wanted to show off. But the issue Paul hit on was their childish understanding. Maybe they spoke in tongues without interpretation because they thought it was a spiritual thing to do, and didn't realize it didn't help the church. This would explain why Paul discusses the issue of edification. Can you find any verse in the context that indicates that the Corinthians misused tongues because their motivation was to show off?
***Chapter 15 is like a different book in itself. It has nothing to do with the previous chapters. Paul, in that chapter, answers questions on the topic of the Resurrection. Some of the Corinthians were at the point of denying the Resurrection. That has nothing to do with Spiritual gifts. Neither does taking your brother to court (ch.6), marital problems (ch. 7), Incest (ch. 5), abuse of the Lord's Supper (ch. 11), etc. ***
I see no reason to accept your assertion that chapter 15 is not related to the previous chapters. Chapter 6 mentiosn that the Corinthians would judge angels, soemthing that will likely occur after ther resurrection. Chapter 2 talks about the things that God has prepared for them that love Him, which have been revealed by the Spirit.
***The problem is: you cannot ignore grammar. Neither can you ignore the phrase "that which is perfect," nor the gender that it is written in. It must refer to something, and it must refer to something that is neuter in gender. ***
Please see above treatment of the gender issue. There is no need to 'plug in' any word, whether resurrection, or Bible, or what have you. The Holy Spirit had Paul write a word there, not a big blank for us to fill in with whatever we wanted. "The perfect" has a meaning of it's own. The question is not "What word are we going to substitute for 'that which is perfect'?" The question is "What is Paul talking about when he refers to "that which is perfect?"
I'd like to clarify my argument. I am not saying that "that which is perfect" is exactly the resurrection, but rather the perfection that will occur at the resurrection or afterward. A lot of things will change at the resurrection. The creation is in childbirth as it were, waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God.
We have not yet seen what we will be. But when He appears, we will be like Him for we shall see Him as He is. Our state at the resurrection will make our current state seem like childhood.
The Holy Spirit had a purpose in writing it that way.
**You don't see the need for a neuter noun or pronoun to refer to another neuter noun? That makes about as much sense as saying: "When this thread reahes 20 pages Gina said that HE himself would close the thread" Good for her. The genders of pronouns and nouns are important. You cannot substitute a feminine noun like "resurrection" for a neuter pronoun and noun like "the perfect thing." If you do you will be insulting Gina by calling her a him. **
You are talking apples and oranges. We aren't talking about a pronoun refering to an antecedent. We are talking about related concepts that happen to be expressed with words of different genders. 'Cheese' and 'food' are closely related concepts, but that doesn't mean they ahve the same gender in Spanish.
***I don't follow your logic at all. It was God that said these gifts would cease. Even if we take your position that "the perfect" refers to the resurrection, then they would cease by that time, according to your interpretation. It is after the resurrection that the Tribulation takes place. So you end up with the same problem you are accusing me of--no prophecy. Your argument makes no sense. You are speaking of a completely different dispensation where these verses have no application. **
If I mentioned that I am post-trib, things might make more sense. I didn't mean to open up a whole can of words. I guess I'm so used to the order of things in Revelation that I overlooked the fact that so many Baptists are pre-trib.
In the book of Revelation, the resurrection clearly occurs at the end of the tribulation. There is no reference to the resurrection occuring before the Great Tribulation. I have never seen any good scriptural evidence of a pre-trib rapture or a pre-trib resurrection. Jesus spoke of two resurrections. In Revelation, two resurrections occur at the end of the book AFTER the two witnesses.
You still have the same problem, though. You say prophecy has ceased, but yet it will occur at the end. So if you argue that prophecy will cease and start up again, according to scripture, what scriptural argument could you offer to someone who argued that prophecy and tongues started up again around 1900 because we were getting close enough to the Second Coming. This isn't an argument I hold to. But if you say prophecy has ceased, and it is clearly going to happen at the end, what can you say to arguments that prophecy has started back again?
***Paul quoted the prophecy in the context of the gift of tongues. That is all that is needed to know. The prophecy relates to the gift of tongues that was spoken in Acts 2, Acts 10, and Acts 19, the three places where tongues are mentioned in the Book of Acts. We must take the prophecy in the context of what Paul was using it.***
So, do you think the actual point Paul was making is irrelevant to how we interpret his use of OT scripture?
You have two problems with your argument:
1. If tongues is a sign to Jews per se, this is not an argument that tongues will cease.
2. You haven't made a solid case that tongues is a sign of the Jews being dispersed, the temple being destroyed, etc.
There was a short-term fulfillment of God 'speaking to' Jews through foreign tongues when they got dragged away to Babylon. They stayed there for a very long time. Foreignors kept talking to them for a long time. It didn't stop when they were dragged into captivity. It started up on a large scale basis when they went into captivity.
What kind of sign is tongues to unbelievers? One kind of sign is a fullfilled prophecy that people can see fulfilled. For example, if someone prophecies that the sun will go backwards as a sign that the king will live, and the king sees it, it is evidence to the king that he will live. Tongues is a sign to unbelievers. They hear the tongues and don't believe. This is a fulfilled sign because they can look up a prophecy about it- a scripture that says that they will hear tongues and still not believe what God is saying.
Consider the spiritual state of a lot of Jews. Here we are over 1900 years after I Corinthians 14 was written. People are still speaking in tongues, and many Jews still do not believe. So if tongues is a sign specifically to Jews, there is no reason to think that tongues ceased. So many Jews are still in unbelief about what God has said about Christ. Why should tongues have ceased? The Jews didn't suddenly believe in Jesus, and tongues cease, all when the New Testament was written. Your argument doesn't give any Biblical reason to think that tongues has ceased.
Link Hudson
I follow your reasoning, but it has a flaw in it.
Let me quote to you the MKJV, a more accurate translation in this case:
But when the perfect thing comes, then that which is in part will be caused to cease.
When I further studied the Greek, I found out that teleios (teleion to be exact) is an adjective. As an adjective it changes genders according to the noun that it defines. In the MKJV the word "thing" is added for clarity, just as the word "that" is added for clarity in the KJV. As an adjective being in the neuter, it must define a neuter object. This is the very reason it cannot define a feminine noun such as resurrection. The word teleion is not a noun in itself, it is an adjective that defines a noun unmentioned but understood in the context. The context is revelation--the revelation of God's Word.
#1. There is no command ever to pray in tongues. That would make the gift of tongues a selfish gift. Tongues is given for edification of the entire church, never for the edification of a single person.
#2. I would that ye all spake in tongues" is a statement taken out of context. It was a rebuke to the Corinthians. Paul was indeed saying the opposite.
1 Corinthians 14:5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, 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.
--The first part of the verse makes no sense without quoting the second part. You have deliberately taken it of context to prove your point that isn't there. Tongues was of no value whatsoever unless there was proper interpretation, and prophesying was the greater gift. Therefore seek to prophesy rather than to speak in tongues. That is the meaning of the verse. Quote the entire verse in its context.
The list may not be completely exhaustive. It doesn't have to be. It does list most of the gifts, and the gifts that were used the most. It gives a good idea of the importance of tongues--one of the least important of all the gifts. It is ironic that Charismatic churches put it as the most important even to the point that you cannot be saved without it.
Yes, there is nothing wrong with as long as it was spoken in the first century.
1 Corinthians 14:19-20 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.
20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
--Paul gives the relative value of tongues. 10,000 to 5; or prophecy was 2,000 times more important than tongues.
In verse 20 he tells them that they were being child-like. What do children like doing? They like to show off. That is what the Corinthians were doing. It was a false spirituality--a form of pride and carnality.
Each chapter deals with its own subject, except for these three 12-14 which are a unit in themselves. Chapter 15 has no bearing on the contents of chapters 12-14. If you don't take my word for it, check some commentaries, NT survey books, NT Introductions, etc. They will all tell you the same thing.
Deal with the context. Paul is not talking about the resurrection. It is no where mentioned, not even once in all three chapters. That is not the subject of these chapters. I have dealt with the gender issue for you. The word in question is an adjective demanding a neuter noun or object. It cannot refer to resurrection which is feminine.
That still does not fit the context. And if you are referring to the coming of Christ, Christ is masculine, not neuter. Context is everything.
Your right in one respect. We are not referring to a pronoun going back to an antecedent. But we are referring to a neuter adjective that requires a neuter object or noun. Your illustration, therefore fails.
The resurrection has nothing to do with the two witnesses of Rev.11 That is a separate event entirely.
Revelation 20:4-6 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
Revelation 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
Revelation 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
The Great White Throne Judgment takes place after the thousand years have passed. It takes place at the time of the second resurrection. The first resurrection takes place before the Tribulation, a thousand years before.
Prophecy in general will not start up again. Who said it will. God will give power of prophecy to his two witnesses. This is a prophecy and a promise in His Word, that is yet unfulfilled. Is there anything so unusual about that. It will happen in different time period than we live in now. Your argument here is non sequitor.
Paul quoted Isa.28:11,12 in relation to the situation of his day, not in relation to Isaiah's day. It was a fulfillment of the time of Paul, not of Isaiah.
Do you have unbelieving Jews present in your church, or in Charismatic churches today looking for tongues to authenticate the gospel message to be of God? I hardly think so. It was a New Testament happening. Look at the context:
Acts 2:15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
Acts 2:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Acts 2:22-23 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
Tongues was a direct sign to the "men of Israel" who had taken Jesus Christ and wickedly crucified him, because of their own belief.
Now they were given another chance to believe the gospel message. Paul says in 1Cor.14:21,22, that in spite of the sign of tongues, they still would not believe. This sign would not continue throughout 20 centuries or ad infinitum. It would cease, as it says it would (13:8), and it did by the end of the first century, or more probably at the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.
You cannot give any evidence that it continues to this day, and that the Jews have it as a sign for today.
That is not a sign. The sign was a miraculous sign. The miraculous sign was the gift of tongues.
The gift of tongues was fulfilled prophecy and it was done in a miraculous way. Speaking in a vernacular language is not a miraculous sign; it is an every day occurrence. It is no sign at all. This is not what Paul was talking about. This is not the context of 1Cor. 14.
The Jews today don't care one iota about the Charismatic movement or tongues. It is not a sign for them today. People speak in "tongues" today whether or not they are present, violating this restriction of Paul. The tongues of today are gibberish. They are not real languages. The make a mockery of the Word of God, and what Paul defines as tongues or real languages. They are fake. They are a modern day cult or phenomena which started at the beginning of the 20th century.
DHK
tamborine lady
Active Member
Link said: In the book of Revelation, the resurrection clearly occurs at the end of the tribulation. There is no reference to the resurrection occuring before the Great Tribulation. I have never seen any good scriptural evidence of a pre-trib rapture or a pre-trib resurrection. Jesus spoke of two resurrections. In Revelation, two resurrections occur at the end of the book AFTER the two witnesses
quote:
--------------------------------------------------
You still have the same problem, though. You say prophecy has ceased, but yet it will occur at the end. So if you argue that prophecy will cease and start up again, according to scripture, what scriptural argument could you offer to someone who argued that prophecy and tongues started up again around 1900 because we were getting close enough to the Second Coming. This isn't an argument I hold to. But if you say prophecy has ceased, and it is clearly going to happen at the end, what can you say to arguments that prophecy has started back again?
--------------------------------------------------
Prophecy in general will not start up again. Who said it will. God will give power of prophecy to his two witnesses. This is a prophecy and a promise in His Word, that is yet unfulfilled. Is there anything so unusual about that. It will happen in different time period than we live in now. Your argument here is non sequitor.
--------------------------------------------------
Are we still in the last days?
When did the last days start?
Acts 2:16-21 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; 17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: 18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: 19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: 20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: 21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Music4Him
--------------------------------------------------
You still have the same problem, though. You say prophecy has ceased, but yet it will occur at the end. So if you argue that prophecy will cease and start up again, according to scripture, what scriptural argument could you offer to someone who argued that prophecy and tongues started up again around 1900 because we were getting close enough to the Second Coming. This isn't an argument I hold to. But if you say prophecy has ceased, and it is clearly going to happen at the end, what can you say to arguments that prophecy has started back again?
--------------------------------------------------
Prophecy in general will not start up again. Who said it will. God will give power of prophecy to his two witnesses. This is a prophecy and a promise in His Word, that is yet unfulfilled. Is there anything so unusual about that. It will happen in different time period than we live in now. Your argument here is non sequitor.
--------------------------------------------------
Are we still in the last days?
When did the last days start?
Acts 2:16-21 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; 17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: 18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: 19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: 20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: 21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Music4Him
Didn't you ask that question already Music4Him?Originally posted by music4Him:
Are we still in the last days?
When did the last days start?
Acts 2:16-21 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; 17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: 18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: 19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: 20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: 21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Music4Him
I thought so.
The last days started at the Day of Pentecost and will end at the end of Tribulation Period with the Second Coming.
DHK
Didn't you ask that question already Music4Him?Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by music4Him:
Are we still in the last days?
When did the last days start?
Acts 2:16-21 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; 17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: 18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: 19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: 20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: 21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Music4Him
I thought so.
The last days started at the Day of Pentecost and will end at the end of Tribulation Period with the Second Coming.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Yes I have but some keep missing it and its so simple.... So then would that still mean that God is still pouring out his Spirit? If so.... according to the above verse prophecy would still be here until the end of the trib?
Music4Him
We may be in the last days. But that is not the point that Peter was making. He was quoting a prophecy that had to do more with the Jews than with us. There was, however, a partial fulfillment of that prophecy on the Day of Pentecost (the beginning of the last days). This is what Peter says;Originally posted by music4Him:
Yes I have but some keep missing it and its so simple.... So then would that still mean that God is still pouring out his Spirit? If so.... according to the above verse prophecy would still be here until the end of the trib?
Music4Him
Acts 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
The meaning here is this is what is fulfilled. This day it has come to pass. The prophecy was partially fulfilled right before their eyes, and will be completely fulfilled at the end of the Tribulation Period when Christ comes.
It is know as a double prophecy, when we get a foretaste of the complete fulfillment at a previous date to the actual fulfillment. This is what happened at Pentecost. It was fulfilled. It is not an ongoing event.
Isa. 7:14 is also a prophecy that was fulfilled. "A virgin shall conceive and bring forth a son..."
Why should we expect the happenings of Pentecost to continue on throughout the centuries any more than we should expect virgins to conceive and bring forth children every day down throughout the centuries. Both are fulfilled prophecies. The Day of Pentecost was a historical event, fulfilled in prophecy. Peter said in verse 16, This is what is prophesied in the prophet Joel. It is being fulfilled before your eyes.
In Romans 11:26, Paul tells that "all Israel shall be saved." That is when Christ will come. In those days we will see the complete fulfillment of Joel's prophecy.
DHK
Hi Link, sorry about the delay in response. I appreciate your you Christ-like debate and enjoy reading your posts.
You Wrote"""""""Edify" in the chapter is a good thing-- building up, and there is no reason to think that Paul is being sarcastic when he says that the one who speaks in tongues is edifying himself. edify means to build up, not try to draw attention to oneself.
It is good to edify oneself. Don't you ever read the Bible, pray, etc. by yourself to build yourself up? That is a good thing, isn't it, even if it doesn't build up the body. Praying in tongues alone is a good thing, even without interpretation, but it is _superior_ to edify the body. He that prophecies is _greater than_ he who speaks in tongues because he edifies the church. It's not bad to build yourself up. But it is better to edify the body.""""""
I don't think Paul was being sarcastic I think he was just stating a fact. "You are using a gift that is meant for the church to edify yourself" That would be wrong. If I give you a box of cookies to share with your Bible study group and you eat them yourself, you have selfishly taken for yourself what was meant for the whole group. That would be a mis-use of the cookies, even if they tasted really really good. I hope that wasn't such a silly example that it didn't make the point. I believe when Paul made the statement about tongue speakers edifying themselves he was giving them the benefit of the doubt that they had the real gift. It is clear he thought many who were speaking in tongues didn't even have the real gift, they just wanted to have it because it made them look important. Much of 1 cor. 12 is dedicated to all gifts being important and some not standing above others. He points out that unseen people in the body are as important as those with seen gifts. That point is why I believe at the end of Chapt. 12 the verse should read "you are seeking after gifts that will get you noticed but I will show you a better way" and then of course Paul speaks on love. I don't believe Paul listed the gifts in order of importance because he just speant a whole chapter making it clear that all the gifts (manifestations of the Spirit) are very important. If anything he says the less seen gifts are more important, so based on that saying to "desire the best gifts", as it is often rendered seems just plain strange to me and defies logic.
Edifying ourself is fine, but not by using a gift that is meant for all. In prayer, listening to music, etc... edifying ourself is just dandy. We are eating the cookie meant just for us. To edify ourself with a spiritual gift is to eat cookies that are meant for all. Hope that clears up my point and makes you hungry at the same time(ha ha).
In Christ,
Brian
You Wrote"""""""Edify" in the chapter is a good thing-- building up, and there is no reason to think that Paul is being sarcastic when he says that the one who speaks in tongues is edifying himself. edify means to build up, not try to draw attention to oneself.
It is good to edify oneself. Don't you ever read the Bible, pray, etc. by yourself to build yourself up? That is a good thing, isn't it, even if it doesn't build up the body. Praying in tongues alone is a good thing, even without interpretation, but it is _superior_ to edify the body. He that prophecies is _greater than_ he who speaks in tongues because he edifies the church. It's not bad to build yourself up. But it is better to edify the body.""""""
I don't think Paul was being sarcastic I think he was just stating a fact. "You are using a gift that is meant for the church to edify yourself" That would be wrong. If I give you a box of cookies to share with your Bible study group and you eat them yourself, you have selfishly taken for yourself what was meant for the whole group. That would be a mis-use of the cookies, even if they tasted really really good. I hope that wasn't such a silly example that it didn't make the point. I believe when Paul made the statement about tongue speakers edifying themselves he was giving them the benefit of the doubt that they had the real gift. It is clear he thought many who were speaking in tongues didn't even have the real gift, they just wanted to have it because it made them look important. Much of 1 cor. 12 is dedicated to all gifts being important and some not standing above others. He points out that unseen people in the body are as important as those with seen gifts. That point is why I believe at the end of Chapt. 12 the verse should read "you are seeking after gifts that will get you noticed but I will show you a better way" and then of course Paul speaks on love. I don't believe Paul listed the gifts in order of importance because he just speant a whole chapter making it clear that all the gifts (manifestations of the Spirit) are very important. If anything he says the less seen gifts are more important, so based on that saying to "desire the best gifts", as it is often rendered seems just plain strange to me and defies logic.
Edifying ourself is fine, but not by using a gift that is meant for all. In prayer, listening to music, etc... edifying ourself is just dandy. We are eating the cookie meant just for us. To edify ourself with a spiritual gift is to eat cookies that are meant for all. Hope that clears up my point and makes you hungry at the same time(ha ha).
In Christ,
Brian
I was just thinking and running some of these ideas by yall, DHK. I will admit that I probley don't know all there is about prophecy, But.........
If prophecy is a forewarning of an event.... you mean to say we don't need that today? Like Jonah was sent to Nineveh to warn the people in 40 days the city would be overthrown. That the people had a chance to listen and change their situation.
You don't think we need that kind of prophecy (for an example: perhaps in America) today?
In the New Testament there are several that hold titles as prophet or prophetess, but there is no book of what they were prophesying. (ie Philips daughters, Anna, the disciples at Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7). Prophecy was a forewarning, but in 1Cor was a means of edifying the church. BTW, I hear some preachers in the pulpit preaching the book of Jonah to the people and telling them they need to turn away from their wickedness....now the question is, if the Lord inspired the preacher to preach it, that kind of preaching is not concidered a type of prophecy?
Music4Him
If prophecy is a forewarning of an event.... you mean to say we don't need that today? Like Jonah was sent to Nineveh to warn the people in 40 days the city would be overthrown. That the people had a chance to listen and change their situation.
You don't think we need that kind of prophecy (for an example: perhaps in America) today?
In the New Testament there are several that hold titles as prophet or prophetess, but there is no book of what they were prophesying. (ie Philips daughters, Anna, the disciples at Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7). Prophecy was a forewarning, but in 1Cor was a means of edifying the church. BTW, I hear some preachers in the pulpit preaching the book of Jonah to the people and telling them they need to turn away from their wickedness....now the question is, if the Lord inspired the preacher to preach it, that kind of preaching is not concidered a type of prophecy?
Music4Him
Briguy,
And this paragraph is to DHK too:
I don't see anything specifically in I Corinthians 14 to say that the Corinthians were speaking in tongues just to get attention. It's possible that was their motivation. Paul considers them to be childish. They may have just had a childish understanding of what they were supposed to do in church. In their ignorance and lack of contemplation of the issue, they may have spoken in tongues without interpretaton because they thought there was something mystical about it, thinking it was profitable if no one could understand it.
Briguy,
I don't see any evidence whatsoever in the passage to indicate that Paul thought they were speaking in fake tongues.
And this paragraph is to DHK too:
I don't see anything specifically in I Corinthians 14 to say that the Corinthians were speaking in tongues just to get attention. It's possible that was their motivation. Paul considers them to be childish. They may have just had a childish understanding of what they were supposed to do in church. In their ignorance and lack of contemplation of the issue, they may have spoken in tongues without interpretaton because they thought there was something mystical about it, thinking it was profitable if no one could understand it.
Briguy,
I don't see any evidence whatsoever in the passage to indicate that Paul thought they were speaking in fake tongues.
DHK wrote,
***Prophecy in general will not start up again. Who said it will. God will give power of prophecy to his two
witnesses. This is a prophecy and a promise in His Word, that is yet unfulfilled. Is there anything so unusual
about that. It will happen in different time period than we live in now. Your argument here is non sequitor.**
Your replies seem like cop outs to me. First of all, Revelation speaks of 'prophets' being killed in contexts
that do not deal with the two witnesses. The fact is that your interpretation has prophecy occuring after
prophecy has already ceased. This doesn't make sense. No matter what 'time period' label you want to put on
the tribulation, it still occurs after the Bible was written. Why would there be prophets among the saints if
prophecy ceased when the Bible was written? Ephesians 4 indicates that prophets are given until we all come
into the unity of the faith, unto the full measure of the stature of Christ. In Revelation, we see that
prophets are still around to get killed.
I had written
***
So, do you think the actual point Paul was making is irrelevant to how we interpret his use of OT scripture?
**
You responded
*Paul quoted Isa.28:11,12 in relation to the situation of his day, not in relation to Isaiah's day. It was a
fulfillment of the time of Paul, not of Isaiah. *
I think you missed my point. Paul quoted the verse and made the point that tongues were a sign to
_unbelievers_- not a sign to the Jews. And I'd like to see some _ scriptural _ reasoning from you as to why
tongues, as a sign to the Jews, would cease. Can you show me scripture that tongues are a sign of the
dswtruction fo the temple, the captivity, etc? Can you show me any scripture that says if tongues is a sign
to the Jews, that it would cease when the scriptures were written? These are things you haven't proven yet.
The burden of proof is on you, since you are using these theolgoical arguments to do away with the relevancy
of commands of scripture like 'forbid not to speak with tongues' and 'let the prophets speak two or three...."
**Do you have unbelieving Jews present in your church, or in Charismatic churches today looking for tongues to
authenticate the gospel message to be of God? I hardly think so. It was a New Testament happening. Look at the
context:**
The passage you quote doesn't talk about Jews looking for tongues to authenticate the Gospel message. They were probably just coming to find out what all the noise was about. I Corinthians 14 doesn't say anything about Jews coming in to a meeting to find tongues to authenticate the Gospel message. It talks about an unbeliever or unlearned person coming into a meeting. And do the tongues they hear make them think the gospel is authenticated? No, they think the speakers are mad. This goes right along with the verse Paul quotes-- 'and yet for all that, they will not hear Me.' The unbeliever who comes in doesn't believe when he hears tongues, just as Isaiah predicts. If he wants a sign, he can find a sign- a fulfilled prophecy- that predicts that the response to tongues will be unbelief.
*Tongues was a direct sign to the "men of Israel" who had taken Jesus Christ and wickedly crucified him,
because of their own belief.
Now they were given another chance to believe the gospel message. Paul says in 1Cor.14:21,22, that in spite of
the sign of tongues, they still would not believe. This sign would not continue throughout 20 centuries or ad
infinitum. It would cease, as it says it would (13:8), and it did by the end of the first century, or more
probably at the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.**
You still haven't offerred any Biblical evidence connecting the idea of tongues as a sign for the Jews to the idea of tongues ceasing. I Corinthians 13 doesn't say anything about tongues being a sign to the Jews, or anything about tongues being a sign at all.
You cannot give any evidence that it continues to this day, and that the Jews have it as a sign for today.**
If people weren't speaking in tongues, there would be little reason for this thread.
*That is not a sign. The sign was a miraculous sign. The miraculous sign was the gift of tongues.*
We have to look at short-term fulfillments of prophecies, too. Even the Immanuel prophecy apparently had a short-term fulfillment in Isaiah's life-time. Not all signs seem miraculous. For example, if Isaiah gave a sign that a certain kind would be defeated, apart from the fact that Isaiah predicted it, a king being defeated does not seem miraculous. One kind of sign is a fulfilled prophecy. For example, if a prophet says thus and so will happen as a sign of something longer term coming to pass, the fulfillment of the short-term rpophecy is a sign tha tthe long-term prophecy will come to pass.
*The Jews today don't care one iota about the Charismatic movement or tongues.**
Since tongues are a sign for unbelievers, we shouldn't expect the unbelieving Jews to repent if they hear speaking in tongues.
** It is not a sign for them today. People speak in "tongues" today whether or not they are present, violating this restriction of Paul.**
You are inventing a 'restriction' that is not in scripture. Paul never requires that Jews be present if tongues are spoken. This is clear from I Corinthians 14. Paul's restrictions on tongues have to do with the presence of interpreters. If all present are Gentiles, Paul's commands still hold true. The speaker in tongues is not allowed to speak in the assembly if there is no interpreter. If there is, he may speak according to the rule laid down in I Corinthians 14:27 and 28, whether or not Jews are present. If he is a Gentile and there is no interpreter present he may still 'speak to himself and to God.' Whether or not he is a Jew is irrelevant. Paul makes no restriction that the speaker in tongues if alone, or those present hearing it, if in church be Jewish.
The tongues of today are gibberish. They are not real languages. The make a mockery of the Word of God, and what Paul defines as tongues or real languages. They are fake. They are a modern day cult or phenomena which
started at the beginning of the 20th century.
DHK
***Prophecy in general will not start up again. Who said it will. God will give power of prophecy to his two
witnesses. This is a prophecy and a promise in His Word, that is yet unfulfilled. Is there anything so unusual
about that. It will happen in different time period than we live in now. Your argument here is non sequitor.**
Your replies seem like cop outs to me. First of all, Revelation speaks of 'prophets' being killed in contexts
that do not deal with the two witnesses. The fact is that your interpretation has prophecy occuring after
prophecy has already ceased. This doesn't make sense. No matter what 'time period' label you want to put on
the tribulation, it still occurs after the Bible was written. Why would there be prophets among the saints if
prophecy ceased when the Bible was written? Ephesians 4 indicates that prophets are given until we all come
into the unity of the faith, unto the full measure of the stature of Christ. In Revelation, we see that
prophets are still around to get killed.
I had written
***
So, do you think the actual point Paul was making is irrelevant to how we interpret his use of OT scripture?
**
You responded
*Paul quoted Isa.28:11,12 in relation to the situation of his day, not in relation to Isaiah's day. It was a
fulfillment of the time of Paul, not of Isaiah. *
I think you missed my point. Paul quoted the verse and made the point that tongues were a sign to
_unbelievers_- not a sign to the Jews. And I'd like to see some _ scriptural _ reasoning from you as to why
tongues, as a sign to the Jews, would cease. Can you show me scripture that tongues are a sign of the
dswtruction fo the temple, the captivity, etc? Can you show me any scripture that says if tongues is a sign
to the Jews, that it would cease when the scriptures were written? These are things you haven't proven yet.
The burden of proof is on you, since you are using these theolgoical arguments to do away with the relevancy
of commands of scripture like 'forbid not to speak with tongues' and 'let the prophets speak two or three...."
**Do you have unbelieving Jews present in your church, or in Charismatic churches today looking for tongues to
authenticate the gospel message to be of God? I hardly think so. It was a New Testament happening. Look at the
context:**
The passage you quote doesn't talk about Jews looking for tongues to authenticate the Gospel message. They were probably just coming to find out what all the noise was about. I Corinthians 14 doesn't say anything about Jews coming in to a meeting to find tongues to authenticate the Gospel message. It talks about an unbeliever or unlearned person coming into a meeting. And do the tongues they hear make them think the gospel is authenticated? No, they think the speakers are mad. This goes right along with the verse Paul quotes-- 'and yet for all that, they will not hear Me.' The unbeliever who comes in doesn't believe when he hears tongues, just as Isaiah predicts. If he wants a sign, he can find a sign- a fulfilled prophecy- that predicts that the response to tongues will be unbelief.
*Tongues was a direct sign to the "men of Israel" who had taken Jesus Christ and wickedly crucified him,
because of their own belief.
Now they were given another chance to believe the gospel message. Paul says in 1Cor.14:21,22, that in spite of
the sign of tongues, they still would not believe. This sign would not continue throughout 20 centuries or ad
infinitum. It would cease, as it says it would (13:8), and it did by the end of the first century, or more
probably at the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.**
You still haven't offerred any Biblical evidence connecting the idea of tongues as a sign for the Jews to the idea of tongues ceasing. I Corinthians 13 doesn't say anything about tongues being a sign to the Jews, or anything about tongues being a sign at all.
You cannot give any evidence that it continues to this day, and that the Jews have it as a sign for today.**
If people weren't speaking in tongues, there would be little reason for this thread.
*That is not a sign. The sign was a miraculous sign. The miraculous sign was the gift of tongues.*
We have to look at short-term fulfillments of prophecies, too. Even the Immanuel prophecy apparently had a short-term fulfillment in Isaiah's life-time. Not all signs seem miraculous. For example, if Isaiah gave a sign that a certain kind would be defeated, apart from the fact that Isaiah predicted it, a king being defeated does not seem miraculous. One kind of sign is a fulfilled prophecy. For example, if a prophet says thus and so will happen as a sign of something longer term coming to pass, the fulfillment of the short-term rpophecy is a sign tha tthe long-term prophecy will come to pass.
*The Jews today don't care one iota about the Charismatic movement or tongues.**
Since tongues are a sign for unbelievers, we shouldn't expect the unbelieving Jews to repent if they hear speaking in tongues.
** It is not a sign for them today. People speak in "tongues" today whether or not they are present, violating this restriction of Paul.**
You are inventing a 'restriction' that is not in scripture. Paul never requires that Jews be present if tongues are spoken. This is clear from I Corinthians 14. Paul's restrictions on tongues have to do with the presence of interpreters. If all present are Gentiles, Paul's commands still hold true. The speaker in tongues is not allowed to speak in the assembly if there is no interpreter. If there is, he may speak according to the rule laid down in I Corinthians 14:27 and 28, whether or not Jews are present. If he is a Gentile and there is no interpreter present he may still 'speak to himself and to God.' Whether or not he is a Jew is irrelevant. Paul makes no restriction that the speaker in tongues if alone, or those present hearing it, if in church be Jewish.
The tongues of today are gibberish. They are not real languages. The make a mockery of the Word of God, and what Paul defines as tongues or real languages. They are fake. They are a modern day cult or phenomena which
started at the beginning of the 20th century.
DHK
M4H, I know you have seen this but the word for prophecy in greek means "to speak before". Not a time issue but as "in front of" others. Sometimes prophecy contained new revelation but once the Bible was complete no more revelation was needed. Prophecy thus became what Paul describes as a speaking gift to build up breathern through encouagement. Future-telling is fortune-telling and is not for the modern Christian.
In Christ,
Brian
In Christ,
Brian
DHK,
**When I further studied the Greek, I found out that teleios (teleion to be exact) is an adjective. As an adjective it changes genders according to the noun that it defines. In the MKJV the word "thing" is added for clarity, just as the word "that" is added for clarity in the KJV. As an adjective being in the neuter, it must define a neuter object. This is the very reason it cannot define a feminine noun such as resurrection.**
[sniff sniff] What's that I smell?
Be honest, here. You don't know what you are talking about. How can you be so insistent that you are right if you don't know what you are saying? Are you more concerned with sticking with your guns and winning a point in an argument than in the truth about Greek?
You wrote,
*As an adjective being in the neuter, it must define a neuter object.* Btw, if
Your argument is nonsensical. IF, and I repeat IF you were arging that a nueter adjective in the actual context of the passage referred to a neuter 'object' then you may have a case. But here, 'teleion' is a word in itself. Neither 'Bible' nor 'resurrection' shows up in the passage.
Btw, you need to consider something else. Sometimes adjectives can be used as nouns. Let me give you an example.
When the perfect comes, that which is in part shall be done away with.
'Perfect' is really an adjective. The KJV says 'deliver us from evil.' Some other translations say 'deliver us from the evil one' with one in parenthesis. Is that an adjective functioning as a noun?
* The word teleion is not a noun in itself, it is an adjective that defines a noun unmentioned but understood in the context. The context is revelation--the revelation of God's Word. *
If what you are saying is true, and adjectives cannot function as nouns, then you are just accusing Paul of using bad grammar. It still doesn't make sense for you to treat the verse as if there is a blank labeled "put a nueter word here!" that you can fill in with the Greek word of your choice that you think would refer to the Bible.
Please, please, if you ever preach, don't pull this kind of stuff in the pulpit. If you don't know what you are talking about, dont' make authorative statements.
Btw, have you picked out a neuter word that means 'Bible' to fill in the blank with? 'Rhema' seems like a pretty weak choice.
**#1. There is no command ever to pray in tongues. That would make the gift of tongues a selfish gift. Tongues is given for edification of the entire church, never for the edification of a single person. **
Please read the chapter more carefully. Look at verse 28. If there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in teh church and let him speak to himself and to God.
**#2. I would that ye all spake in tongues" is a statement taken out of context. It was a rebuke to the Corinthians. Paul was indeed saying the opposite. **
No he isn't. Why do you argue that Paul is saying the opposite of what he is saying?
**1 Corinthians 14:5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, 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.
--The first part of the verse makes no sense without quoting the second part. You have deliberately taken it of context to prove your point that isn't there.**
That's ridiculous. Paul clearly says that he would that they all spoke with tongues. But he would rather that they prophesied. Tongues is good. Prophesying is better. It's clear from the verse. He didn't say that tongues was bad. He wished they spoke with tongues.
** Tongues was of no value whatsoever unless there was proper interpretation, and prophesying was the greater gift.**
Then how do you explain the fact that Paul said that he who speaks in tongues builds himself up, and tells the one who would speak in tongues when there was no interpreter present to 'speak to himself and to God' even if he was to be silent in the church. If there was no value to tongues without interpretation, why would he allow speaking to oneself and to God? Why would he say to the one who spoke in tongues without interpretation 'thou verily givest thanks well." Giving thanks well is a good thing. But praying in tongues doesn't benefit others without interpretation.
** Therefore seek to prophesy rather than to speak in tongues.**
Paul doesn't say that. He says he would that they all spoke in tongues, but rather that they prophesied- tongues is good buy prophecy is better. Not tongues is bad and prophecy is good.
**It gives a good idea of the importance of tongues--one of the least important of all the gifts. It is ironic that Charismatic churches put it as the most important even to the point that you cannot be saved without it.**
I suppose it depends on the Charismatic churchh as to whether they consider tongues to be the most important gift. It seems, though, that you don't know your denominations and movements that well. To my knowledge, I have never encountered someone who called himself 'Charismatic' who believed that one had to speak in tongues to be saved. There is a movement that calls itself 'Apostolic' that believes that, and some of those call themselves 'Pentecostal,' but many adhearats of these groups would not appreciate being grouped with the Charismatic movement. Btw, the vast majority of Pentecostals do not believe this, and reject the idea that you have to speak in tongues to be saved, and various other doctrines of the so-called 'Apostolic' movement.
I wrote,
** Can you find any verse in the context that indicates that the Corinthians misused tongues because their motivation was to show off?**
You replied:
*1 Corinthians 14:19-20 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.
20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
--Paul gives the relative value of tongues. 10,000 to 5; or prophecy was 2,000 times more important than tongues.
In verse 20 he tells them that they were being child-like. What do children like doing? They like to show off. That is what the Corinthians were doing. It was a false spirituality--a form of pride and carnality. *
The verses you quoted don't say anything about whether the Corinthians were doing this to show off. Maybe they didn't understand edification, and so Paul explained to them how much more edifying words people can understand are than words that they cannot. Paul does deal with the issue of pride in I Corinthians, but I don't see a clear cut case for pride, rather than ignorance, as the motivation for the Corinthians misuse of tongues in this passage.
Some children like to show off. But many children act without thinking. Children lack some of the knowledge of adults. They are also immature in their understanding- the issue Paul deas with here. The Corinthians had a problem with their _ understanding_. They needed to understand about edification. Paul corrected this problem. There is no indication here that the Corinthian problem was with showing off. Maybe some of the Corinthians spoke in tongues to show off. It's possible. But I don't see where Paul states that this was the case.
*Each chapter deals with its own subject, except for these three 12-14 which are a unit in themselves. Chapter 15 has no bearing on the contents of chapters 12-14. If you don't take my word for it, check some commentaries, NT survey books, NT Introductions, etc. They will all tell you the same thing.*
I don't see how looking at commentaries, etc. can prove that chapters are not related in a book of scripture. Even if a certain author thought the chapters were unrelated, what would his opinion prove? Do you have any commentaries that argue that I Corinthians is made up of two letters put together, with chapter 15 being part of a different letter than chapters 12-14, as some say about certain parts of II Corinthians? It seems unlikely that anyone would make such an argument. That would be an argument. But if you read a commentator saying that chapters deal with different issues, that isn't really doesn't prove anything. Whether you or a commentator tries to arbitrarily cut chapter 15 off from the rest of the book, it's still arbitrary.
** The Holy Spirit had Paul write a word there, not a big blank for us to fill in with whatever we wanted. "The perfect" has a meaning of it's own. The question is not "What word are we going to substitute for 'that which is perfect'?" The question is "What is Paul talking about when he refers to "that which is perfect?"**
**Deal with the context. Paul is not talking about the resurrection. It is no where mentioned, not even once in all three chapters. That is not the subject of these chapters. I have dealt with the gender issue for you. The word in question is an adjective demanding a neuter noun or object. It cannot refer to resurrection which is feminine. **
Paul describes perfection that will cause him to know as he is known. (I recall that passage that says that know that we known Him, or are known of Him....) The coming of the perfect will be like someone maturing into adulthood. What is important is that we understand what Paul is saying here. Paul is allowed to use words which happen to come with certain grammatical gender forms, since he is using Greek. Related concepts can have words with different gender forms.
*That still does not fit the context. And if you are referring to the coming of Christ, Christ is masculine, not neuter. Context is everything. *
To follow this bizaar line of reasoning, the gender of 'coming of Christ' would depend on the gender of the word 'coming.' But this is a bizaar line of reasoning to try to say that the perfect now serves as a 'blank' that we can fill in with a word with the same grammatical gender marking. It's pure nonsense. Be honest with yourself. DO you really think you know what you are talking about?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I mentioned that I am post-trib, things might make more sense. I didn't mean to open up a whole can of words. I guess I'm so used to the order of things in Revelation that I overlooked the fact that so many Baptists are pre-trib.
In the book of Revelation, the resurrection clearly occurs at the end of the tribulation. There is no reference to the resurrection occurring before the Great Tribulation. I have never seen any good scriptural evidence of a pre-trib rapture or a pre-trib resurrection. Jesus spoke of two resurrections. In Revelation, two resurrections occur at the end of the book AFTER the two witnesses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The resurrection has nothing to do with the two witnesses of Rev.11 That is a separate event entirely. *
The two witnesses, and the 'prophets' of Revelation exist, by your own time table, after you say prophecy is supposed to be done away with.
Revelation 20:4-6 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
(snop)
The Great White Throne Judgment takes place after the thousand years have passed. It takes place at the time of the second resurrection. The first resurrection takes place before the Tribulation, a thousand years before.
Look carefully at the verses you quoted. Your conclusion contradicts the verses you quoted. This resurrection clearly takes place AFTER the tribulation. Why do I say that? Because these people got beheaded for their witness, and among other things NOT WORSHIPPING THE BEAST DURING THE TRIBULATION. Then they participate in the first resurrection. How can these people be resurrected before the tribulation if they die after the tribulation? Aside from an interpretation that includes sending their dead bodies back through time to before the tribulation, I don't see how you can argue for this point of view without getting allegorical.
**When I further studied the Greek, I found out that teleios (teleion to be exact) is an adjective. As an adjective it changes genders according to the noun that it defines. In the MKJV the word "thing" is added for clarity, just as the word "that" is added for clarity in the KJV. As an adjective being in the neuter, it must define a neuter object. This is the very reason it cannot define a feminine noun such as resurrection.**
[sniff sniff] What's that I smell?
Be honest, here. You don't know what you are talking about. How can you be so insistent that you are right if you don't know what you are saying? Are you more concerned with sticking with your guns and winning a point in an argument than in the truth about Greek?
You wrote,
*As an adjective being in the neuter, it must define a neuter object.* Btw, if
Your argument is nonsensical. IF, and I repeat IF you were arging that a nueter adjective in the actual context of the passage referred to a neuter 'object' then you may have a case. But here, 'teleion' is a word in itself. Neither 'Bible' nor 'resurrection' shows up in the passage.
Btw, you need to consider something else. Sometimes adjectives can be used as nouns. Let me give you an example.
When the perfect comes, that which is in part shall be done away with.
'Perfect' is really an adjective. The KJV says 'deliver us from evil.' Some other translations say 'deliver us from the evil one' with one in parenthesis. Is that an adjective functioning as a noun?
* The word teleion is not a noun in itself, it is an adjective that defines a noun unmentioned but understood in the context. The context is revelation--the revelation of God's Word. *
If what you are saying is true, and adjectives cannot function as nouns, then you are just accusing Paul of using bad grammar. It still doesn't make sense for you to treat the verse as if there is a blank labeled "put a nueter word here!" that you can fill in with the Greek word of your choice that you think would refer to the Bible.
Please, please, if you ever preach, don't pull this kind of stuff in the pulpit. If you don't know what you are talking about, dont' make authorative statements.
Btw, have you picked out a neuter word that means 'Bible' to fill in the blank with? 'Rhema' seems like a pretty weak choice.
**#1. There is no command ever to pray in tongues. That would make the gift of tongues a selfish gift. Tongues is given for edification of the entire church, never for the edification of a single person. **
Please read the chapter more carefully. Look at verse 28. If there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in teh church and let him speak to himself and to God.
**#2. I would that ye all spake in tongues" is a statement taken out of context. It was a rebuke to the Corinthians. Paul was indeed saying the opposite. **
No he isn't. Why do you argue that Paul is saying the opposite of what he is saying?
**1 Corinthians 14:5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, 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.
--The first part of the verse makes no sense without quoting the second part. You have deliberately taken it of context to prove your point that isn't there.**
That's ridiculous. Paul clearly says that he would that they all spoke with tongues. But he would rather that they prophesied. Tongues is good. Prophesying is better. It's clear from the verse. He didn't say that tongues was bad. He wished they spoke with tongues.
** Tongues was of no value whatsoever unless there was proper interpretation, and prophesying was the greater gift.**
Then how do you explain the fact that Paul said that he who speaks in tongues builds himself up, and tells the one who would speak in tongues when there was no interpreter present to 'speak to himself and to God' even if he was to be silent in the church. If there was no value to tongues without interpretation, why would he allow speaking to oneself and to God? Why would he say to the one who spoke in tongues without interpretation 'thou verily givest thanks well." Giving thanks well is a good thing. But praying in tongues doesn't benefit others without interpretation.
** Therefore seek to prophesy rather than to speak in tongues.**
Paul doesn't say that. He says he would that they all spoke in tongues, but rather that they prophesied- tongues is good buy prophecy is better. Not tongues is bad and prophecy is good.
**It gives a good idea of the importance of tongues--one of the least important of all the gifts. It is ironic that Charismatic churches put it as the most important even to the point that you cannot be saved without it.**
I suppose it depends on the Charismatic churchh as to whether they consider tongues to be the most important gift. It seems, though, that you don't know your denominations and movements that well. To my knowledge, I have never encountered someone who called himself 'Charismatic' who believed that one had to speak in tongues to be saved. There is a movement that calls itself 'Apostolic' that believes that, and some of those call themselves 'Pentecostal,' but many adhearats of these groups would not appreciate being grouped with the Charismatic movement. Btw, the vast majority of Pentecostals do not believe this, and reject the idea that you have to speak in tongues to be saved, and various other doctrines of the so-called 'Apostolic' movement.
I wrote,
** Can you find any verse in the context that indicates that the Corinthians misused tongues because their motivation was to show off?**
You replied:
*1 Corinthians 14:19-20 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.
20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
--Paul gives the relative value of tongues. 10,000 to 5; or prophecy was 2,000 times more important than tongues.
In verse 20 he tells them that they were being child-like. What do children like doing? They like to show off. That is what the Corinthians were doing. It was a false spirituality--a form of pride and carnality. *
The verses you quoted don't say anything about whether the Corinthians were doing this to show off. Maybe they didn't understand edification, and so Paul explained to them how much more edifying words people can understand are than words that they cannot. Paul does deal with the issue of pride in I Corinthians, but I don't see a clear cut case for pride, rather than ignorance, as the motivation for the Corinthians misuse of tongues in this passage.
Some children like to show off. But many children act without thinking. Children lack some of the knowledge of adults. They are also immature in their understanding- the issue Paul deas with here. The Corinthians had a problem with their _ understanding_. They needed to understand about edification. Paul corrected this problem. There is no indication here that the Corinthian problem was with showing off. Maybe some of the Corinthians spoke in tongues to show off. It's possible. But I don't see where Paul states that this was the case.
*Each chapter deals with its own subject, except for these three 12-14 which are a unit in themselves. Chapter 15 has no bearing on the contents of chapters 12-14. If you don't take my word for it, check some commentaries, NT survey books, NT Introductions, etc. They will all tell you the same thing.*
I don't see how looking at commentaries, etc. can prove that chapters are not related in a book of scripture. Even if a certain author thought the chapters were unrelated, what would his opinion prove? Do you have any commentaries that argue that I Corinthians is made up of two letters put together, with chapter 15 being part of a different letter than chapters 12-14, as some say about certain parts of II Corinthians? It seems unlikely that anyone would make such an argument. That would be an argument. But if you read a commentator saying that chapters deal with different issues, that isn't really doesn't prove anything. Whether you or a commentator tries to arbitrarily cut chapter 15 off from the rest of the book, it's still arbitrary.
** The Holy Spirit had Paul write a word there, not a big blank for us to fill in with whatever we wanted. "The perfect" has a meaning of it's own. The question is not "What word are we going to substitute for 'that which is perfect'?" The question is "What is Paul talking about when he refers to "that which is perfect?"**
**Deal with the context. Paul is not talking about the resurrection. It is no where mentioned, not even once in all three chapters. That is not the subject of these chapters. I have dealt with the gender issue for you. The word in question is an adjective demanding a neuter noun or object. It cannot refer to resurrection which is feminine. **
Paul describes perfection that will cause him to know as he is known. (I recall that passage that says that know that we known Him, or are known of Him....) The coming of the perfect will be like someone maturing into adulthood. What is important is that we understand what Paul is saying here. Paul is allowed to use words which happen to come with certain grammatical gender forms, since he is using Greek. Related concepts can have words with different gender forms.
*That still does not fit the context. And if you are referring to the coming of Christ, Christ is masculine, not neuter. Context is everything. *
To follow this bizaar line of reasoning, the gender of 'coming of Christ' would depend on the gender of the word 'coming.' But this is a bizaar line of reasoning to try to say that the perfect now serves as a 'blank' that we can fill in with a word with the same grammatical gender marking. It's pure nonsense. Be honest with yourself. DO you really think you know what you are talking about?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I mentioned that I am post-trib, things might make more sense. I didn't mean to open up a whole can of words. I guess I'm so used to the order of things in Revelation that I overlooked the fact that so many Baptists are pre-trib.
In the book of Revelation, the resurrection clearly occurs at the end of the tribulation. There is no reference to the resurrection occurring before the Great Tribulation. I have never seen any good scriptural evidence of a pre-trib rapture or a pre-trib resurrection. Jesus spoke of two resurrections. In Revelation, two resurrections occur at the end of the book AFTER the two witnesses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The resurrection has nothing to do with the two witnesses of Rev.11 That is a separate event entirely. *
The two witnesses, and the 'prophets' of Revelation exist, by your own time table, after you say prophecy is supposed to be done away with.
Revelation 20:4-6 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
(snop)
The Great White Throne Judgment takes place after the thousand years have passed. It takes place at the time of the second resurrection. The first resurrection takes place before the Tribulation, a thousand years before.
Look carefully at the verses you quoted. Your conclusion contradicts the verses you quoted. This resurrection clearly takes place AFTER the tribulation. Why do I say that? Because these people got beheaded for their witness, and among other things NOT WORSHIPPING THE BEAST DURING THE TRIBULATION. Then they participate in the first resurrection. How can these people be resurrected before the tribulation if they die after the tribulation? Aside from an interpretation that includes sending their dead bodies back through time to before the tribulation, I don't see how you can argue for this point of view without getting allegorical.
Do you have any scriptural support for that last statement?
A good rule of thumb understanding of the nature of prophecy I like to refer to in the Bible is when Peter said that the holy men of old 'spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.' That is how the prohpets who wrote the scriptures prophesied, and I believe that is a good description of most prophesying (aside from prophesying on instruments and things of that nature)-- speaking as moved by the Holy Ghost.
I have a question for you. Since the Holy Ghost sometimes moved on men in both Old and New Testament times to speak about the future, why would He not do so today? Doesn't the Spirit have the right to talk about anything He wants to? Since there is so much scriptural precedent for predictive prophecy, how can we despise a prophecy just because it is predictive in nature?