Amen sister!!!The greatest feeling on earth is when Christ comes into your life you surrender your all to Him and you go down to the water in Jesus name rising up speaking with a new tongue you haven't learn but He gave it to you...... Iam also a living testimony of His love ....I received the Holy Ghost at the age of 6 baptized in Jesus name and is faithfully serving him now for 19 years.
This is the best experience that any person can possibly have on this earth...Be baptized in the name of Jesus and you SHALL receive the gift of the holy ghost
don't knock something that you have sought yourself...the Holy Ghost and speaking tongues is VERY real...if u don't believe that your choice but this young lady chose Gods way...I'm an ex drug addict and I've never experienced anything better than the gift of the Holy Ghost...she's obeying Acts 2:38 kjv
this is a gift of god , for those who dont believe why do you watch the video? and have negative comments god is one and we are all created by the God and full of gifts.
Dear friend, thank you for your comment. I need to say much more. I never grew up in any church. Yet, I always felt the assurance that YES there is a God, Someone up there. And thank God there is One. Amen. My attempts to join a church usually ended in a disaster. Oh how many they were indeed! Does it mean I am OK without a church? Absolutely no. But it needs to be a right, GODLY church, Biblical. Otherwise, better do as you do: going solo, relying on your genuine innate desire to seek God and to know Him. Should I try to tell you how many churches turned out to be a sheer waste of time - it will be a very lengthy discussion. IF you have free time, it might be ok-ish to spend time in a church, rather than in a club. But if you intend to grow and mature spiritually, then the church has to be RIGHT. Fact. At least Biblically/scripturally correct. How do we know it? Well, IF we read His Word ourselves, we would surely know the difference and smell the rat. However, these days they cover up so well; and this is what the Bible warns us about. I grew up in a post-soviet area, the communist period, and I was blessed to discover God/be touched by Him. On top of that, I am of Jewish descent, and my family miraculously survived the Second World War, when great-grandparents wisely hid their kids and "borrowed" some other kids to show them off, so that the Natzi would not destroy them. Miracle through His prompting in time, which saved their life, and that is how I was born, their grandchild. I felt this urge, a responsibility to read and know His Word. "Jesus is for the Jews, too" it is a well-known motto these days. Spending years abroad, including the UK, I was saddened by the crafty work of the evil one: hardly any churhces measure up to what I ideally desire them to be. The same I faced in post-soviet countries lately. The so-called charismatics boom here - and it gave me a hope at first that some godly truth might be found there - actually proved to be false, too. The Bible says to enter through the narrow door and to test everything!! What do you do in a church? What did they teach you there today? IF you are not too sure about its goodness, please, stay away from it, and PRAY, asking God to guide you, to show you the way, the way to a good church etc. True, Christianity is not a solitude religion. Yet, we must look at Jesus . What did He do? THE ANSWER is: Jesus was displeased, even angry about some churches, and when He needed to pray He did it quietly, alone, in the morning, etc. I recommend to test everything. Of course, I genuinely desire a Christianity boom world-wide. Yet, if you READ HIS WORD, you see what God foretold. A narrow door, narrow path, wisdom. His Spirit can guide you in all truth. I am sure He can and will. Why? Simply because our God is a jealous God, and He wants everyone to come to know Him. Jesus promised to not lose His sheep. We are to trust Him, His guidance, and to be faithful. God is faithful, and let us be faithful, too. Amen. God richly bless you and protect you always. Amen. darleoj27@gmail.com .
MY Baptism: I was older, I received the gift of the holy Ghost later. God is So Great! This woman is filled with the Holy Ghost! All! Demons come out at your batiment. They can not enter the Holy waters of baptism.
HELLO THIS IS THE ONE THAT FILMED THE VIDEO TO SHOW THAT THIS STUFF IS REALLY REAL AND SHE IS MY SISTER I PERSONALLY KNOW SHE WOULD NEVER BE CAUGHT IN A CROWD OR EVER THE CENTER OF ATTENTION THIS REALLY HAPPENED AND THANK EVERYONE FKR LEAVING COMMENTS THAT HAD SAID SOMETHING GOOD FOR GOD IS GOOD BUT TO THE OTHERS THAT HAVE LEFT BAD REVEIWS AND SAID THIS IS DEMONIC IM SORRY BUT ITS NOT AND BY YOUR WORDS YOU HAVE DESTROYED THIS YOUNG GIRL AND MY SISTER WHERE SHE DOESNT WANT TO CLAIM TO BE A CHRISTIAN BECAUSE OF THE LYING COMMENTS AND NEG REVIEWS YOU HAVE LEFT OVER THE YEARS SHE WILL NOT EVEN LOOK AT IT BECAUSE OF YOU IF WE ARE GONNA CLAIM TO SERVE CHRIST LIVE LIKE ONE EVEN IF THIS WAS A LIE ACT LIKE JESUS NOT LIKE THE ENEMY THIS IS WHO WE ARE CALLED TO BE CHRIST LIKE ...
No need to argue for these scriptures basically explain all that is here 2Corinthians 3-4,Acts 2v4,Acts 2v38, so pray for them which do not believe that God will give them that revelation,its just as Saul that was persecuting Christians until the Lord revealed himself to him.
Isaiah 53:5, he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes, we are healed. For salvation, people just need to follow the way they did it in Acts? They were baptized in the water and of the spirit. Here's why! The gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. If we are to follow him, we must do the same thing. Death= repentance, Burial = baptism, and resurrection = being filled and rising again from the dead. That's what Acts 2:38 is. We must obey the gospel, 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that OBEY NOT THE GOSPEL of our Lord Jesus Christ... Matthew 7:21-23, Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven; but he that DOETH THE WILL OF MY FATHER which is in Heaven. St John 3:3-5, EXCEPT a man be born of WATER AND OF THE SPIRIT, he cannot enter into the kingdom of GOD. We can't come up with our own gospel. Galatians 1:8-9, But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Don't be cursed. One way for all people. Jews, Gentiles, and Samaritan. Our salvation has to match-up with the scriptures and no scriptures on the subject can be taken away. Eternity is TOOO long to be WRONG! st John 5:39, Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. The gospels show what Christ has done on the cross for us. The book of Acts shows us the beginning of Christ's Church and how to enter the Church, obeying Acts 2:38. The letters were written to the Church to show us how to behave now that we are born again into the Church. It's better to walk alone than to walk with a crowd going in the wrong direction. Are we supposed to follow the teachings of the apostles? Acts 2:42, They continued steadfastly in the apostle's doctrines. Ephesians 2:20, We are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone. Don't get Titus 3:5 mixed up with James 2:14-26, about WORKS. One is a WORK of your OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS OR GOOD DEEDS and the other is a WORK OF FAITH, Obedience to God's command. If you believe in this message, help spread it in the name of Jesus Christ so people can get saved the right way. God bless you!
I do not understand why everybody has to be so negative towards my baptism if you don’t have nothing nice to say, you can definitely go about your day. Thank you!
*@Courtney Whitt... It's not about negativity it's about telling the truth. Putting syllables together is not speaking in tongues. The bible tells us the Holy Spirit gave them utterance they didn't give themselves utterance.*
So saying my baptism is Hysterical, ridiculous, & that I’m demonic isn’t negative? Yes everybody is aloud to have their own opinions but if you really and truly don’t have nothing nice to say you can get off my video. Again thank you! :)
*@Courtney Whitt..... I can't speak for anyone else, the problem I have is with the speaking in tongues. Speaking in tongues is not something you do yourself, the Holy Spirit does the speaking in tongues out of your mouth, it's never ever something you do yourself.*
*@Courtney Whitt.... I know that's what they told you, but when YOU put a bunch of syllables together, that's just you doing that, that is not the Holy Ghost, but have a great night the true will make you free.*
Part 1 of 3 - In the Pentecostal/Charismatic tradition, I believe the sequence goes something like this: being “saved” equates to being “Baptized in the Spirit”, and being baptized in the Spirit itself is initially ‘evidenced’ (though not always immediately) by a phenomenon called “speaking in tongues”. The ‘model’ for this seems to be based upon the Pentecost narrative found in Acts. A comparison of the narrative to the modern tradition seems to result in some obvious discrepancies which begs the question of whether the ‘model’ appears to be followed merrily in the spirit of the narrative rather than in strict adherence to it. If we examine the Pentecost narrative, the baptism of the Holy Spirit occurred such that the experience consisted of three distinct ‘components’, so to speak: a strong wind followed by tongues of fire. After these two ‘components’ occurred, the apostles may be said to have been filled with the Holy Spirit. Almost immediately after that, we see the final ‘component’: they began “speaking in other tongues”. Further, I do not believe that there is any doubt that what was spoken was real, rational language. If the Pentecostal narrative is the ‘model’ for the modern experience, it seems reasonable to suggest that when people get “baptized in the Spirit” today, that all three elements/components referenced in the narrative (including the results with respect to “tongues”) should also occur to have a true “Baptism in the Holy Spirit”; i.e. it’s an all or nothing situation. Yet, the only necessary component seems to be the ‘evidence’ of “speaking in tongues” (and said “tongues” are never a real rational language). Why are the other two criteria/components discarded and not required to also occur? This seeming discrepancy however, appears to be easily reconciled. One may point to other Bible passages where these first two elements obviously never occurred and people were still said to be baptized in the Holy Spirit and then “spoke in tongues”. This mirrors the current practice today. But, conversely, one may also point to Bible passages where people were said to be baptized in the Holy Spirit yet there was absolutely zero mention of “tongues”, or much of anything else for that matter. Even at the original event itself, there were around 3,000 people who were converted. If these 3,000 were 'baptized in the Spirit', one would think that, according to Pentecostal/Charismatic belief, they should have started “speaking in tongues”. Yet nothing of the sort is recorded. Certainly 3,000+ people “speaking in tongues" would at least merit a sentence or two in the narrative (?). Further, “baptism of the Holy Spirit” is mentioned in the New Testament epistles only one time; in 1 Cor. 12:13. It is described in the past tense and ‘evidence of tongues’ is not mentioned at all. How is this reconciled with the modern understanding/concept? How does one reconcile something like John 20:22 where people received the Holy Spirit by Christ himself…yet we see zero mention of tongues, or Paul’s statement that not everyone will speak in tongues? To suggest “speaking in tongues” as initial evidence of being baptized in the Holy Spirit, doesn’t seem to stand up to documented (scriptural) examples as “tongues” are definitely not evidenced ‘across the board’. So, which is it - it seems that for every example of people being baptized in the Spirit with initial evidence of “tongues”, there are people being baptized in the Spirit with absolutely zero evidence of “tongues”. Replace archaic “tongues” with the more modern “languages” and the whole phrase “baptism in the Spirit with initial evidence of language” doesn’t seem to make much sense. The bottom line seems to be that the concept of “evidence of tongues” in conjunction with baptism in the Holy Spirit does not seem to be a very consistent one. Indeed, such ‘evidence’, or lack thereof, suggests that “tongues” are in fact not at all what Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians believe them to be.
John Chapter 10 27My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. Ephesians 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
I posted this video yrs ago from my old RU-vid account man God is Good and this is real and this is my sister it really happened and she was scared to be in any crowd much less singles out and she didn't take this if anyone doesn't believe this I'm telling you seek God with all your heart and deny yourself pick up your cross and follow him this will a can happen to you all thing are possible to him that believes amen to you all keep this Going it's not the devil I've seen real deliverance and that's total different I was the one taking the video never knew I would have 30,000 views
I beg you if you lead someone to jesus and they can speak in tongues please tell them that they dont have to be in church to exercise that gift..I was 14 when I was baptized and due to a turbulent home front and troubles at school I walked away..how I wish I could come back..
Part 2 of 3 - If the history of the Pentecost movement is examined, one fact is very clear: at some point between 1906 and 1907, Pentecostal/Charismatic leaders were compelled to re-examine the narrative of Scripture with respect to “tongues” and what it is they were doing since their original supposition, xenoglossy, certainly wasn’t it. This forced a serious theological dilemma - As a whole, either the Pentecostal movement would have to admit it was wrong about “tongues”, or the modern experience needed to be completely redefined. It seems the latter option was chosen. The resulting implicit theology however was not a synthesis of revelation and philosophy, but rather a synthesis of trying to make sense of the modern “tongues experience” in light of the narrative of Scripture. A way to legitimize and justify the modern phenomenon by ‘proofing’ it in the Bible. The problem with this undertaking however, was an obvious overwhelming absence therein of anything resembling modern tongues. Call it what you will, but for this group of Christians the result was a virtual re-definition of Scripture with respect to the understanding and justification of modern “tongues”; a re-interpretation and subsequent teaching of select texts to fit the modern practice/connotation of what ”tongues” was perceived to be. The plain fact however, is that the “tongues” Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians are producing today is an entirely self-created phenomenon. It is non-cognitive non-language utterance; random free vocalization based upon a subset of the existing sounds (phonemes) of the speaker’s native language, and any other language(s) the speaker may be familiar with or have had contact with. It is, in part, typically characterized by repetitive syllables, plays on sound patterns and over-simplification of syllable structure. One of the more noticeable results of these processes is that no two ‘speakers’ will ever have the same “tongue”. With respect to the modern phenomenon, what Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians are doing today, 150 years ago, did not exist as a part of the Christian tradition. People believe something to be supernatural because they can't explain it otherwise. There are, of course, many things in religion which must be taken on faith; they can neither be proved nor disproved. "Tongues" however, is not one of these things. It is something very tangible; it is a phenomenon which can be (and has been) studied and analyzed. There is absolutely _nothing_ that “tongues-speakers” are producing that cannot easily be explained in natural and/or linguistic terms. Conversely, when it comes to something spoken, there are absolutely no Biblical references to “tongues” that do not refer to, and cannot be explained in light of, real rational language(s). With respect to the scriptural re-definitions mentioned above, two of the best examples of this are the phrase “praying in the Spirit”, and the word “tongue(s)” itself. Praying in the Spirit does _not_ refer to the words one is saying. Rather, it refers to _how_ one is praying. In the three places it is used (Corinthians, Ephesians, and Jude), there is absolutely no reference to 'languages' in connection with this phrase. “Praying in the Spirit” should be understood as praying in the power of the Spirit, by the leading of the Spirit, and according to His will. In Pentecostal/Charismatic parlance however, the phase has come to be equated with modern “tongues”, i.e. when one “prays in the Spirit”, one is typically engaged in tongues-speech. The word “tongue(s)” itself is simply a more archaic word for (real) “language(s)”, nothing more. Replace “tongue(s)” with “language(s)” in these passages and the whole modern Pentecostal/Charismatic concept of “tongues” begins to become difficult to posit - “language(s)” sounds a lot less mysterious, and in many cases, adds more clarity to the text. Again, in Pentecostal/Charismatic parlance however, the word has come to be equated with the modern concept of “tongues-speech”. The above examples typify this result of reading into Scripture of something that just isn’t there. “Tongues” is simply not what its ‘speakers’ want/need it to be. Modern tongues is just another tool, like chanting or meditation, etc.; a way by which one may establish a closer relationship with the divine and strengthen one’s spiritual path. In this respect (i.e. as the _tool_ it is), it can be quite powerful one to accomplish these goals, as attested by many of those who use it. Most people who use ‘tongues’ are very keen on describing the ‘experience’; however, when examining the “mechanics” behind it, not so much. Indeed, when a person has experienced tongues, s/he is absolutely convinced as to the ‘scripturalness’ of his/her experience and the correctness of his/her doctrinal beliefs - this, despite the overwhelming scriptural absence of anything remotely akin to it. Mind you, I'm not doubting or questioning the 'experience'; as mentioned, glossolalia as the tool that it is, can be very powerful. It is important to note however that this same statement can be made for virtually any other culture that practices glossolalia. “Tongues” is to some Christian believers a very real and spiritually meaningful experience, but consisting of emotional release via non-linguistic ‘free vocalizations’ at best - the subconscious playing with sounds to create what is perceived and interpreted as actual, meaningful speech. In _some_ cases, I would argue that it is clearly a self/mass delusion prompted by such a strong desire to “experience God” that one creates that experience. It is interesting to note that certain types of schizophrenia will present with glossolalia. Why is it that when schizophrenics produce glossolalia, it is immediately recognized and labeled as “nonsense” and quickly dismissed; but when Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians engage in glossolalia (producing the exact same thing in the exact same way), it is deemed ‘sacred’ or “divine”? The common tongues-speakers’ catchphrase of “We don’t know what we’re saying…but it’s profound.” just doesn’t stand up. Known by many different names, “tongues”, or more accurately “glossolalia”, is practiced by many cultures and religious beliefs from all over the world; it is relatively new to Christianity and certainly not unique to it.
If you had studied the beginnings of the American Pentecostal movement, you would have found the story of a group of bible students in California in 1906, who spent an entire weekend praying and fasting for the genuine gift of the Holy Spirit and its evidence. What they found was the experience of speaking in other tongues, only challenged by those who never had the experience. Acts 10 gives the discourse of a non jewish God fearing man and his household. This man had been praying to God regularly and giving to the poor. As a result of this, his praying and giving was the thing that got God's attention. The household of Cornelius was blessed to have Peter (through divine appointment) come and preach the gospel to them. While Peter was yet preaching, the Holy Ghost fell upon them just like it did on Peter and the disciples in the upper room (Acts chapter 2). Peter acknowledged them speaking in other languages/tongues (but how would Peter know it was other languages....Peter the fisherman likely only spoke Aramaic and Greek). But because they had been filled with the spirit and spoke in other tongues/languages, he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus. *FUN FACT* there are approximately 6500 different languages in the world *more fun facts* missionaries have had the unique experience of seeing people speak in tongues from Holy Ghost in areas of the world that do not speak english..... and heard them speak english .....and it was only one phrase "blessed be your Holy name". We fear what we do not understand. I understand this can mess with a lifelong belief about speaking in other tongues and be fearful to know that you did not speak in tongues and may not be filled/sealed with God's spirit. This could scare anyone. But as with Apollo and Priscilla and Aquilla..... just have a humble attitude and ask God about it. Using human intellect to understand the heavenlies will hinder your walk with God.
@@bigbertha4080 Post 1 of 2 - Due to length, I will need to comment with two posts - _If you had studied the beginnings of the American Pentecostal movement, you would have found the story of a group of bible students in California in 1906, who spent an entire weekend praying and fasting for the genuine gift of the Holy Spirit and its evidence. What they found was the experience of speaking in other tongues, only challenged by those who never had the experience._ With respect to Azusa Street, I would argue that this was clearly a self/mass delusion prompted by such a strong desire to “experience God” that these people created that experience via “tongues”. If the history of the Pentecost movement is examined, one fact is very clear: at some point, between 1906 and 1907, the Pentecostal church was compelled to re-examine the narrative of Scripture with respect to “tongues”. The reason for this re-examination was that it quickly became embarrassingly obvious that their original supposition, and fervent belief in tongues as xenoglossy, certainly wasn’t what they were producing. As a result of things like Azusa Street, early Pentecostal missions were sent all over the world. The issue was that no one bothered to learn the language of the country they were going to, as they firmly believed their “tongues” were these languages. In not one instance was anyone able to even carry on the most basics of simple everyday conversation, let alone preach the gospels. Not much has been recorded about the failure of these missions - you kind of have to hunt it down. This forced a serious theological dilemma - As a whole, either the Pentecostal movement would have to admit it was wrong about “tongues”, or the modern experience needed to be completely redefined. It seems the latter option was chosen. One would think it impossible to study the history of Pentecostalism without, at the very least, a cursory look at this ‘tongues issue’. Because the Pentecostal doctrine and understanding on tongues was completely redefined, this would seem to present a problem - how can something like this be taught by Pentecostals to Pentecostals, or other denominations that adhere to ‘tongues’? The answer is not overly surprising. The entire issue seems to have been conveniently ‘forgotten about’, and for all intents and purposes, swept under the rug. Very few, indeed if any, Pentecostals are taught about this issue, and in my experience, most aren’t even aware that it ever existed in the first place. One is left to deduce that it represents a chapter in the history of the early Pentecostal church that many would like to just forget. In redefining “tongues”, Pentecostals looked to primary and secondary source works for an alternative explanation. It is during this time that, that (mainly) five German scholars promoted a fresh new approach to Biblical interpretation that purposely tried to avoid the trappings of traditional and enforced interpretations of Biblical texts, collectively known as “Higher Criticism”. Part of this tradition was examining “tongues” as ecstatic utterance, rather than the supposed xenoglossy as understood by mainstream Christianity for centuries. As a quick aside, an important thing to note is that, prior to 1879, the term ‘glossolalia’ did not exist - it is a word coined by English theologian, Frederick Farrar (Dean of Canterbury) in 1879 in one of his publications. The Pentecostal solution to the issue was an adaptation from the works of Farrar, Schaff and a few others. These ideas were further ‘tweaked’ to more adequately fit their new notion of tongues. From this, the concept of “prayer language” as an explanation for the modern phenomenon of tongues-speech was formed. Over a short period of time, a Pentecostal apologetic was built. The emergence of the term “utterance” was strongly emphasized - it kept the definition ambiguous as it allowed for a variety of definitions beyond real, rational language, it was something sort of related to language, and could be defended more easily. “Utterance” fit much better in the Pentecostal paradigm and did not require empirical evidence. ‘Natural Praise’ and ‘adoration’ became a feature of ‘tongues’, and then ‘heavenly’ or ‘prayer language’ further broadened the definition. The term ‘glossolalia’ was transferred in from academia and was given a Pentecostal definition. In short, the tongues doctrine simply shifted into new semantics without any explanation. Xenoglossy one day, “prayer language” the next. The resulting implicit theology however was not a synthesis of revelation and philosophy, but rather a synthesis of trying to make sense of the modern “tongues experience” in light of the narrative of Scripture. A way to legitimize and justify the modern phenomenon by ‘proofing’ it in the Bible. The problem with this however, was an obvious overwhelming absence therein of anything resembling modern tongues. Call it what you will, but for this group of Christians, the result was a virtual re-definition of scripture with respect to the understanding and justification of modern “tongues”; a re-interpretation of select Biblical texts to fit the modern practice/connotation of what ”tongues” was/is perceived to be. What is amazing to me is how absolutely none of this is taught. It’s a topic that today is completely glossed over and conveniently forgotten about in Pentecostal/Charismatic circles. Whether one is interested in this part of Pentecostal history or not, this redefinition has heavily influenced many other Christian denominations that adhere to the modern tongues phenomenon; specifically, it is from this historical doctrinal change that various modern Christian denominations’ belief in tongues, ultimately originated. Peter & Cornelius will be Post 2. _FUN FACT there are approximately 6500 different languages in the world_ Correct, and as a linguist, I can add another fun fact - not one of them sounds like modern tongues-speech. Literally thousands of examples of tongues-speech have been studied and analyzed - not one has ever been found to be a real, rational languages, living or dead. Indeed, not one has ever been found to be ‘language’ - modern tongues speech is non-cognitive non-language utterance. _More fun facts missionaries have had the unique experience of seeing people speak in tongues from Holy Ghost in areas of the world that do not speak english..... and heard them speak english .....and it was only one phrase "blessed be your Holy name"._ I have to automatically discount any “tongues” coming out as English - there is not one corner of the earth that has not been influenced by English in some way or another. Very ferw people have never heard this language. Further, there are no documented cases of xenoglossy - anywhere. Considering the ‘genericness’ of that phrase and that it is used in virtually every worship service (several times), it’s a common phrase for a foreigner to pick up. You don’t need to speak Spanish to understand what “Yo quiero Taco Bell” means. Same thing going on here. It’s a common phrase that’s picked up. _We fear what we do not understand._ There are many things in the Bible that must be taken on faith; they can neither be proved nor disproved; tongues is not one of these things. As I mentioned, literally thousands and thousands of examples have been studied and analyzed - all leading to the same conclusion: The “tongues” Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians are producing today is an entirely self-created phenomenon. It is non-cognitive non-language utterance; random free vocalization based upon a subset of the existing underlying sounds (called phonemes) of the speaker’s native language, and any other language(s) the speaker may be familiar with or have had contact with. It is, in part, typically characterized by repetitive syllables, plays on sound patterns, alliteration, assonance, and over-simplification of syllable structure. It is also interesting to note that any disallowed sound combinations, i.e. consonant clusters, in the speaker’s native language are also disallowed in his/her tongues-speech. Further, this subset of phonemes typically contains only those sounds which are easiest to produce physiologically. There is absolutely _nothing_ that “tongues-speakers” are producing that cannot be explained in relatively simple linguistic terms. Conversely, when it comes to something spoken, there are absolutely *no* Biblical references to “tongues” that do not refer to, and cannot be explained in light of, real rational language(s), though it may not be the explanation you want to hear, and it may be one which is radically different from what you believe, or were taught. Nowhere in the Bible is modern tongues-speech advocated or evidenced.
@@bigbertha4080 Post 2 of 2 Peter & Cornelius - With respect to Peter and Cornelius, I’m going to paraphrase (and in a few places quote) here and there, from the book “Tongues Revisited - a Third Way” in which the author devotes a section which addresses just this subject. We have to put this into a bit of quick historical perspective from what we know about Roman soldiers. Given that Cornelius commanded a unit known as the “Italian Regiment”, one may surmise that he was from Italy (Latin, “Italia”) and that his native language was likely Latin. He was in Caesarea with his “household”. A Roman soldier’s ‘household’ would have included not only relatives, but a retinue of fellow soldiers and slaves as well. Let’s examine this for a moment as it plays an important role with respect to ‘tongues’. His relatives, like Cornelius, would have presumably spoken Latin. Fellow soldiers also spoke Latin, but as Roman soldiers it’s important to note that they could have come from just about anywhere in the Empire. Likewise, and especially, his slaves. In short, though his fellow soldiers spoke Latin, it may not at all have been their native language(s). His slaves almost certainly not - though they spoke and understood Latin, it’s very unlikely that they would have been native Latin speakers. Like the soldiers, their native language(s) could have come from anywhere in the Roman Empire. So, in Cornelius’ household, we essentially have several people who comprised a multi-lingual group. We must also surmise that most of this company also spoke Greek in varying degrees. The passage is silent as to what language Peter and his group, and Cornelius and his group, conversed in; but, as was the practice in the day when speakers of two different languages tried to communicate with each other, the common language of choice was Greek (just as it would be English in today’s world). Indeed, since the narrative reported no communication difficulty, I think it safe to assume that the common language in this scenario would have been Greek. Peter may have known a few words and phrases in Latin (from the Roman occupation of his homeland), but it’s very unlikely he spoke it with any degree of fluency. Also unlikely is that Cornelius spoke Aramaic with any degree of fluency. From the narrative, we know that the incident is reported from the perspective of Peter and his group. “They (Peter and his company) heard them speaking in languages (“tongues”) and praising God”. From this, we can deduce two types of speech here: (1) speech that Peter and his group understood, and (2) speech they did not understand. Considering Peter and his company report in the narrative that they knew that some of what was said were praises to God, it must have been said in a language they knew (likely Greek, but possibly some recognized Latin). Some of what was said however, they did not understand because it was foreign to them. Peter and his company did not speak, nor apparently recognize, those languages. To quote from the aforementioned book - “Is praise of God, that is, saying in some way how marvelous God is, evidence for the presence of the Holy Spirit? If backed up by a true understanding of and commitment to God and his work, then I would say it is indeed an indication of the residence in that person of the Holy Spirit. It is to be expected that a new believer will praise the Lord in some way and these people had just minutes previously become believers in Christ! Cornelius and his family were devout and God-fearing (Acts 10:2, 22). They had accepted the revelation of God that they knew of up to that point, but they were not saved (Acts 11:14). They had become Jewish proselytes, Gentiles who had adopted the faith of the Jews. This was in spite of the disdain in which they were held by ethnic Jews (Acts 10:28) even while they were respected by them (Acts 10:22).” The likely scenario was that Peter and his company entered Cornelius’s house and Peter addressed the gathered group, telling them about Jesus, his life, resurrection, etc. Cornelius and his company responded to what they heard as a reaffirmation of what they already believed. Reacting joyously, some of them addressed the Lord directly in their mother-tongue; languages Peter and his company did not know or speak or turned to their companions and discussed these tremendous things with them (again in languages unknown to Peter and his companions). Considering the soldiers, and especially the slaves, could have come from anywhere in the Empire - any number of languages are possible here. To quote directly again - “Some of them, perhaps for the benefit of Peter and his friends, addressed the Lord, or talked among themselves in their shared language (likely, Greek). They were filled with the wonder and joy of having received 'life through repentance' (Acts 11:18). It was very evident to Peter and the others that here were truly converted people. It is so reminiscent of Acts 2; the multilingual situation and the praise of the wonders of God, though in this case it was from newly converted people. Another difference was that here there were no cultural 'high language/low language' conventions to break as there was at Pentecost. These people were simply thrilled that they were saved and told the Lord so. This is quite sufficient to have prompted Peter's comment, "The Holy Spirit came on them as he came on us at the beginning." “ So, no modern tongues-speech here, just plain old real languages. Languages Peter and his friends apparently did not know or recognize. Cornelius and his company were among the non-Jews; thus, any native language(s) they spoke, including Latin itself, would have been considered a “tongue” (read “language”). When a bi-lingual or multi-lingual speaker utters something suddenly/spur of the moment in an emotional outburst (not to be taken with any negative connotations), the speaker will always revert to their native language. That’s just a known fact. These people here were in the same situation and reverted to languages Peter and his company did not speak. Hence, as far as Peter and his company were concerned, they began “speaking in tongues (read “languages”)”. With respect to “tongues”, I don’t see this narrative as being anything but a real rational language situation. The reference to the situation being just as it was on Pentecost is a reference to the manner in which they were speaking (i.e. declaring the mighty works of God in a _bold and authoritative manner_, just as the apostles did on Pentecost - it has nothing to do with what language they were speaking, but rather the _manner_ in which they were speaking, that was the same as on Pentecost.
This was not a Triune baptism as Jesus commanded, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" (Matt 28:19) . The baptism in this video was only in the name of Jesus the Son. Why did he not follow Jesus's instructions?
Speaking jibberish is of vanity. In the book of Acts it clearly says the Apostles spoke in a tongue that all understood. This would mean there were many that spoke different t languages and they all understood the message of the Apostles . I’ve had many tell me they thought there were weak of faith because they couldn’t speak jibberish. Read the BIBLE.
Well, you have answered your own question here. The Bible says, in Matthew 28:19, to "teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." This scripture is often misunderstood. The word NAME in this verse is singular, and the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are titles, not names, of our Lord and savior whose NAME is Jesus Christ. In Acts 2:38, Saint Peter instructed believers to "Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the NAME of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Baptism in the New Testament was always done in Jesus' name, with several scriptures justifying this (Acts 8:12, Acts 8:16, Acts 10:48, Acts 19:5, Acts 22:16, etc). The Bible tells us that there is no other NAME "under Heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). Romans 6:3 tells us that being baptized "into Christ Jesus" (or in Jesus' name) we are "baptized in His [Jesus'] death". Baptism in the NAME of Jesus Christ for the remission of our sins is the way to go.
As far as there being three individuals in the Godhead, no I don't agree with that. Now, I know the "Trinitarian" and "Oneness" teachings are consistently surrounded by controversy, but I don't agree with that, either. Things such as that cause "unnecessary division" in my personal opinion. However, I am a firm believer that baptism is justified in Jesus' name.
Sophia Darlington speaking in tongues by the Holy Ghost is speak in other language even when you don't know how to speak that language. God use tongues in the first Christians as the book of Acts says in the Bible to edify the church. The first people who spoke in tongues in the chapter 2 of Acts spoke in other languages and so many different people around believe in Jesus the Christ because the Christians were speaking their native languages and they understood what the Holy Ghost was saying through them. If you have any other question or are interested on any other issue let me know.
Part 3 of 3 - “Interpretation of tongues”, frequently going hand-in-hand with “speaking in tongues”, may also be said to be a self-created phenomenon. It is essentially a ‘spiritual improv’ of sorts, deeply inspired and influenced by one’s faith and beliefs. “Interpretations” are typically characterized by being inordinately longer than the actual glossic utterance, rather generic and non-specific in nature, and perhaps not surprisingly, open to multiple non-related ‘interpretations’; a ‘big brown dog’, can just as equally be a ‘small white cat’. These latter two characteristics (non-specificity and multiple interpretations) do not suggest anything that is divinely inspired. The common answer to this seeming discrepancy is that ‘God/the Holy Spirit gives different interpretations to different people’. Pentecostal Darwinism however, does not exist - there’s no mutation or transformation of one message into several for the sake of justifying an incredibly obvious discrepancy. If this were the case, it would completely negate the need for ‘tongues’ in the first place. A few questions to consider - Every speaker has his/her own “tongue”. No two will ever be the same - that’s just fact. If indeed tongues are a heavenly/angelic language, why would there ever be a need for more than one? Certainly, the historical, geographical, and cultural reasons there are multiple real languages on planet earth are not mirrored in the spiritual realm? Are the deaf and/or mute exempt from “being saved” since they cannot physically produce speech (‘tongues’ or otherwise); or do they ‘speak’ them in their minds? What happens to the understanding of all these passages when the modern word “language(s)” is inserted in place of the more archaic “tongue(s)” and the added ‘unknown’ or ‘other’ is removed? Those who speak them often claim that “tongues” is a supernatural phenomenon. If this were the case, then a scientific account or explanation of the behavior would not be possible. Yet, quite obviously, the exact opposite holds true. The accusation of ‘trying to explain the spiritual in physical/carnal terms” just doesn’t cut it; there is nothing spiritual going on in the production of modern tongues. By the way, let me also add here that I am neither a so-called ‘cessationist’ nor a ‘continuationist’ - I do not identify with either term; in fact, I had never heard the two terms until just late in 2016. As far as I’m concerned, quite frankly, since the Biblical reference of “tongues” is to real, rational languages, obviously “tongues” haven’t “ceased”; people still speak. To add to the understanding of “other tongues” in Paul’s letters - As C. Sullivan writes in his article “The Unknown Tongues in the English Bible” (Feb. 2010 - Gift of Tongues Project), “The _other tongues_ of the English Bible has a rich tradition that dates back to the earliest days of the Reformation. The creation of this idiom had powerful political and religious overtones. An idiom the early Protestants created and aimed exclusively at the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church asserted their authority through the exclusive use of Latin while the Protestants volleyed back that Latin was speaking in an unknown tongue that no one understood. The Protestants added _unknown_ to the word _tongues_ in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians text to win the argument. The addition of the adjective _other_ to _tongues_ by Protestant translators in the I Corinthians texts was to wrest Catholics of their divine authority. This intent got lost over the centuries and became reinterpreted as a mystical or magical expression. Pentecostals relied heavily on their interpretation of _other tongues_ to justify their tongues-speaking experience.” This was especially key during the 1906-1907 period when their tongues doctrine was completely redefined. “_Other tongues_ allowed the idea that speaking in tongues was not supernaturally speaking a foreign language (xenoglossy) but something otherwise; a heavenly prayer language or the language of divine worship. It was an entity beyond the realm of human intellect and could not be measured. Most charismatic and Pentecostal leaders today are unaware of the history of ‘other tongues’ and its Reformation roots. Rather, they take it literally as written by Paul himself.”
There is only ONE baptism - and it has NOTHING to do with speaking in tongues. The one baptism commanded by Christ (Matt. 28:19) makes one a child of God, saves one from everlasting hell (1 Pet. 3:21), and actually bestows forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). A true, Christian baptism always bestows the Holy Spirit as God's gift (Acts 2:38). There is NOT a "baptism in the Spirit" and a simply "water baptism." There is only ONE baptism (Eph. 4:5). And this ONE baptism has NO connection to the modern-day nonsense and non-biblical practice of "speaking in tongues." For even in Pauls' day, only a few Christians actually spoke in tongues (which was an unlearned human language, not some meaningless babbling as practiced today; 1 Cor. 12:30). Baptism into the Triune God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit is a blessed event, whether one day old or 100 years old. This so-called "baptism in the Spirit" is pure man-made nonsense and is a creation of the 19th century in the United States!
My friend, you're in error in a few points.... you're correct there is one baptism, and that baptism is of water and the spirit (John 3:5, Titus 3:5, acts 2:38 and 1Corinthians 10:1,2) When a man receives The Holy Ghost he will speak in other tongues and prophesy, just as recorded in acts 1 and acts 10 Isaiah 28:11 1Corinthians 12:30 is true and will always be true, this is concerning spiritual gifts, not the Gift of the Holy Ghost... the letter to the church in Corinth was written to Christians who had been baptized in Jesus name and filled with His Spirit already.( The Spirit of Jesus Christ, Christ in you, the hope of glory. Colossians 1:27 Philippians 1:19) "Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." Acts 11:16 Peace to you, as you seek Jesus Christ more and more in His word and in prayer
Thank you for your most courteous response. Though I in no way wish to engage in a back and forth argument, each trying to "win", I am compelled to offer some corrections. First, of course there is only ONE baptism which is a water and Spirit baptism (Matt. 28:19; John 3:5; Titus 3:4-7; Rom. 6:1ff, 1 Pet. 3:21, etc.). However, that is not referring to the extra biblical teaching of a "baptism in the Holy Ghost." The text of Matt. 3:11 is in reference to what the Holy Spirit would do on Pentecost as prophesied by Joel and all the O.T. and spoken of by Jesus. If you examine carefully the origin of the whole "baptism in the Holy Ghost" you realize that it was an invention by biblically ignorant (though well meaning and sincere) Christian youth in Kansas at a "Bible college." They had no understanding of the contexts of any of the events they were now ascribing new meaning to. Secondly, you make the statement, "When a man receives The Holy Ghost he will speak in other tongues and prophesy . . ." Even the Apostle Paul disagrees with you. 1 Corinthians 12:29-30 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? [ μὴ πάντες ] From the Greek grammatical construction we see that with all of these questions the only answer Paul will accept is NO. Those Greeks words which begin verses 29 & 30 literally read, "not all" . . . In other words, not all possess any or all of these things. Only those whom the Holy Spirit wishes to bestow them upon. Hebrews 2:4 God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will. Please note, ACCORDING TO HIS WILL (caps are for emphasis, not screaming :-). These reason why all this is significant because in its implications it has supplemented and in many cases replaced the Gospel. This now BECOMES the Gospel. In other words, our evidencing possession of the Holy Spirit by performing some "miraculous" signs becomes assurance of salvation. This is horrible! THAT is why this whole teaching is contrary to the Gospel, contrary to Christ and a work of the devil. Please understand that I mean no offense. Many, many well intentioned Christians have been deceived by these things because they seek after some type of visible and sensory assurance of the work of God. Many modern Christians, though without realizing it, have become contemporary versions of Montanists! A heresy into which even the church Father Tertullian succumbed. In my baptism at 2 weeks of age, the one true God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Holy Trinity) gave me His name and marked me as one of His own and declarED me justified, righteous and holy solely and alone on account of the righteousness of Jesus Christ and the forgiveness won for me and all the world on the cross (Rom. 8:29,30; Eph. 1:3-14; John 5:24; 1 John 2:2). There is no such thing as "seeking the baptism in the Holy Ghost." You cannot find ONE passage in the N.T. admonishing anyone to seek after such a thing. It doesn't exist. I know. I have studied it extensively, in the Greek. I only add, "in the Greek" not for any self-aggrandizement purposes, but because God did not inspire the N.T. to be written in English. There one can never and should never base doctrine or beliefs strictly upon what ANY English translation says. For there is NO perfect English translations. Good, even excellent? Yes. Perfect? No. As I have offered on other threads for this issue, I have completed a study of this topic carefully examining the Greek and would be happy to send it to you or anyone wishing to study this most important biblical issue further. You can email me at: sthilary@trinityfredericktown.net. To you or anyone requesting it, I promise not to email you further unless you request it. Though it is by no means a perfect study, it will certainly provide opportunity to seriously consider the anti-biblical nature of this teaching. Pax.
I am catholic, but not the way you think. Catholic, not ROMAN Catholic (caps for emphasis, not screaming). I am a confessional Lutheran. If you do not understand the difference, then you need to study what the word means and its use by the ancient church. As to my baptism not being biblical, you have bought into a narrative that itself is non-scriptural but is a result of the radical reformation and more recently, the Second Great Awakening (1780s) and revivalism. I can support infant baptism from Scripture without breaking a sweat. As one who received his B.A. in biblical studies from a Southern Baptist University (Palm Beach Atlantic University, West Palm Beach, FL.) and had as my Greek professor the N.T. scholar Dr. Craig Blomberg, I am well aware of ALL the arguments against infant baptism and none of them can stand up to careful scrutiny. Though I mean no offense, the rejection of infant baptism is based solely upon rationalism, not the Word of God. Pax.
I was blessed with the gift of tongues today at church. I sounded exactly like that until I came home continued to pray in the spirit and my tongue language began to develop. When the gift first comes for some it isn’t always going to sound like a language, continual praying and allowing the Holy Spirit to manifest during prayer will build up your tongue language.
cooljc26 exactly! It's demonic. Not what speaking in tongues is at all. This is very sad. It's very rare that we find find sound Doctrine anymore in the churches.
You search scripts to find God thus is spirit you will never know the truth even Paul had to reprogram himself when u think u know something you voke to find out you know nothing at all
@@rima5429 since you think you know so much about scripture try me I will prove you wrong I know the word of God and was here this is not demonic how can Satan cast out Satan his kingdom will not stand and this is my sister and was there when this happened very real experience and I know how personal so leave your devil comments to yourself this stuff is hurtful and not of God in Any way
