Видео

'' The Holy Spirit which was given to you the moment you believed and confessed '' where is that in the bible please mate.

@@zwigoma2 Ephesians 1:13 In Him you also when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in Him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit...... Romans 10 9... because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. It's a matter of the heart. Acts11 16.... And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, "John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit," 17 If then God gave the same gift to them as He gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ..... I pray the Holy Spirit will bring you to the truth and our Lord Jesus Christ will bless your day amen

@@robertdavidson3999 Let's look at the first verse eph 1:13 I notice that the proposition of having believed and having received hang on the preposition '' In him '' so we should talk about, how do we get in him, which would answer the question of when the holy Spirit was given to someone, what do you think ?

@@zwigoma2 St Paul was writing to gentile believers, he was using the preposition In Him, in Christ Jesus our LORD the purpose of God our Father for all believers. He then went on to affirm the preposition by the proposition of how they achieved to be in Him. If you read the whole of the passage he affirms their position as co heirs with Christ being conformed to His likeness the purpose of God our Father for all believers. Of course we have to be in submission to the will of God in harmony with the Holy Spirit and the whole revelation of His truth(Holy Scripture). I hope this helps may the Lord Jesus Christ bless you amen x

@@robertdavidson3999 What if I show you of people that believed and were baptised but had not received the Spirit

The Holy Spirit is recieved as a result of being baptized in the Holy Spirit. Not once in the book of Acts did a believer recieve the Holy Spirit at one point and the Holy Spirit baptism later.

Go to a Pentecostal church and tell them that you want to recieve the Holy Spirit baptism. They will help you.

The word " recieve", in the N.T. original greek, means " to take hold of". You aren't suppose to wait on the Lord to give you the Holy Spirit but to actively and continually pray to recieve the Holy Spirit until the Lord grants your request. Find a Pentecostal church they will pray with you and lay hands on you until you recieve the Holy Spirit with the first evidence being speaking in " tongues", one spiritual language.

Very

"I am set for the defense of the gospel" The most tragic mistake would be to hear falsehood in a post concerning the gospel, know better, and say nothing.

We have to rely on the Word alone to set doctrine. Three times in the book of Acts, it is written that believers recieved the Hoy Spirit. In all three instances they immediately spoke in "tongues".

Three times in The book of Acts it says that believers recieved the Holy Spirit. In all three instances the first thing that happened when they recieved is that they spoke In tongues.

@@robertnieten7259 speaking a new language is not evidence of the Holy Spirit…preaching the cross of Jesus Christ for salvation is evidence of the Spirit

@@real8342 Speaking in a new language (" tongues" ) is the initial evidence that a believer has recieved the Holy Spirit. Because Recieving the Spirit is so crucial to our salvation God hasn't left it up to man to say when the Holy Spirit has been recieved so He provides a supernatural sign confirming it. Speaking in "tongues" is the least of the gifts but all important to the believer and those praying with him because of what it signifies.

@@robertnieten7259Mormons,speak in tongues…are they true believers?not at all!!!

Repent (change) stop sinning and obey jesus teachings and he will abide in you. cause if obey Jesus 2 commandments he said he will manifest in you teach you truth and guide you .

Pay no attention to this other guy please Repent(change your mind) believe in christ and his death burial and resurrection the payment for sins...ask God to baptise you in the spirit

It's for all believers, for anyone who asks! It doesn't always happen as soon as we want it but if God hasn't give you something you are praying for, something good that is of His will, it means He wants you to keep asking! If He hasn't said no, keep asking! The right time may come later than you expect but that doesn't mean it won't happen!

De Bean , you are seriously working for the devil but know it not. Repent and receive the Holy Spirit, people like you hardly receive him but you think you do, i don't believe you do have him.

De Bean same opinion with me...It was. I am not from pentacostal or charismatic xhurch, but last year I experienced it...and change all. And it happened 3 years after finishing my bible college. Ask the geunie baptism of the HS, you ll receive it. I received in my own room, alone... I am so grateful for it.

There is so much more to being Baptized in the Holy Spirit than just speaking in an earthly language. There is also the heavenly language which is for edification. Baptism in the Holy Spirit is also for the power of the Holy Spirit for the manifestation on miracles, signs, and wonders.

@@takaliuang I keep asking but not sure I have it?

"Tongues" has always been one angelic language.The baptism of the Holy Spirit IS recieving the Holy Spirit. Speaking in " tongues" is the initial evidence of that, in every instance.

Agreed

You have no idea what the concept of tongues are.There are Different Purposes for tongues NOT the purpose in Acts 2 is the same... 1) Prayer Language---1Corinth 14:2/14:14 2) Intercession Romans 8:26 3) For Self Edification 1 Corinth 14:4 4) For Worship 14:15 5) Ministry Gift of Tongues 1 Corinth 12:28 *** You can not understand the spiritual things with a natural mind, I dont care how much education you have, God goes beyond your logic.

+Onnie D I wrote the above post towards Kavik

Yes, the Divine goes beyond anyone’s logic, however, glossolalia is neither divine or spiritual in nature; the end result may be regarded as spiritual, i.e. the connection one establishes with the deity (as with other cultures that practice glossolalia), but not the actual practice/production …. In Charismatic/Pentecostal Christianity glossolalia (i.e. “tongues”) can only be regarded as divinely inspired speech and/or its interpretation. Moreover, the fact of how glossolalia is actually produced and what it linguistically comprises doesn’t seem to even come into question. It almost really can’t; “tongues” and its divine origin is an integral core tenant Pentecostal belief. Without “tongues”, Pentecostalism in particular falls rather flat. If the actual mechanics of glossolalia did come into question, there’s really only one rational conclusion: tongues/glossolalia totally excludes any possibility of being divine in nature. There is only one form of glossolalia - it is only in Pentecostal/Charismatic belief that glossolalia has been artificially subdivided into various ‘subcategories’ or ‘types', based solely on religious beliefs; not on the actual glossa produced. These categories being the various purposes for which ‘tongues’ are believed to be used (as exemplified above). Some forms of Christian glossolalia must be ‘paired’ with interpreting whilst with others, no interpretation is required as it is a ‘direct link’, if you will. Prayer however, be it for intercession, worship, or self-edification, ministry to other people, etc., is all one in the same. Glossolalia is simply the tool by which the practitioner initiates the subconscious form of prayer. It’s the exact same thing as what any other religious tradition that practices glossolalia does; no different.

+Kavik v.d.Hexenholtz You are stating your own opinions without any evidence. You are actually demonstrating what the Scripture says in 1 Corinthians 2:14 The natural man receives not the things from the Spirit of God for they are foolishness to him,neither can he know them because they are spiritually examined. *You are dead spiritually and you are trying to understand spiritual knowledge with natural perception yet to understand natural knowledge you need natural perception Thus you need your eyes open to see and this can only happen by being born again because your human spirit must be retreated and given a new nature....You most likely will not understand all this but basically your Sinful nature testifies that you are dead in sin.Intelligence is not spiritual understanding just as a Master's degree is not going to help someone who is demon possessed....you haven't seen anyone demon possessed? There are historical accounts and Lester Sumrall dealt with many in the Philippines. *What this basically comes down to is that you are Assuming that Tongues is all one purpose...its not.Tongues are NOT always a Known language( 1 Cor 14:2/14:14). The Interpretation is Only needed when the Ministry Gift of Tongues is operating( this is not the same as the Prayer Language) and You can RUclips and see that a Study was done on someone praying in tongues and it Does NOT cone from the mind....everything you said is your own philosophy which is basically from a naturalist point of view and you haven't experienced the power of God...atheists try to bring God Down instead of going up to God.

Yes, to some degree I am stating my own opinion, but from the result of a study done on glossolalia from a Linguistic perspective which also encompasses the experiences and opinions of many others with respect to glossolalia. The results of my study concur with numerous others previously done which all draw essentially the same conclusions. I can post a considerably more detailed synopsis of the study, but it would make for about 8 or 9 rather long posts. I’ve kind of summarized it (though in hindsight, not as well as I could have) in the original two posts here. I am not suggesting glossolalia/tongues is foolishness; on the contrary, it is an integral part of many religious practices; however, one must make a distinction however between what is meant by “tongues” in the Bible as opposed to the modern Pentecostal/Charismatic interpretation of “tongues”. The two are simply not mutually inclusive. “Tongues” in the Bible are always to be regarded as real known languages; nothing supernatural going on here - people speaking a language not understood by the listener(s). There is one possible exception to this regarding the Greek city of Corinth (see below). Modern Pentecostal/Charismatic glossolalia (“tongues”) on the other hand is simply a tool by which one initiates a subconscious form of prayer; the actual glossa produced is virtually irrelevant. The result of modern Christian tongues is that it brings the practitioner closer to God (and there’s nothing wrong with that, mind you), but in and of itself, glossolalia is simply not divine in nature - you’re doing the same exact thing in the same exact way as an Evenki shaman from Siberia; free-vocalization confined to the parameters of your (the speaker’s) native language. I certainly do understand the spiritual side of glossolalia; just not in the same way you were taught to do. It is it is very powerful, deep and spiritual TOOL - but that’s it, it’s a tool, nothing more. The spirit world (for Christians - the Holy Spirit) can be manifested via the tool of glossolalia, but glossolalia in and of itself is simply that; the tool by which man connects, if you will, to the spiritual world. No, tongues are not all one purpose. I think you misunderstood. I stated that “Some forms of Christian glossolalia must be ‘paired’ with interpreting whilst with others, no interpretation is required as it is a ‘direct link’, if you will.” The direct link would be the so-called “prayer language” (no interpretation required) and ministry/prophesying would require interpretation. There are artificially subdivided “types” (as you have defined above), but the point is, the actual glossa being produced is the same no matter the purpose or ‘type’ of ‘tongue’. A person may change their actual speech (i.e. the glossa), so it may sound different for a different ‘type’ of ‘tongue’, but linguistically it’s still all produced the same way. I would have to disagree that tongues are not always known languages - Biblical tongues are always to be regarded as known real languages. As I alluded to above, the only possible exception to this may be with the church in Corinth. Corinth, as you may know, was a very international city; the New York, or Hong Kong of its day. Numerous languages could no doubt be heard on the streets on any given day. That aside however, one of the main pre-Christian temples in Corinth was the Temple of Aphrodite - contemporary (Greek) writers state that people used glossolalia as part of the religious practices/ceremonies at the temple as a means of connecting to the goddess. It has been suggested by some Biblical scholars that this practice may have also been brought into the Christian church in Corinth, and Paul in his letters attempts to discourage and correct/eliminate this practice. Thus it is possible that the glossolalia referred to in parts of Corinthians was also the typical free-vocalization glossolalia and not simply a real known language. Concerning the study you speak of - I believe you may be referring to the following: A very strong argument for tongues as being divine in nature frequently referred to by proponents is a study done by the University of Pennsylvania on the phenomenon of glossolalia. In a nutshell, the study determined via SPECT imaging that when a person exhibits glossolalia, the language producing areas of the brain are not really engaged; i.e. ‘tongues’ do not originate in the speech center of the brain. These results have been used to support its supposed divine origins or that a person is not in control of what s/he is saying. After reading the study, I would argue the results are exactly as what one would expect; it stands to reason the brain’s language producing center is not really being engaged, simply because glossolalia is not language. It’s just free vocalization -playing with sounds which do not require the language producing centers in the brain to be overly engaged (indeed, if at all). The study’s results are unfortunately somewhat inconclusive in that they can be skewed equally well to support either argument. With respect to my own philosophy on glossolalia, yes and no - most of what I said comes from my own study of glossolalia as a Linguist, but again, it is also based on numerous other studies done which draw the same conclusions. As I also stated in a previous post - I am not an atheist, so there is no intent on trying to ‘bring God down’. On the contrary - a clearer understanding of the process of glossolalia, to me, offers a better appreciation of how man interacts with God/the Divine.

In 1978, when i recieved the Holy Spirit, i had not been raised in a church so really knew nothing of salvation or God. A friend knew i was searching and invited me to a a Bible study. Seeing people going to the prayer room my friend said that, if i wanted, i could go too. I went back there and knelt at a bench to pray. I didn't really know how to pray so , with my eyes closed, i listened to others. After a few minutes i heard a girl start praying. At first it was in English but after a couple minutes she started speaking in this other language. I only learned later that it was " speaking in tongues". I remember thinking " that's different". Suddenly i felt this powerful presence draw near me. I could feel the power eminating from this presence but i wasn't afraid. I was so knaive that i opened one eye thinking that maybe someone had quietly knelt beside me and i was feeling their presence. No one was near me and i could still feel this powerful presence. I went back out and sat down and reasoned that it could only be the presence of God i felt. I watched others coming out of the prayer room and i was amazed. Their faces shone with a light i'd never seen before. I decided that what i was feeling on the outside, they must have inside. The next night i went to a Friday night service. When the altar call was given( the first one i had ever heard) i went up. When a couple of the men asked me what i wanted prayer for i told them i wanted Gods' presence in me. They spoke to the pastor and he told them to take me to the prayer room. It was really a dimly lit hallway and i knelt, lifted my hands and started asking for His Spirit to be in me. A couple of the men that took me back there started praying with me. After a few minutes i heard the pastors voice say," Brother Bob stand up, lift your hands and recieve the Holy Ghost". I stood up, with my eyes still closed and lifted my hands. Immediately i saw this window appear at my upper right side. It had those old looking window shutters and they were wide open. For a few seconds i saw this beautiful blue sky. Then a bright light appeared moving from the left side on the other side of the window. It kept moving until it was at the midway point, stopped, and shined on me. Right away i felt this warmth moving up my legs. I felt like i was being filled with warm oil from my feet upward. As i was thanking the Lord for answering my prayer i heard the pastor tell me to yield my tongue to the Spirit. I stopped thanking the Lord and relaxed my tongue. Suddenly i felt control of my tongue seized and it just took off. I was fluently speaking this language i had never learned. Never had i felt such joy in my life. I was thanking the Lord and so were the men with me. I led the way out of the prayer room, stopped and faced the congregation. I was smiling and i felt such an intense love for these people and didn't personally know any of them. I felt like i had a small sun in my head. I could feel its' rays beaming out from around my head. I am sure there are believers our there who have mistakenly imitated what they heard in " tongues" but there is the authentic that happens as a result of the overflowing Spirit baptism. Without this overflow and its' accompanying initial sign there is no recieving of the Holy Spirit.

KAVIK HEXENHOLDT: DURING THE ERA OF THE FIRST CHURCH, DO YOU KNOW HOW THE ENEMY SATAN(DEVIL) DESCRIBED THE APOSTLES FOR SPEAKING IN TONGUES? “THESE FOLLOWERS OF THE RABI, HAVE IMBIBED WINE, THEY ARE DRUNK!” BUT THOSE CASTING THE SAID ACCUSATIONS WERE REMINDED THAT IT WAS ONLY 8:00AM IN THE MORNING, AND NO ONE DRANK WINE AT THAT TIME OF THE MORNING BEFORE BREAKFAST!!! THEN FAST FORWARD, AFTER TWO THOUSAND YEARS, THE GREAT SERPENT, DECEIVER AND FATHER OF LIES IS AT IT STILL, AND DESCRIBES THE BAPTISM OF THR HOLY SPIRIT WITH EVIDENCE AND MANIFESTATION OF SPEAKING IN TONGUES AS “BABBLING” I SAY, GET THEEE BEHIND ME, SATAN!!!

@@peterhuttonmills8787 Wow, that's an old post of mine - here's a more recent 'version' - There is absolutely nothing mysterious about Biblical "tongues" - when referring to something spoken, they are nothing more than real, rational language(s); usually unknown to those listening to them, but always known by the speaker(s) - it’s their native language (in some cases, it is a language the speaker has learned). In contrast, 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 easily be explained in 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. “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 zero 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 some form of 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 various 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”. Most people who use ‘tongues’ are very keen on describing the ‘experience’. Indeed, for those that use it, it is very psychologically, physically, and spiritually fulfilling. It’s almost like primal screaming. When people practice ‘tongues’, they feel a sense of sweet release and inner peace, in that virtually all stress can be gone after the experience. People describe the experience, but in examining the “mechanics” behind it…well, not so much. 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 what they’re doing. I'm not doubting or questioning the 'experience'; as mentioned, glossolalia as the spiritual tool that it is, can be very powerful and, for many people, the experience is profound. Both the spiritual and physical benefits of using this tool are also well documented. The Again though, it is important to note that this same statement can be made for virtually _any other culture that practices glossolalia_ . Religious and cultural differences aside, the glossolalia an Evenki Shaman in Siberia, a vodoun priestess in Togo and a Christian tongues-speaker in Alabama are producing are in no way different from each other. They’re all producing their glossolalia in the exact same way. “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; non-cognitive non language utterance - 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 via “tongues”. Known by many different names, “tongues”, “glossolalia”, or more accurately “non-cognitive non-language utterance” (NC-NLU), is practiced by many cultures and religious beliefs from literally all over the world; it is relatively new to Christianity and certainly not unique to it. As a point of note, I’m a Linguist, and 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.

@@kavikv.d.hexenholtz3474 KAVIK! IT SEEMED YOU DON’T REFUTE THE FACT THAT THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IS DIVINELY INSPIRED, AND INDEED IT WAS A BESTOWAL ON HUMANITY BY GOD THE CREATOR ON HUMANITY, HIS OWN CREATION: JUST AS CHRIST JESUS WAS BESTOWED UNTO HUMANITY AS THE MESSIAH, AND THE SPEAKING IN TONGUES IS THE MANIFESTATION AND EVIDENCE OF HIS PRESENCE! IN ACTS:10 PETER WENT TO THE HOUSE OF CORNELIUS WHO WAS A GENTILE; PRIOR TO PETER’S VISIT GOD SHOWED HIM A VISION WHILE HE WAS STAYING AT JOPPA, WHERE HE SAW THE VISION OF VARIOUS ANIMALS DESCENDING AND FALLING OUT FROM A SHEET OF LADDER FROM HEAVEN; AND A VOICE SAID TO PETER, “KILL AND EAT,” PETER REFUSED AND THE VOICE REPEATED THE INSTRUCTION FOR THREE TIMES, AFTER WHICH PETER REPLIED, “LORD I HAVE NEVER EATEN ANYTHING UNHOLY IN MY LIFE; BUT THE LORD TOLD HIM NOT TO CALL NOR DESCRIBE ANYTHING THE LORD HAS PROVIDED AS UNHOLY! THIS WAS A POWERFUL LESSON FOR PETER IN PREPARATION TO BE DISCHARGED TO CORNELIUS, A ROMAN CENTURION AND GENTILE; WHOM PETER WASN’T SURE SHOULD RECEIVED THE GOOD NEWS OF THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST CONSIDERING THE RELATIONSHIP THAT EXISTED BETWEEN THE JEWISH FOLLOWERS OF THE CIRCUMCISION AND THE GENTILES WHO WERE UNCIRCUMCISED, BUT AS SOON AS PETER GOT INTO CORNELIUS HOUSE AND STARTED TELLING CORNELIUS’S HOUSEHOLD ABOUT HIS DREAM THE LORD D HAD SHOWN HIM AT JOPPA, (CORNELIUS ALSO RECEIVED A DREAM THAT PETER, A JEW WOULD BE PAYING HIM A VISIT AND WAS SENT BY GOD) THE HOLY SPIRIT FELL ON THEM, AND ALL THE GENTILES IN CORNELIUS HOUSE RECEIVED THE HOLY GHOST, AND BEGAN SPEAKING IN TONGUES! IT IS MERELY FOOL HARDY TO TRY AND EXPLAIN AWAY THE VOCAL CORD OF A PERSON UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, WHICH IS DIVINELY INSPIRED AND ORCHESTRATED INTO TANGIBLE PHYSICAL MANIFESTATION. I THEREFORE SUBMIT TO YOU, KAVIK, THAT IT WOULD BE A FUTILE ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN YOUR SPIRIT AND SOUL TO SOMEONE ELSE! WHERE DOES YOUR SOUL GO, AFTER YOUR TEMPORARY SOJOURN ON THE EARTH’S PLANE? DO YOU POSSIBLY THINK YOU KNOW THE COLOR OF YOUR SPIRIT AND SOUL? OBVIOUSLY NOT! NOT IN A MILLION YEARS! THE LORD IS THE SOVEREIGN GOD. HE IS THE CREATOR; AND WE ARE HIS CREATION. HE IS OUR FATHER, AND WE ARE HIS CHILDREN WHOM HE CREATED IN HIS OWN IMAGE. CHRIST JESUS IS OUR LORD AND SAVIOR. HE IS THE MESSIAH, AND THE PROMISE OF THE FATHER. JESUS IS OUR HIGH PRIEST AND INTERCESSOR; AND SITS ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE THRONE OF GRACE AT THE SEAT OF THE HEAVENLY FATHER’S KINGDOM. JESUS CHRIST CONTINUOUSLY PRAYS FOR US, AND INTERCEDES ON OUR BEHALF WITH THE FATHER. THE REDEMPTIVE POWER OF THE BLOOD OF JESUS GAVE US SALVATION TO ALL WHO BELIEVE. MAY OUR LORD BLESS YOU ABUNDANTLY, TAKE CARE, KEEP SAFE.

@@peterhuttonmills8787 Speaking non-cognitive non-language utterance is not evidence of anything except perhaps one's deep faith. “Baptism with initial evidence of speaking in tongues” seemingly occurs in three places in Biblical texts; Pentecost, Peter’s meeting with Cornelius, and Paul’s encounter in Ephesus. In all three examples, the only “tongues” people were speaking were their own native languages; real rational language(s). These three examples take much longer to properly explain; thus, I’m considerably simplifying the below for brevity’s sake. If we look at the Greek text, at Pentecost, the Holy Spirit gave the 12 apostles (yes, 12, not 120, but that’s a story for another day) “apophtheggomai” - the usual translation for this is “to give utterance” (….they spoke in other languages as the Spirit gave them utterance…). This is, however, not the correct/best translation of the Greek word. The word means “to give bold, authoritative, inspired speech to” (don’t go to Strong’s and look it up - Strong’s is a _concordance_ , not a lexicon; there’s a _huge_ difference). It refers *not* to the content of the speech (i.e., the language), but rather to the *manner* of speaking. In each instance where this word occurs in scripture, the person's speech is bold, authoritative, and inspired and it is always, by the way, in the speaker’s native language. In short, the Holy Spirit did not give the _language_ of the utterance, it gave the _manner_ in which it was uttered. Again, incredibly simplifying things, but in a nutshell, the Jews present at Pentecost came from three areas: Judea, the Western Diaspora and the Eastern Diaspora. “All nations under heaven” is an idiomatic expression - Acts II: 9-11 tells us where they were from. Jews from Judea spoke Aramaic as their mother tongue. I don’t think there’s any issues there. Jews from the Western Diaspora spoke Greek - all those lands had been Hellenized for centuries and Greek had long displaced indigenous languages. Eastern Diaspora was a bit different - no Hellenization and countries had their own languages. Though people in Jewish communities in these lands spoke the local languages in varying degrees of fluency, it was never their ‘mother tongue’. For Jews in the Eastern Diaspora, the language of ‘hearth and home’, the language they were “born into” was Aramaic. Many lands, many places and people, but only two languages; Aramaic and Greek; and of course, the apostles spoke both. Something to think about - In the entire Pentecost narrative, not one language is ever referenced by name. Why do you suppose that is? The “list of nations”, as it’s called, of Acts 2: 9-11 is simply that - a list of countries, lands and nations that tell us where these people were from; *not* what language(s) they spoke. The miracle of language at Pentecost was making the God of the Jews accessible to all people and moreover, not having to do so in one prescribed language; namely, Hebrew, the sacerdotal language of Judaism. Jewish religious custom and tradition demanded that any teaching, praying, reading, prophesying, etc. dome from the temple (where the apostles were) be rendered _first_ in Hebrew, then followed by a translation into the vernacular. There even existed an ecclesiastical office for the individuals who did the translations (called the ‘mertugem’). On Pentecost, the apostles broke this tradition and “began to speak in other (i.e. other than Hebrew) languages (i.e. Aramaic and Greek), as the Holy Spirit kept giving a bold, authoritative, inspired manner of speaking to them The apostles, by help and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, did away with this cultural and religious tradition, and addressed the crowd in Greek and Aramaic; the mother tongue of the attendees, instead of the culturally and religiously correct and expected tradition of Hebrew first, then translations into the vernaculars. Doing this from the Temple where they were, broke a slew of cultural and religious taboos. The shock to the crowd was that they did not first hear the expected and culturally correct Hebrew first, then vernaculars. Further added to the crowd’s reaction was to hear Galileans (the “country bumkins” of their day) speak so boldly and with such authority. To suggest, as the apostles did that the God of the Jews was now available to non-Jews and in any language, completely dispensing with Hebrew altogether was tantamount to heresy; hence also part of the crowd's reaction. No xenoglossy, no modern tongues-speech, just real, rational language(s). With respect to Peter and Cornelius - a Roman soldier’s “household” typically consisted of his immediate family, a retinue of fellow soldiers, and numerous slaves. 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. 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. 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”)”. 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. Paul in Ephesus - Like Corinth, Ephesus was a cultural melting pot. It’s quite possible, and given what happened based on the narrative, quite probable, that these individuals were not native Ephesians; thus, not native speakers of Greek. There are two types of speech referenced here: one that Paul understood, and one he did not. We are not told what the native language of Paul’s new friends was. It appears however, that both these people and Paul conversed in the ‘common language’ (dare I say “tongue”) of the day: Greek; the language Paul understood. When Paul baptized them, they may have simply been, out of joy of receiving the Holy Spirit one may assume, expressing themselves in their native language; one that Paul was obviously not familiar with. The fact that they began speaking in a language unknown to Paul, and was reported in the narrative, further lends to the idea that these disciples were not native Ephesians. No modern tongues-speech, just the unnamed native language of these disciples. In all three cases, when the individual(s) is/are baptized in the Holy Spirit, the only “tongue” they’re speaking in is their own language - understood by them, but not always understood by those hearing them.

but I am nothing me myself and I am nothing just dust .....