MedicBravo said:

Validity and merit of a person online is whether they hide behind a fake account or not. I do not.
It matters b/c anyone who knows me on here or other sites I used it and my real name know who I am.
If you're going to 'claim' you have and can on demand then prove it.
Otherwise you, like the rest, have no backing to it.

I have yet to receive proof from anyone. If you did have it, then you'd have shared it and it would be known on some level. If not, then that makes your claim all the more invalid.

I've just met you and as users generally give each other some level of courtesy, I don't know you enough to trust you and you shouldn't on me either.
The only way to escape the trolls and Leftards is to Block and don't respond to them in the first place.

Click to expand...

I do not know your name, obviously MedicBravo is not your name, I have never hear of someone having that name, in fact many people have that name as a username, which I checked out.

And in truth most people's username on here is not their name, that is the truth.

I would gladly private chat with you, but you claimed that you knew who I was, by the vise versa statement you said, was that just said to intimidate me, because we do not see eye to eye, is that the real reason you said what you said ?

And is that your usual tactic when you do not know someone, or want to smear someone ?

If you know who I am just prove it.

And when I know someone more well, that is usually when I tell them my name, you tell people to let there names be known , yet you use MedicBravo, is that really your name ?

Maybe Bravo is part of your name, and you are a medic, but it is hard for me to fathom, that those words put together is your name, although I do not know if Bravo is even part of your name either.

On some other Christian sites, I told some people my name, but only the ones that I trust, because most people I do not trust online.

Gerbolski said:

MedicBravo have you actually seen videos of people speaking in tongues in our modern day, and bore witness that they were genuine ?

Click to expand...

And by the way MedicBravo, can you answer that question, because that can tells al lot if you would even receive a video.

Gerbolski said:

I do not know your name, obviously MedicBravo is not your name, I have never hear of someone having that name, in fact many people have that name as a username, which I checked out.

And in truth most people's username on here is not their name, that is the truth.

I would gladly private chat with you, but you claimed that you knew who I was, by the vise versa statement you said, was that just said to intimidate me, because we do not see eye to eye, is that the real reason you said what you said ?

And is that your usual tactic when you do not know someone, or want to smear someone ?

If you know who I am just prove it.

And when I know someone more well, that is usually when I tell them my name, you tell people to let there names be known , yet you use MedicBravo, is that really your name ?

Maybe Bravo is part of your name, and you are a medic, but it is hard for me to fathom, that those words put together is your name, although I do not know if Bravo is even part of your name either.

Click to expand...

"And is that your usual tactic when you do not know someone, or want to smear someone ?"
That's an absurd assumption.
"Usual tactic". Unless you're talking me, then you make another assumption is already strike 2.
To think I'm "smearing" you b/c I don't believe you is ridiculous.

Everyone has a username that is not their real name.
I'm not on social media like most people. I'm on a select few. People there know my real name.
If you wanna play the "word game" as some sort of "argument" go ahead.

Provide evidence and evidence that some pastor or your church has officially labeled you as a "Tongue speaker". Until then, there's no validity in your claim.

MedicBravo said:

"And is that your usual tactic when you do not know someone, or want to smear someone ?"
That's an absurd assumption.
"Usual tactic". Unless you're talking me, then you make another assumption is already strike 2.
To think I'm "smearing" you b/c I don't believe you is ridiculous.

Everyone has a username that is not their real name.
I'm not on social media like most people. I'm on a select few. People there know my real name.
If you wanna play the "word game" as some sort of "argument" go ahead.

Provide evidence and evidence that some pastor or your church has officially labeled you as a "Tongue speaker". Until then, there's no validity in your claim.

Click to expand...

I do not know your real name, you ask people to do something you at least have not done towards me.

And yes I do believe that you are using smear tactics, you laugh at that, just so to pretend you are not doing that, but because of your accusations, and saying you know me, when you do not.

Your are judging a matter before time.

It would be different if you would say, I do not know if you speak in tongues or not, and yes you ask of witnesses, you did do that part, but on the accusation part, you were not very biblical, the way you approach things is not very good, at least considering this matter.

If I had someone call you and they said I speak in tongues, would you even receive that testimony, I highly doubt it.

And you have not answered my question, which is this:

MedicBravo have you actually seen videos of people speaking in tongues in our modern day, and bore witness that they were genuine ?

You say you want this, but are you even open to it, will you smear it ?

Are you against unknown tongues, period ?

Because if you are then what it s the use sending you a video when you are not even open to it ?

Your combined actions shows smear tactics, you say one thing, you laugh in another post, and make accusations, and you say you know me, and judge things before time, it is kind of contradictory, and it is not biblical.

I am still open to having a private chat with you, but on sharing things with you specifically via say videos, or certain confirmations, I do not trust that you would give a fair judgment, but what I am willing to, is to share some of those things to a member of Talk Jesus, that has a more fair judgment, and then they can share stuff with you.

Are you open to this ? Because sometimes it is good for someone else to arbitrate things.

Well God is good.

We will see what comes out of things, but I am hoping we can get back on track to the discussion on tongues, and the verse face to face, I hope people can stick to the subject, and that discussing a person's genuineness which I am, or not can be talked about in private, for it does not edify anyone.

It is just one person's word against another person's word.

Anyhow, here are the verses:

1Co 13:10-12
(10) But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
(11) When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
(12) For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

First and the Last said:

That’s why I see 1 Corinthians 12–14 not as limiting the universal experience of tongues, but as regulating the public church-service expression of a particular gift of tongues, which is a different category altogether from what happened in Acts 2, Acts 10, and Acts 19.

Click to expand...

Hi first and Last.

Yep there are certain type of prayer tongues via the initial evidence of the Holy Ghost baptism.

And specific gifts of tongues, but in regard to prayer tongues that are done unto to oneself and to God, I personally see no problem whether done in public or private, but when it comes to tongues that is not done towards self and to God, but it is a message to someone, it has to be interpreted.

And those tongues have the same standards as normal prophesying, for it ought to be by 2 or 3.

It is almost like the tongues that need interpretation, is almost like a prophetic tongue, of some kind.

I know that in Pentecostal circles, there is debate over private vs non private, and in some circles some either go from extreme to another extreme, and some are well balanced.

I know that when I use to have a Scottish pastor which had a Pentecostal background ( which he is now passed away), often times, me , Peter, and him, would converse in his vehicle for hours, and at the time , me and Peter would get rides from him, for at that time I did not drive, and he told us how that from his younger days, t'ill that time, a lot of things changed in Pentecostal circles, even via doctrine.

Those days really built me up in the faith, I thank God for those days.

Gerbolski said:

I do not know your real name, you ask people to do something you at least have not done towards me.

And yes I do believe that you are using smear tactics, you laugh at that, just so to pretend you are not doing that, but because of your accusations, and saying you know me, when you do not.

Your are judging a matter before time.

It would be different if you would say, I do not know if you speak in tongues or not, and yes you ask of witnesses, you did do that part, but on the accusation part, you were not very biblical, the way you approach things is not very good, at least considering this matter.

If I had someone call you and they said I speak in tongues, would you even receive that testimony, I highly doubt it.

Click to expand...

I made this account years ago. Many have done the same and by their merit they have legitimacy here or they don't.
That's your opinion but that's not what this is.
I know your type and you still haven't provided any evidence. No one here should believe you.

"Your are judging a matter before time." Clarify.
If you're suggesting I'm doing it per the Bible, explain. I'm not judging hypocritically b/c I've never claimed to do it nor have I witnessed it.
You've nothing but your claim and your responses show you're offended/upset when you've provided no evidence.

"you were not very biblical" - I'm not the subject matter here. It's also your wrong opinion.
In a time, place, culture, and people who don't exist anymore they didn't have electricity, internet, social media, cellphones, any photographic or video methods to use then "word of mouth" and eyewitness testimony were largely the ways of recording information.
Information traveled at the speed of foot, horse, and boat.

I'm not giving my number out to some rando.
"If I had someone call you and they said I speak in tongues, would you even receive that testimony, I highly doubt it." - No.

The face to face thing

1Co 13:10-12
(10) But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
(11) When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
(12) For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Well what does it refer to about the things that are in part, being done away with ?

1Co 13:8-9
(8) Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
(9) For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

The things that are in part are prophecies, knowledge, but included in the things that shall be done away with, are tongues, for it says when that time comes, that tongues shall cease.

But when ?

Some say that when the last book of the bible was complete, that is when tongues ceased, well if that is the case, then that means prophecies have now failed, and having knowledge in part has vanished away.

Yes the bible is now complete but whom was Paul saying this to ?

Was he referring to a completion of a book being fully intact, so that knowledge is complete in that book ? Or was he talking about a time to were he , himself (us included) would come to a point of not just knowing in part, but knowing even as also we are known ?

Or of us to whatever degree, knowing in full, and no longer in part ?

The focus is on believers (not a completion of a book), no longer knowing in part, but knowing in some manner in full.

So do believers still just see through a glass darkly, and still just know in part, even though we have the completed book ? Yes , for no one can proclaim he knows the whole bible, I sure do not, I sure do not know in full.

And are prophecies failing today?

Absolutely not, for as time goes on, more prophecies are to be fulfilled.

So what does it say ?

1Co 13:10-12
(10) But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
(11) When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
(12) For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Does it say "that" which is perfect, or "he" who is perfect ?

Well I understand why someone would say that this time is referring to either Jesus coming at the rapture, or coming at the second coming, and I use to believe that.

But does it say "he" who is perfect is come, or "that" which is perfect is come ?

Well it says the word "that".

So when will tongues cease ? When will knowledge in part vanish away, and when will prophecies fail ?

Well prophecies shall fail, when the last prophecy of the bible is fulfilled, all prophecies will be accomplished, no longer needing any to be fulfilled, and that is when that which is perfect shall come, for everything shall be brought into perfection.

That is when tongues shall cease, and we shall be known even as also we are known.

First and the Last said:

Few subjects ignite Christian conversation like the question of spiritual gifts—especially the gift of tongues. From the day of Pentecost until now, believers have wrestled with what it truly means to be “filled with the Holy Ghost.” Is speaking in tongues still the evidence of that infilling, or was it only for the early church?

Some say that the baptism of the Holy Ghost, with tongues as the initial sign, is essential to salvation—a divine seal of sonship and the same experience the apostles received in Acts 2. Others argue that salvation is by faith alone, and tongues are simply one of many gifts distributed at God’s discretion, not a universal proof of redemption.

The debate touches the very core of what it means to be born again. If the Spirit is the seal of salvation (Ephesians 1:13), does the absence of the gifts indicate an incomplete conversion? Or is the Spirit’s presence measured not by manifestation but by transformation—the fruits of the Spirit rather than the gifts?

This tension between evidence and experience, faith and manifestation, has divided denominations and stirred countless testimonies. Some believers speak of heavenly languages that strengthen their spirit, while others caution against emotionalism and counterfeit expressions.

So the question stands:

“If the Holy Ghost was poured out on the day of Pentecost as the sign of the new covenant, can anyone truly claim salvation without the same experience?”

Let’s talk about it —

Are tongues and other gifts still operating in the church today?

Does the baptism of the Holy Ghost with evidence of tongues mark salvation, or simply empower the already saved?

And if the early church needed those gifts to demonstrate divine power, what does it say about the church today if we operate without them?

Click to expand...

The ONLY Baptism in the Holy Spirit happens to all moment saved by grace of God, as that is when the person is Baptized by the Holy Spirit into the person of Christ and into the body of Christ. No second act of Grace , but we are all indwelt by same Spirit, and can be filled by Him also daily. We are nevr command to seek the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, but are to be filled with the Spirit

MedicBravo said:

I made this account years ago. Many have done the same and by their merit they have legitimacy here or they don't.
That's your opinion but that's not what this is.
I know your type and you still haven't provided any evidence. No one here should believe you.

"Your are judging a matter before time." Clarify.
If you're suggesting I'm doing it per the Bible, explain. I'm not judging hypocritically b/c I've never claimed to do it nor have I witnessed it.
You've nothing but your claim and your responses show you're offended/upset when you've provided no evidence.

"you were not very biblical" - I'm not the subject matter here. It's also your wrong opinion.
In a time, place, culture, and people who don't exist anymore they didn't have electricity, internet, social media, cellphones, any photographic or video methods to use then "word of mouth" and eyewitness testimony were largely the ways of recording information.
Information traveled at the speed of foot, horse, and boat.

I'm not giving my number out to some rando.
"If I had someone call you and they said I speak in tongues, would you even receive that testimony, I highly doubt it." - No.

Click to expand...

I am not offended at the specific questions at all, but the way you are doing things, I find not right, you are judging before time, but assuming something you do not know.

And no not all people know your name on here.

And you have proven my point that you would not receive my testimony.

Yes we have internet, videos today, we do not video tape our services, and not every assembly does, there is no merits in doing or not doing so.

That is your systematic strategy for discernment, it is obvious, and if people do not do what you say, is it like they are false, that is not discernment.

And obviously by what you are saying, you do not want a private talk, and straiten things out in that talk.

So if you do not even want private talk, why did you even ask your questions in the first place, if you won't receive it anyway ?

That is what you call a critical spirit.

If someone would tell me they speak in tongues, I would not discredit them on the whim, and would not judge them like you do me, I like to get to know people.

And go from there.

I will just requote the face to face thing.

The face to face thing

1Co 13:10-12
(10) But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
(11) When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
(12) For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Well what does it refer to about the things that are in part, being done away with ?

1Co 13:8-9
(8) Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
(9) For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

The things that are in part are prophecies, knowledge, but included in the things that shall be done away with, are tongues, for it says when that time comes, that tongues shall cease.

But when ?

Some say that when the last book of the bible was complete, that is when tongues ceased, well if that is the case, then that means prophecies have now failed, and having knowledge in part has vanished away.

Yes the bible is now complete but whom was Paul saying this to ?

Was he referring to a completion of a book being fully intact, so that knowledge is complete in that book ? Or was he talking about a time to were he , himself (us included) would come to a point of not just knowing in part, but knowing even as also we are known ?

Or of us to whatever degree, knowing in full, and no longer in part ?

The focus is on believers (not a completion of a book), no longer knowing in part, but knowing in some manner in full.

So do believers still just see through a glass darkly, and still just know in part, even though we have the completed book ? Yes , for no one can proclaim he knows the whole bible, I sure do not, I sure do not know in full.

And are prophecies failing today?

Absolutely not, for as time goes on, more prophecies are to be fulfilled.

So what does it say ?

1Co 13:10-12
(10) But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
(11) When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
(12) For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Does it say "that" which is perfect, or "he" who is perfect ?

Well I understand why someone would say that this time is referring to either Jesus coming at the rapture, or coming at the second coming, and I use to believe that.

But does it say "he" who is perfect is come, or "that" which is perfect is come ?

Well it says the word "that".

So when will tongues cease ? When will knowledge in part vanish away, and when will prophecies fail ?

Well prophecies shall fail, when the last prophecy of the bible is fulfilled, all prophecies will be accomplished, no longer needing any to be fulfilled, and that is when that which is perfect shall come, for everything shall be brought into perfection.

That is when tongues shall cease, and we shall be known even as also we are known.

We shall see face to face with everything being brought to perfection, things no longer being in part, and then shall we all truly know even as also we are known.

Gerbolski said:

We shall see face to face with everything being brought to perfection, things no longer being in part, and then shall we all truly know even as also we are known.

Click to expand...

All believers that is, which it will only be believers in the time of eternity via the new earth, which takes place after the millennial reign.

Gerbolski said:

The face to face thing

1Co 13:10-12
(10) But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
(11) When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
(12) For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Well what does it refer to about the things that are in part, being done away with ?

1Co 13:8-9
(8) Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
(9) For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

The things that are in part are prophecies, knowledge, but included in the things that shall be done away with, are tongues, for it says when that time comes, that tongues shall cease.

But when ?

Some say that when the last book of the bible was complete, that is when tongues ceased, well if that is the case, then that means prophecies have now failed, and having knowledge in part has vanished away.

Yes the bible is now complete but whom was Paul saying this to ?

Was he referring to a completion of a book being fully intact, so that knowledge is complete in that book ? Or was he talking about a time to were he , himself (us included) would come to a point of not just knowing in part, but knowing even as also we are known ?

Or of us to whatever degree, knowing in full, and no longer in part ?

The focus is on believers (not a completion of a book), no longer knowing in part, but knowing in some manner in full.

So do believers still just see through a glass darkly, and still just know in part, even though we have the completed book ? Yes , for no one can proclaim he knows the whole bible, I sure do not, I sure do not know in full.

And are prophecies failing today?

Absolutely not, for as time goes on, more prophecies are to be fulfilled.

So what does it say ?

1Co 13:10-12
(10) But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
(11) When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
(12) For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Does it say "that" which is perfect, or "he" who is perfect ?

Well I understand why someone would say that this time is referring to either Jesus coming at the rapture, or coming at the second coming, and I use to believe that.

But does it say "he" who is perfect is come, or "that" which is perfect is come ?

Well it says the word "that".

So when will tongues cease ? When will knowledge in part vanish away, and when will prophecies fail ?

Well prophecies shall fail, when the last prophecy of the bible is fulfilled, all prophecies will be accomplished, no longer needing any to be fulfilled, and that is when that which is perfect shall come, for everything shall be brought into perfection.

That is when tongues shall cease, and we shall be known even as also we are known.

Click to expand...

Still not evidence.

Gerbolski said:

I am not offended at the specific questions at all, but the way you are doing things, I find not right, you are judging before time, but assuming something you do not know.

And no not all people know your name on here.

And you have proven my point that you would not receive my testimony.

Yes we have internet, videos today, we do not video tape our services, and not every assembly does, there is no merits in doing or not doing so.

That is your systematic strategy for discernment, it is obvious, and if people do not do what you say, is it like they are false, that is not discernment.

And obviously by what you are saying, you do not want a private talk, and straiten things out in that talk.

So if you do not even want private talk, why did you even ask your questions in the first place, if you won't receive it anyway ?

That is what you call a critical spirit.

Click to expand...

"Judging before time" - No one uses that.
"And no not all people know your name on here." - Never stated such an absurd thing.
I've proven nothing for you and your claim has no evidence to support it.

Oh, how convenient. So no one had cellphones? Everyone was so "awestruck" that not ONE person though to record it? Right.

You suggesting we talk in private is suspicious. What do you have to hide from everyone else? Another reason not to trust you.