Speaking in Tongues

[kathryn]

Richard....maybe the message is in the author's name who wrote the selection(tongue in cheek of course): John McPhee. The surname is from the scottish gaelic root meaning:
Descendant of the Dark Fairy !

[kathryn]

I'm sorry to carry on, but this is just too ripe to pass up. I looked at another site for the meaning of the surname"McPhee" and it states:

"son of a Dubhshithe".

I think I'd rather consider the Dark Fairy, wouldn't you?:-)))))))

[Bob May]

Jim ans: I fully agree that we have many things to be taught, but I am persuaded that it will not come from a prophet, but rather from the scriptures that we now possess and which tell of this wonderful message from Jesus, the apostles and the prophets.

I see Jude telling us to "contend earnestly for the faith once and for all delivered to the saints." Jude 3. The word has been delivered...once for all. There have been no additions to the scriptures since Jesus gave the Revelation. Nor do I expect any.

You should expect additions. But the additions are really the changing of our understanding of Scriptures. Jesus is speaking through them all the time. As we hear him it seems to change but it is we that are changing.

...These are the true sayings of God.
Re 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

And if he is speaking through the scriptures it is prophecy.

I see Paul teaching that prophecy would cease when the Perfect came. I believe that it came when the Old Covenant age ended during the judgment on the Old Covenant world.

John was the last of the Old Testament prophets. That was a very important sign of the coming of the end of the Old Covenant prophets.
The destruction of the temple also an important sign and the end of certain things left from the law of the jewish people. They could not do the temple sacrifices, for instance.

But there is Old Covenant and New Covenant prophecying.
One type, looking forward, was telling that which would come. Jesus being born, crucified, raising from the dead and the temple being destroyed.

There is also that which looks at that which has already come and gives understanding to those things which have happened and what it means to us.

Until we come to understand the things of scripture, it is not a reality to us.
So even though the temple was destroyed many are still under the law.
Same way with "that which is perfect", coming.

As you said it is the eye (you called it the right eye, I would call it the eye being single). We have to realize these things wholly.

If thine eye be single thy whole body will be full of light.

The prophets also declared a time when "vision and prophets" would be sealed up. Dan 9:24. We are told that the prophet and unclean spirit would pass out of the Land when there was a fountain opened for sin and uncleanness. Zech 13:1-2. One must discern what is meant by the Land for in the New Covenant we are a new creation and the fool nor wayfaring do not enter therein. Isa 35:8.

Kathryn mentioned the three baptisms and I know she relates that to the three spring festivals.

Kathryn>>"This "coming into agreement" is the process of sanctification or the Baptism of Fire. Until the action of the "leaven" within us has been stopped in the fire/oven, as typified by the two loaves of leavened bread in the Pentecostal offering, we're still a mixture."

This third baptism is typified by the third feast of tabernacles.
Joh 7:2 Now the Jews' feast of tabernacles was at hand.
Joh 7:4 For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, show thyself to the world.
Joh 7:6 Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready.
Joh 7:8 Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come.
Joh 7:10 But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.
Joh 7:14 Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught.
Joh 7:15 And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?
Joh 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
Joh 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.
Joh 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

Joh 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. Joh 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

The fountain you spoke about is Christ. That which is perfect cannot come until we drink of it/him. The Spirit which came once Jesus was glorified.

Joh 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

I know we differ, but thanks, Bob, for your thoughts.

Jim Hopkins

That's alright Jim. It is by drinking from that fountain that we will come together to understand and agree on the doctrine that Jesus spoke of.

Bob

[Charisma]

Hi Kathryn and all,

Dubhshithe

Very interesting! I couldn't resist... as it sounds like Gaelic.

http://www.irishgenealogy.com.ar/gen...fey/Gaffey.php

Seems to bear out another link confirming dark-skinned people having migrated to Scottish islands. Dalriada was a long time ago.

[Charisma]

Hi Charisma,

I am in agreement with you on the Veil.

Hi Rick,

Having posted that, and seeing it in black and white made me realise that in some ways the priests whom Malachi censures were being more honest than those of Jesus' time, who were manifestly in league with the secular powers rather than God. Who knows, if the Temple had been fully rebuilt after Babylon, if the Ark of the Covenant could have been found, or God commanded it to be remade, but we see His readiness to keep moving on with His plan, in that the Ark was gone for ever, a clue to His intention to do a new thing.

I heard in a conference address that the Pharisees were the 'revival party'. Compared with the Sadducees who had even stopped believing in resurrection, one can understand their fanaticism for all things 'Law' and legal, but even the formal Levite priesthood was not in control of the Temple any more, and for many generations a High Priest had gone behind the veil with the blood, to sprinkle it where? On the ground?

Truly God was gracious to them while they attempted to obey Him.

Hebrews 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than [that of] Abel.

Genesis 4:10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.

[Bob May]

Hi Rick,

Truly God was gracious to them while they attempted to obey Him.

Hebrews 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than [that of] Abel.

Genesis 4:10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.

There's that speaking again. The Old Covenant blood cries out for justice and the New speaks of forgiveness.

It struck me that even though there were many Jews who did not believe Jesus was who he was in the flesh, the enormity of the impact that the temple being torn down must have been to them. It was their belief that that was where you went to meet with God and have your sins forgiven at Atonement, etc.
And even the believing Jews had still kept much of the ordinances and laws until that happened. So the end of the law was written in the stones left not one upon another. Just as the law was written on stones, so the end of the law was written in stones.

And I have never considered what you pointed out about the Ark being gone when the veil was rent. That's a very interesting detail. I'm going to let that one roll around in my mind for a while. I'm sure it has something to do with the revelation/realization that the Shekinah, the presence of God, is not in the temple built with hands, but in the hearts God's children.

I'll bet the High Priest had the veil sewn up very quickly, though.

"Nothing to see here,...move along, move along."

Bob

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard....maybe the message is in the author's name who wrote the selection(tongue in cheek of course): John McPhee. The surname is from the scottish gaelic root meaning:
Descendant of the Dark Fairy !

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I'm sorry to carry on, but this is just too ripe to pass up. I looked at another site for the meaning of the surname"McPhee" and it states:

"son of a Dubhshithe".

I think I'd rather consider the Dark Fairy, wouldn't you?:-)))))))

How could the get that from McPhee? Should post links when making such curious claims.

I do fear I've derailed this conversation from a discussion of glossolalia to a demonstration of it!

[kathryn]

Bob wrote: Kathryn mentioned the three baptisms and I know she relates that to the three spring festivals.

Kathryn>>"This "coming into agreement" is the process of sanctification or the Baptism of Fire. Until the action of the "leaven" within us has been stopped in the fire/oven, as typified by the two loaves of leavened bread in the Pentecostal offering, we're still a mixture."


Good morning all!
I just wanted to clarify this a bit Bob. It may be confusing for some who are just beginning to study typology as there are 3 distinct phases in each of 3 the primary types of passover/pentecost/tabernacles. For instance, in the type of Tabernacles, we see the 3 phases of the Tabernacle Age foreshadowed by Jesus' entering the Temple at the beginning of the Feast, the MIDST of the Feast (midst of the Jordan) and the end of the Feast.


The Baptism of Fire begins from what was generated at the Cross,(fulfillment of Passover which begins the Pentecostal generation or age (the sanctification or "purifying" phase of the Body or ekklesia).
When the action of the leaven (inquity)has been stopped in this process ...the two loaves of the Pentecostal offering have been raised...or David's Tabernacle is raised. (Perfection)


As you once pointed out..it is :

body, soul, spirit
water, air, fire
passover, pentecost, tabernacles
outer court, Holy Place, Holy of Holies etc.

The Redemption passes through all 3 areas . The raised Tabernacle of David is the Mind of Christ formed fully in us.

As you know...all of the types/shadows/symbolism in the bible, point to the mind, to one degree or another. There was no outer court or Holy Place in the Tabernacle of David; no doors, no veil. (and it was 3 sided, not 4)
It typfies the renewal of the mind/heart which has been fully accomplished in and through all 3 areas (body included)...by the 3 Baptisms.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard...thanks for sharing that story. Is it written somewhere that you have to be a Christian first, before hearing God? It's been my experience that He uses many different means to draw us.

Good morning Kathryn,

No, no such thing is written as far as I know. And while we're on the topic, where is it written that things need to be written to be authoritative?

Well now that I think about it, author-itative does have a certain implication of "something written." Oh my! The dominance of the Left Brain Linear Linguistic Logic Center demands authority once again! Gotta keep an eye out for that little beast. Rose is reading a book right now called The Alphabet versus the Goddess: The Conflict between Word and Image. It's the next natural step in our exploration of the different modes of mind manifested by the Left and Right hemispheres.

I don't think I have to define or explain anything in Christian terms when I'm speaking of a supernatural experience...nor do I most times. It depends entirely on whom I'm speaking with. I usually let Him introduce Himself in His own way. But I can, if needed

Well, your reference to "Him" (Christ) presumes "Christian terms" does it not?

This is probably a topic for another thread, but I'm curious how folks think of God. I used to just have a rather vague blurry concept of a big fuzzy ball of "Glory Light" that was warm and personal. But as I matured, I realized that I don't understand the concept of a personal God at all. What am I supposed to think - He's like just another person, only super powered and super smart and He just hangs around waiting for people to "believe" so that they can imagine He exists? It really doesn't make any sense to me, and it doesn't seem to correspond to reality. All the "numinous" or "spiritual" experiences we have can be explained without inventing a God concept. It seems like most Christians think of Him like an invisible person who intently watches everything we do but rarely participates or helps in any objectively verifiable manner.

Quite frankly, I can't fully believe a foundational concept in the bible until I can see it. (and usually it has to be over and over, and from varying angles)
Many many things I used to believe in Christianity, and dogmatically declare I believed, I realize now wasn't belief at all. It was an assumption based on someone elses' sloppy study of the bible. My standards have risen:-)

Ah ... that's good! You are becoming an independent thinker! If I had to guess, I'd think a small percentage of people ever break out of the prison matrix of inherited ideas, dogmas, and social conventions.

If I now can't trace it in type and shadow, through the 3 phases of redemption typified in the Law of Moses, the prophets and the psalms...the 3 areas Jesus used Himself, to reveal Himself after the resurrection I discount it. If I can trace it....I believe it wholeheartedly.
Each time it happens...it is life changing in some way...faith is built up, joy increases, and the body is energized. This is utterly satisfying to me.
I have a passionate hunger for the truth..and I can be a fickle old broad if it isn't satiated regularily.

Well, that seems like an artificial construct to me. The three genres of books Jesus cited does not mean that there are three "phases of redemption." It could be true, but if so, why was it only recently "discovered" or "invented?" This is my current problem. I found I don't believe in the inherited metaphysics of Christianity, but neither do I feel inclined to invent my own novel metaphysical system. So I'm stuck without one for right now. Of course, that might not be true - I probably have an implicit metaphysical system. So then my job is to make it explicit. But that's very different than inventing a new one. So now I know my task! Thank you! This is what I love about conversations - when done well they become a path of discovery.

So my taks is not to invent a metaphysical view of the world, but to explicate the implicate view I already have. I love it. And then I will criticize it and see if it true so I can improve it.

I can honestly tell you that while I desire to know about other faiths, as I find it extremely interesting...I couldn't bear to take the time I would spend on it, away from the Bible. There simply isn't enough of it left in the day. I'm enjoying watching your pursuit of truth though..although I want to give you a slap sometimes.

I'm not so much interested in other "faiths" as I am in understanding every point of view. The size of mind and intelligence is well measured by the number of points of view you can adopt.

Wonderful to be wandering down this path with you. Who know? Maybe we'll find another patch of four leaf clovers!

Richard