Amen,shut the door! Prayer changes me first before it changes my situation.This is so powerful and life transforming. Time spent with God is worth every second.
@@bennetbissue779 So you are saying that Jesus didn’t have the Holy Spirit? Luke 4:1-2 says Jesus was “full of the Holy Spirit” before he was tempted in the wilderness.
@@bennetbissue779 I’m not trying to be negative, but it always comes out that way. So I’m sorry if I come off offensive. I understand that he had to leave for the Spirit to come to us. My question is that when Jesus instructed us to pray, he used words to the Father that was plain to his disciples and followers, enough that they recorded it for us to know. Do you think he might have told his disciples that they(we) would pray a new way after he returned to the father?
@@coreybassard Shalom. This is a good question and here is my attempt to answer it. Here are 4 answers that might be plausible. My first guess would be that Jesus might have spoken in spirit language, but it was just not recorded. Jesus had the habit of staying away from people or finding a solitary place in the mountains where he could be alone with the Father. Thus, He might have spoken in tongues at those times. My second guess is that most of the time Jesus prayed around his disciples, it was recorded that He would still go a bit farther away from them and they were sleeping as they could not withstand the prayer time that stretched for hours. I might say that most likely He could have prayed in tongues, but they either could not hear Him because He was far away, or they were sleeping. My third answer is that maybe they just did not understand what was going on as it was recorded that they were still in the flesh when He prayed in tongues, yet they knew what he was doing was supernatural. Therefore, they asked him how to pray later on. My last answer is tied to 1 Corinthians 14: 2-6 which says that praying in tongues is speaking to God and edifying oneself, but prophesying is better so that one can edify the church, not just oneself. This is to say that He might not have spoken in tongues because He did not need to edify Himself as He came from heaven, and thus knew what to say and when to say it. He preferred prophesies in a language understandable to people so that he could edify them instead.
@@jufith5832 I think that if Jesus was praying in tongues, at least one disciple would mention that he prayed that way, being that there are the four accounts written of Jesus. Even still, the accounts of Gethsemane, for instance, where he prayed privately, are very specific. If they didn’t know tongues because “they were still in the flesh,” how might they know what to write in their accounts? Granted, I get that they were written much later so someone might say it could have been revealed later, but my gut would say, for as specific as Luke is, he didn’t include something as pressing as Jesus praying in tongues, yet he wrote that he was a stones throw away while he prayed there. Even Paul, on discussing these gifts, might mention something about how Jesus might have prayed in tongues and not leave that up to assumption, but he didn’t. There’s too many “might haves” and I guess that’s where we disagree. In the context of church building, Paul explains tongues usage. That’s the point of 1 Corinthians 14, which is also why he requires someone to interpret. This is almost never done in a church setting. I don’t go to “Pentecostal” churches but I have in the past and there never were translators. In 1 Corinthians 14:21-22, where he discusses tongues, to many, this appears to make clear the intent behind tongues usage. “21 In the Law it is written, “By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.” 22 Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers.” This goes against the idea of personal edification, especially knowing that gifts are not for us or our glory but for God’s. The edification of self would be that people see a demonstration of God’s power by the vessel God chooses to use. This is referencing Isaiah 28 and, essentially, the veil on Jews and gentiles who refuse to hear the gospel. Yet many people from all over will also believe and preach the good news. Now, think about Acts 2:6-12. They used tongues to preach to people in their native language, not to God. It’s a sign to unbelievers that God is using them, supernaturally. V12 “And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” Shortly after this, Peter laid it down thick and heavy and many believed. (Acts 2:37-41) When I read 1 Corinthians 2, what it appears to me to say is that it was a response to scenarios witnessed throughout Acts, that the ability to speak in these foreign tongues showed an immediate connection to God through the Holy Spirit. It is edifying in the sense that it showed that the Spirit was on them a unique relationship that others in the world did not have. But it didn’t prove to build up the churches they started when there was a common language spoken or if they didn’t have an interpreter available (1 Cor 14:9-12). We may disagree in the end, and I don’t judge anyone for what they believe, I just say that context seems to speak for itself and stopping at the words we want to see might hold us back from the words we are missing. Many churches are full of “might haves,” not just Pentecostal churches either, and I think we need to reevaluate that posture with the firm foundation that the Word has given us in full. Much love and thank you for responding. I really appreciate it.
Amen,shut the door!
Prayer changes me first before it changes my situation.This is so powerful and life transforming.
Time spent with God is worth every second.
So worth it 🥹
Thank you Apostle Arome , Keybonist you did well through out the session salute.❤
I m here in 2024 ❤✨Glory be to God ,from Burundi🇧🇮
Im here with you my family in christ❤
Am here in 2024 drinking on this fountain
Glory to God 🎉
Glory to God to rise such powerful man of God to rebuild the righteous altar. Amen🎉
Definitely Touched by God❤
Hallelujah shut the door
It Kindles a fire 🔥
Thank you for this Prayerstorm , this was beautiful
So glad to hear this blessed you!
❤️❤️❤️❤️
Powerful teaching
Wow glorious
This is sooooooo true.
Powerful ❤️🔥
wow
1:27:57
🙌🏽🙌🏽🙌🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽
❤❤ 1:26:48
🙌🏿❤️🙋♀️
1:13:09
I wish I can have your cell number. From South Africa 🇿🇦
Why didn’t Jesus pray in tongues to God?
He had to leave for the spirit to come
@@bennetbissue779 So you are saying that Jesus didn’t have the Holy Spirit? Luke 4:1-2 says Jesus was “full of the Holy Spirit” before he was tempted in the wilderness.
@@bennetbissue779 I’m not trying to be negative, but it always comes out that way. So I’m sorry if I come off offensive.
I understand that he had to leave for the Spirit to come to us. My question is that when Jesus instructed us to pray, he used words to the Father that was plain to his disciples and followers, enough that they recorded it for us to know.
Do you think he might have told his disciples that they(we) would pray a new way after he returned to the father?
@@coreybassard Shalom. This is a good question and here is my attempt to answer it. Here are 4 answers that might be plausible. My first guess would be that Jesus might have spoken in spirit language, but it was just not recorded. Jesus had the habit of staying away from people or finding a solitary place in the mountains where he could be alone with the Father. Thus, He might have spoken in tongues at those times. My second guess is that most of the time Jesus prayed around his disciples, it was recorded that He would still go a bit farther away from them and they were sleeping as they could not withstand the prayer time that stretched for hours. I might say that most likely He could have prayed in tongues, but they either could not hear Him because He was far away, or they were sleeping. My third answer is that maybe they just did not understand what was going on as it was recorded that they were still in the flesh when He prayed in tongues, yet they knew what he was doing was supernatural. Therefore, they asked him how to pray later on. My last answer is tied to 1 Corinthians 14: 2-6 which says that praying in tongues is speaking to God and edifying oneself, but prophesying is better so that one can edify the church, not just oneself. This is to say that He might not have spoken in tongues because He did not need to edify Himself as He came from heaven, and thus knew what to say and when to say it. He preferred prophesies in a language understandable to people so that he could edify them instead.
@@jufith5832 I think that if Jesus was praying in tongues, at least one disciple would mention that he prayed that way, being that there are the four accounts written of Jesus. Even still, the accounts of Gethsemane, for instance, where he prayed privately, are very specific. If they didn’t know tongues because “they were still in the flesh,” how might they know what to write in their accounts? Granted, I get that they were written much later so someone might say it could have been revealed later, but my gut would say, for as specific as Luke is, he didn’t include something as pressing as Jesus praying in tongues, yet he wrote that he was a stones throw away while he prayed there.
Even Paul, on discussing these gifts, might mention something about how Jesus might have prayed in tongues and not leave that up to assumption, but he didn’t. There’s too many “might haves” and I guess that’s where we disagree.
In the context of church building, Paul explains tongues usage. That’s the point of 1 Corinthians 14, which is also why he requires someone to interpret. This is almost never done in a church setting. I don’t go to “Pentecostal” churches but I have in the past and there never were translators.
In 1 Corinthians 14:21-22, where he discusses tongues, to many, this appears to make clear the intent behind tongues usage.
“21 In the Law it is written, “By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.” 22 Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers.” This goes against the idea of personal edification, especially knowing that gifts are not for us or our glory but for God’s. The edification of self would be that people see a demonstration of God’s power by the vessel God chooses to use.
This is referencing Isaiah 28 and, essentially, the veil on Jews and gentiles who refuse to hear the gospel. Yet many people from all over will also believe and preach the good news.
Now, think about Acts 2:6-12. They used tongues to preach to people in their native language, not to God. It’s a sign to unbelievers that God is using them, supernaturally.
V12 “And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “What does this mean?”
Shortly after this, Peter laid it down thick and heavy and many believed. (Acts 2:37-41)
When I read 1 Corinthians 2, what it appears to me to say is that it was a response to scenarios witnessed throughout Acts, that the ability to speak in these foreign tongues showed an immediate connection to God through the Holy Spirit. It is edifying in the sense that it showed that the Spirit was on them a unique relationship that others in the world did not have. But it didn’t prove to build up the churches they started when there was a common language spoken or if they didn’t have an interpreter available
(1 Cor 14:9-12).
We may disagree in the end, and I don’t judge anyone for what they believe, I just say that context seems to speak for itself and stopping at the words we want to see might hold us back from the words we are missing. Many churches are full of “might haves,” not just Pentecostal churches either, and I think we need to reevaluate that posture with the firm foundation that the Word has given us in full.
Much love and thank you for responding. I really appreciate it.