hakeem wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 5:57 pm
I have not claimed the post-resurrection stories are historical accounts. I am dealing specifically with the chronology of NT writings. gLuke, Acts of the Apostles, and the Pauline Epistles post-resurrection stories are later than those in gMark, gMatthew and gJohn.
The authors of gMark, gMatthew and gJohn did not know the story that the disciples were commanded by the resurrected Jesus to stay in Jerusalem to get power from a Ghost in order to preach the Gospel in tongues.
In gLuke and Acts the apostles could never have been able to preach the Gospel, [they would be powerless] without first staying in Jerusalem to get filled with the Ghost to preach in tongues.
All NT tongue talking stories and being filled by a Ghost are very late and unknown by many Christian writers up to the late 2nd century.
This makes sense if you date Paul later than Mark and Matthew, but I date Paul to before 70 CE (I think he is mentioned by Josephus) so it doesn't work for me. And Paul says that some Christians were not into speaking in tongues and that it had no benefit to others unless the person doing it interpreted it for them. So the authors of Mark and Matthew may have been the kind of Christians who were not into it while the author(s) of Luke/Acts were. In other words, I think there was a variety of opinions regarding the value and nature of speaking in tongues, just like followers Rabbi Schneerson have a variety of opinions regarding whether or not he is still alive or was or will be the Messiah. And as Paul says in 1 Cor. 14:2-4:
For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men, but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries in the Spirit ... The one who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but the one who prophesies edifies the church.
But the author of Acts 2:4-11 says that people were able to understand Christians speaking in tongues because for them speaking in tongues means speaking in other human languages rather than speaking something that only God can understand.
And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.
Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. And when this sound rang out, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking his own language.
Astounded and amazed, they asked, “Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans? How is it then that each of us hears them in his own native language? Parthians, Medes, and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome, both Jews and converts to Judaism; Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!”
So if Paul is dependent on Luke/Acts (or vice versa), why aren't their views regarding the value and nature of speaking tongues more in line?