Philadelphianlady

Yes, I watched a secular show once on dream interpretation. Heard the dream, and then the experts interpretation based on the objects in the dream. Their interpretation had nothing to do with the context of the dream. Then another told their dream, with the same objects, and the expert used the rote interpretation as the first, yet didn't make sense.

No, what I mean is "this" equals "that" referring to specifics: snakes only represent this, and babies only represent that. It is not fool proof, and if one makes it a formula, then anyone can come up with an interpretation based on the objects, and not even have the Holy Spirit. For instance, if our formula said, blood only means violence, when the Spirit could mean protection by the blood, then we miss His interpretation. Not saying that is the case here. So in what manner did you receive the interpretation? By the objects, or by the Spirit. I imagine Spirit, but only you know.

I'll respond here, even though I clicked from the other site. I do believe in dreams and visions. When I hear the details of dreams, or have them, myself, I usually have the interpretation if it is a prophetic dream, but not by deciphering what objects mean, like cell phones. I know there are classes on this, but I've never thought much about them. As for this one, I'll let you know if I get anything. But yours seems logical, knowing the signs of the time.

The bodies of the dead raise at that time and put on immortality. But the spirits of the dead in Christ return with Him. The alive do not come back with Him.

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 is very clear. 13 But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus. 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words. I don't understand where the pre-trib. notion started, but the Bible is quiet clear. Only those already with Him, are returning with him, not those alive Christians caught up in some secret rapture having nothing to do with the return of Christ. The rapture has to do with HIS RETURN.

But that's the point! Tongues are legitimate languages, but a person of that language doesn't have to be there. You don't know EVERY language of earth or heaven. That's the danger of calling a language "gibber babber" when you are ignorant of a thousand languages that sound that way to us not of that region, or even that ancient age. What language did Adam speak? What language do the angels speak to each other? Are they mute? Are you kidding? As for the rest of your post. You quoted what else I said, but with no comment.

I've read all your posts from the beginning and have a question for you. When you hear someone speaking a language you don't understand - say in the heart of Africa, does it NOT sound like gibberish or fast mubblings? Well, guess what? God understands them. The key verse that all passages MUST line up with, including Acts 2, is at the beginning of the chapter on the difference between the two manifestations of tongues from the Spirit. 1 Corinthians 14:2 2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries. The things that you have been claiming about tongues, completely go against this rule, and it is time your thinking adjusts to line up with Scripture. You claim a human person who knows the language spoken must be present. Can't you see how your statement flies in complete opposition to the rule? And how your breaking the rule colors your whole belief on all other passages in Acts? By the way, 1 Corinthians was written around 15 years before Luke wrote Acts. I would wager you believe that in Acts 2, the apostles who were speaking in tongues were speaking the different languages of the devout Jews, and those Jews heard their own languages naturally? That is not what it says, but your colored glasses may erroneously see it that way. Contradicting a rule will have a domino affect on your understanding anything on the subject. What is funny is there are even Pentecostals who believe as you do. They try to make their understanding of Acts 2, which comes first in the NT, and make the rule line up with the story, instead of the other way around.?