Good Samaritan Involvement Day 2025 is on Thursday, March 13, 2025: "I wish that I spoke in tongues more than anyone."?

Thursday, March 13, 2025 is Good Samaritan Involvement Day 2025. Good Samaritan Super Thrift Good Samaritan Super Thrift

Sponsored Deals

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Because of the misunderstanding and mis-teachings of what tongues were/are, due to taking things out of context. I grew up in both baptist and pentecostal churches so I was both sides of the argument. So I spent a lot of time studying this "phenomenom". What I saw in Scripture does not coincide with what occurs in modern churches (not just in tongues either). Here is one of the best teachings on it that I have ever seen. Just found it a few days ago. It is long but I encourage you to read it.

==========

...differences of opinion have literally split Christianity over this very issue.

First of all, let me give a bit of personal background so you will know where I am personally coming from. I turned 63 yesterday and have been involved in some sort of ministry since I was ten years old. [More about that at

ble.org/Teaching /Model/Chapter_ 1.htm ]

That gives me over 50 years of ministry involvement, approximately 14 years of which were spent in lay leadership with Pentecostal congregations. I have a great love for Pentecostal Christians and their devotion to Messiah.

However (and here's the really tricky part), in the 14 years I spent in Pentecostal assemblies I NEVER -- not a SINGLE time -- witnessed the use of "tongues" that followed the Biblical pattern or requirement, and I have observed that within Pentecostal assemblies, those who do not practice "tongues" are considered and treated as less spiritual than those who do, and are often treated as "second class citizens." This is far from Biblical!

So, that being said, we need to find out (without becoming emotionally involved in the discussion) how the "gift of tongues" was used in the B'rit Hadashah (Apostolic Scriptures).

Having studied the subject at considerable length, I can find only three times in the entire Apostolic Scriptures that specifically state that people "spoke with other tongues" when they received Ruach HaKodesh.

The first time was at the Temple (nope, not in an "upper room") on Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4) [See also

ble.org/Teaching /Model/Chapter_ 6.htm ].

The second time was in the home of the Roman Centurion Cornelius, a Gentile (Acts 10:44-48).

The third time was with the apparently Jewish disciples of Yochanan the Baptizer (Acts 19:1-7).

In Acts 8:14-17 Kefa (Cephas or Peter) and Yochanan (John) are ministering to the first Messianic Samaritans, and when "they began laying their hands on them, ... they were receiving the Holy Spirit." However, in this instance there is no mention of them speaking in other tongues.

So let's examine these four events in chronological order to see if we can find some common denominators -- a pattern.

On Pentecost (Acts 2) all the Apostles were waiting to be "endowed from on high" with power for ministry as Yeshua had promised. Ruach HaKodesh came in what was essentially a reenactment of the Sinai experience (in which the Torah was given, according to the tradition with which the Apostles would have been familiar, in all of the 70 languages of humanity). When Ruach HaKodesh came upon them they began "speaking of the mighty deeds of God" in languages which they had not previous known. Dr Luke is very clear in his telling of the event that these languages were not some "unknown tongue" or "heavenly language" or "gibberish," but were the languages of all these "devout men from every nation under heaven" who were their witnesses. Then Dr Luke provides a partial list of the languages represented.

"They were all filled with the Ruach HaKodesh and began to talk in different languages, as the Spirit enabled them to speak. Now there were staying in Yerushalayim religious Jews from every nation under heaven. When they heard this sound, a crowd gathered; they were confused, because each one heard the believers speaking in his own language. Totally amazed, they asked, 'How is this possible? Aren't all these people who are speaking from the Galil? How is it that we hear them speaking in our native languages? We are Parthians, Medes, Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Y'hudah, Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt, the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome; Jews by birth and proselytes; Jews from Crete and from Arabia. . . ! How is it that we hear them speaking in our own languages about the great things God has done?'" (Acts 2:4-11, CJB)

Who were present? Apostles and unbelieving Jews from Jerusalem, Judea, and the Diaspora. What was the result? Unbelievers became believers, and there was a visible sign that Adonai was at work bringing Jews from all over the world into the Messianic Community.

The chronologically second of the four events I listed above (Acts 8) is when Keffa and Yochanan were ministering to the first Messianic Samaritans, and when "they began laying their hands on them, ... they were receiving the Holy Spirit." However, in this instance there is no mention of them speaking in

Leaving before finishing GCSEs - Predicted Grades?

You are not legally allowed to leave school in March, so you will have to continue your education somewhere. If you really do go to Northern Ireland it is not another country and they do GCSEs there too so you could still take them but you would would need to sort that out asap when you got there. However, it would be really disruptive and there would be all sorts of problem sorting syllabuses and coursework out and your final grades are likely to suffer. I strongly advise you to stick it out at home for another 3 months and get your GCSEs finished where you have been taught. You can only miss exams and be given the credit if you are too ill to take them on the day but all sorts of things can be sorted out for pupils who move suddenly near exam time because they are in care, prison or victims of domestic violence - exam boards can email the papers to a school where you are for you to take but you need to have had the coursework submitted somewhere but it will never happen without social services involvement - you can't just walk into a school and say that you've run away from home and you'd like to take a GCSE there today.

You say you've planned meticulously. What are you going to live on in London? Living in London is expensive, accommodation is really expensive. They will only give you child benefit and EMA if there is an adult to pay it to. I urge you to talk this through face to face with someone impartial before leaving home - Samaritans, Citizen's Advice - as I fear that your desperation to get away from home is going to land you in an even worse mess.

Why is there so much hostility towards libertarianism?

I believe the hostility towards Libertarianism is simply due to the fact that it is outside the "mainstream" Democrat and Republican policy positions. I believe that the vast majority of Americans don't even know the meaning of Libertarianism. Hence, when they hear the term, they automatically think it is some far-fetched radical school of thought, which it is not. Little do they know that Libertarianism is actually the basic philosophy that our consititution is based upon.

I must take issue with Adam B's misguided posting on this issue, which I have copied below:

Adam B: "Because libertarians don't seem to understand that some people can't lift themselves up by their own bootstraps - they need help. This is a society, we're supposed to support our brothers when they need it, and we should look to our brother when we need support.

The notion that everyone will be fine if only government will go away is immature. It ignores the terrible excesses of laissez faire capitalism that we saw in this country at the turn of the last century. When libertarians talk about "economic freedom," what they're saying is that the rich should have the right to dominate the poor. When they talk about "personal freedom" they're really talking about the strong dominating the weak. That's the heart of immorality, and it's fortunate that not many people subscribe to such a blinkered philosophy.

Look, everyone reads Atlas Shrugged in high school. But most of us grow up and realize that it's not a good basis for a functional society."

Adam's assumptions are way off base. First of all, Libertarians fully understand that there will always be poor and disadvantaged people in society who need help. What Adam doesn't understand is that Libertarians believe that it is the morality of a free people who will take it upon themselves to help the poor and disadvantaged. It is no coincidence that during the height of laissez faire economic systems in the United States and Great Britain in the 19th Century that the world's greatest charitable organizations were established. Between the 1860s and the 1890s, the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and Goodwill Industries were started by good samaritans who felt a moral duty to help those less fortunate (they were not started by any government programs!) In addition to the founding of charitable organizations, most of society relied upon churches and other religious institutions to provide for those less fortunate.

Of course, this leads to the question: Is it better to use government to help the disadvantaged rather than private charities and religious institutions? No. Despite literally trillions of dollars spent on social programs in the United States since FDR's days in the 1930s, we still have a large segment of the American population that can be characterized as poor and disadvantaged. Prior to FDR's embarkment on socialist policies in the 1930s (which prolonged the Great Depression), the United States had the highest standard of living in the world. Now, 70 years after moving increasingly down the path of a socialist society, the United States has gradually seen its economic wealth deteriorate relative to other nations. Furthemore, despite spending hundreds of billions of dollars on eduction since Jimmy Carter created the Department of Education in 1980, American high school drop out rates are as high as ever and American students' test scores are still below the levels in the 1950s and 1960s before heavy government involvement in education.

In summary, then, a free society based on personal liberty and private property has the double benefit of not only providing for a higher standard of living for its citizens, it also inherently promotes a society based on goodwill and high moral values. Consequently, the poor and disadvanatged are far better off in a Libertarian society than a society based on government hand-outs and social programs. Remember, the more government spends on social programs to help people, the more it hurts the productive elements of society with higher taxes and the more it encourages irresponsible behavior and immorality.