text:
Crisis Core -Final Fantasy VII-
Talk61this wiki
Crisis Core -Final Fantasy VII- | |
クライシス コア -ファイナルファンタジーVII- Kuraishisu Koa -Fainaru Fantajī Sebun- | |
Developers | Square Enix |
Publishers | Square Enix |
Release dates | September 13, 2007 / March 25, 2008 June 20, 2008 June 20, 2008 |
Genre | Action Role-Playing Game |
Game modes | Single player |
Ratings | ESRB: Teen CERO: B |
Platforms | PlayStation Portable |
- "Men cry not for themselves but for their comrades."
- —Tagline, a quote from LOVELESS.
Crisis Core -Final Fantasy VII- is an action-RPG from Square Enix for the PlayStation Portable. The game is a prequel to Final Fantasy VII and is the fourth entry to the Compilation of Final Fantasy VII.
Crisis Core -Final Fantasy VII- begins seven years before the start of Final Fantasy VII, and encompasses the events that take place until just before its beginning. The game's hero is Zack Fair, who was a minor character in Final Fantasy VII and the previous owner of the Buster Sword before Cloud Strife. He is a SOLDIER working for the Shinra Electric Power Company under Director Lazard Deusericus. The game tells the tale of Zack's battle against the villainous SOLDIER defector, Genesis Rhapsodos, and the other products of the Jenova Project.
Crisis Core -Final Fantasy VII- is both an action and turn-based RPG, with a stream of fast turns creating the illusion of real-time combat. Like the Square and Disney hybrid series Kingdom Hearts, the player chooses actions from a menu, featuring attack, magic, special attack, and item choices. The game's key feature is the Digital Mind Wave - a slot machine-like screen in the upper left-hand corner. Images and numbers continuously scroll in each of the three slots consuming Soldier Points (SP). Combinations of sevens lead to special Status Effects, while having identical characters in the left and right slot opens up the modulating screen. Certain combinations of characters and numbers in modulating phase will allow the player to level up Zack, power up Materia, or perform special moves and summons.
The player can choose whether to follow the game's story, which can be completed in around 15 hours of gameplay, or to complete missions, which can be completed at 100% with over 50 hours of gameplay. Some missions can only be unlocked by accomplishing certain story parts, so the best time to try and complete the missions is near the end.
Materia is present as a part of the magic and ability system, like in Final Fantasy VII, but there are some differences in how it works. Summon Materia are no longer in player's control, and instead, are added to the DMW. By special circumstances, or more likely, at random, the DMW slots switch to the summoning scene, where one of the various Summon Materia are selected and performed. Materia does not divide like it did in Final Fantasy VII, though it does level up if two similar numbers corresponding to the slot are drawn in a modulated phase (the likelihood of a level-up is based upon a hidden EXP counter that gains points as Zack defeats enemies; the higher the counter, the greater chance of leveling up.); 1 - 4 as a SOLDIER 2nd Class, or 1 - 6 as a SOLDIER 1st Class. Materia may grant significant bonuses to Zack's HP, MP, AP, ATK, VIT, MAG, SPR, or LCK. Materia can be customized through the Materia Fusion process.
Players cannot buy weapons. The game begins with Zack holding a typical SOLDIER sword, but he eventually moves on to wield the Buster Sword. In some cases special weapons are utilized, like wielding a parasol during a vacation to Costa del Sol.
Equipment is limited to accessories though they grant various stat boosts and special effects when equipped. Two to four pieces of equipment can be worn depending on requirements are met.
The shops can be entered via the main menu. More shops can be added by proceeding in the storyline, and by doing missions which reward the player with access to new shops. None of the shops will ever sell Phoenix Downs, which must be found in treasure chests or won in missions.
Main summon sequences are FMVs that can be skipped. This does not apply to Chocobo Mode summons.
Since the game takes place seven years before Final Fantasy VII, many places on the Planet are either under construction or otherwise different from Final Fantasy VII. The city of Midgar has not yet been completed, and the town of Nibelheim is still filled with its original inhabitants. Several playable or otherwise major characters from Final Fantasy VII make cameo appearances.
- Main article: List of Crisis Core -Final Fantasy VII- Characters
Playable CharacterEdit
- Zack Fair - A SOLDIER 2nd Class dreaming of reaching the level of 1st Class and becoming a hero.
Other CharactersEdit
- Angeal Hewley - A SOLDIER 1st Class who is Zack's mentor, and the Buster Sword's original owner. He believes in SOLDIER honor, loyalty, and friendship. He jokingly calls Zack a "restless puppy".
- Genesis Rhapsodos - A SOLDIER 1st Class who was Angeal's childhood friend. He disappeared before the start of the game, and now rebels against Shinra, seeking to recreate the world of LOVELESS.
- Sephiroth - A SOLDIER 1st Class who is revered by all as a hero. At first, his only friends are Angeal and Genesis, but soon forms a friendship with Zack.
- Aerith Gainsborough - A young woman residing in the Sector 5 Slums who meets Zack and develops a relationship with him.
- Cloud Strife - A young man serving Shinra as an infantryman. During an assignment, he meets Zack and the two develop a friendship that becomes a large factor in both of their destinies.
- Tseng - A member of Shinra's espionage group called the Turks.
- Cissnei - A member of the Turks who helps Zack throughout his time in SOLDIER.
- Lazard Deusericus - The director of SOLDIER operations who sends its members out on missions.
- Dr. Hollander - A former Shinra scientist with strong ties to Angeal and Genesis.
Roughly thirty years before the start of Final Fantasy VII, Sephiroth, Angeal, and Genesis are born from the Jenova Project. Angeal and Genesis grow up as childhood friends in the town of Banora. When they come of age, they join SOLDIER to become heroes like Sephiroth with whom they would eventually become close friends. Angeal becomes seen as the heart of SOLDIER and acts as the mentor of those who join.
During a training exercise between the trio, things escalate as Genesis challenges Sephiroth on his own until Angeal intervenes. Genesis sustains a wound in his shoulder and later receives a blood transfusion from Angeal, overseen by a former Shinra scientist named Dr. Hollander, the man behind the creation of Project G ("Project Gillian" for Angeal's mother). Now suffering from degradation, Genesis joins forces with Hollander, who claims to be able to cure him, but is secretly using him to get personal revenge against Shinra. Genesis goes rogue and causes a "mass desertion" at SOLDIER, causing many of its warriors to disappear.
The Genesis WarEdit
One month later at the start of the game, Zack is a SOLDIER 2nd Class under Angeal's mentorship. After a training simulation, Zack and Angeal are sent to Fort Tamblin to fight in the final battle of the Wutai War. They learn that Angeal's childhood friend, Genesis, has betrayed Shinra. After Angeal disappears as well, they find several soldiers working under Genesis who look exactly like Genesis, transformed into copies of him thanks to stolen Shinra technology. Sephiroth informs Zack that Angeal has deserted SOLDIER and turned traitor.
Zack refuses to believe his friend and mentor would be a turncoat. He is sent to Banora village along with the Turk Tseng to investigate Genesis's disappearance. They find several graves, including those of Genesis's parents. The only person Zack can find is Gillian Hewley. At the town factory, Zack meets Genesis and Angeal appears, but when Zack returns to Gillian later, he finds her dead with Angeal standing over her. Shocked by the idea that Angeal may have killed his own mother, Zack becomes enraged. Genesis appears and summons Bahamut to fight Zack. After Zack defeats it, Genesis calls himself a monster, sprouts a single black wing and flies away. The town is bombed by the Shinra Army aircraft.
Back at Shinra Headquarters, Zack is promoted to SOLDIER 1st Class by Lazard. Genesis and his army launch an assault upon the Headquarters and Zack fights his way through rescuing the Turk, Cissnei, on his way to Sector 5 Reactor where Sephiroth says Angeal has been spotted. The two find monsters that have Angeal's face on their bodies, similar to the Genesis Copies that make up Genesis's army. They find documents about Jenova Project G, the branch of the Jenova Project that created both Genesis and Angeal, but was deemed a failure. Sephiroth tells how Genesis is suffering from degradation, slowly dying because of his tainted birth.
Zack tries to capture Hollander in the Mako Reactor, but Angeal arrives and shows Zack his white wings, and says he has become a monster. Zack tries to convince his former mentor his wings do not belong to a monster but an angel, and Angeal says angels dream to be human. Despite Angeal attacking him, Zack refuses to fight his old friend, causing Angeal to drop Zack down into the Midgar slums.
Falling into the Sector 5 Church, Zack lands into the flower bed tended to by Aerith Gainsborough. Zack and Aerith go on a date in the Slums, which begins a relationship that lasts until Zack is lost during his mission to Nibelheim. Zack has to return to the top of the plate because of another Genesis attack. Angeal decides to take a clear side and helps Zack beat the Genesis Army out of Midgar.
Zack is sent to the abandoned town of Modeoheim in the frigid wastes of the Northern Continent. He goes along with Tseng, and a Shinra infantryman named Cloud Strife. Since both Zack and Cloud are "country boys," the two quickly become friends. At Modeoheim, Zack and the team find an abandoned Mako warehouse, which Genesis has been using as a base. Zack storms the facility and rescues Hollander from a vengeful Genesis, angry at Hollander's failure to stop the degradation. A weakened Genesis tries to fight Zack, but is defeated. Genesis falls into the abyss below and is assumed dead. Hollander flees into the town of Modeoheim while Zack pursues.
At a ruined bathhouse, Zack finds Angeal. Hollander tells how Angeal was the true success of Project G, having Jenova's power of a two-way genetic conduit. He is able to pass off his genes, and take in those of other organisms. Angeal, no longer wishing to be a monster, absorbs several different copies and turns into a hideous creature, Angeal Penance. Zack defeats it and mortally wounds Angeal. Just before he dies, Angeal passes on his Buster Sword and the legacy of SOLDIER honor to Zack. Dr. Hollander is captured and with all three major threats to Shinra gone, the war seems to be over.
The Nibelheim IncidentEdit
Zack takes over Angeal's role as the heart and soul of SOLDIER, speaking to trainees and encouraging recruits. After all that he has been through, Shinra sends him to Costa del Sol, reportedly for a vacation. As Zack relaxes on the beach, several Genesis Copies come out of the water to attack, showing that Genesis and his army are still alive. Zack defeats them with a parasol and is sent to Junon, where Genesis has launched a full-scale attack. Junon is where Dr. Hollander was sent after being taken in Modeoheim. Genesis and his army cause enough chaos for Hollander to slip out. Their attack was successful largely due to the intelligence given by the surprise traitor, Director Lazard.
Sephiroth briefly takes over the SOLDIER operations. Noticing that Genesis seems to be attacking Mako Reactors around the Planet, he plans an operation in Nibelheim, Cloud's hometown. Zack visits Midgar and Aerith one last time before going off. Sephiroth, Zack, Cloud, and another Shinra guard arrive in Nibelheim and are led to the Nibelheim Reactor on Mt. Nibel by a guide, Tifa Lockhart. At the reactor they find monsters created by over-exposure to Mako. Sephiroth finds a tank labeled "JENOVA" - the name of his "mother" - within is the vaguely feminine form of an alien creature. Genesis appears and tells Sephiroth that he was born out of Jenova Project S. With his past in doubt and Genesis's words in question, Sephiroth goes down into the Shinra Manor basement, reading Professor Gast Faremis's files on Project S of the Jenova Project.
Driven to insanity by the knowledge of his birth, Sephiroth goes on a rampage and destroys Nibelheim, killing most of the population. Zack chases after the SOLDIER hero up to the reactor. Sephiroth tries to free his "mother" from the tank, cutting Tifa down along the way. Zack confronts Sephiroth and fights him but Sephiroth defeats him. Cloud arrives, furious over his mother's death and Tifa's grave injuries. Using an unknown power, Cloud defeats Sephiroth, sending him into the Lifestream along with Jenova's head he was holding onto. Though Cloud wins, he is badly wounded, and falls.
Professor Hojo, the mastermind of Project S, takes Zack's and Cloud's beaten bodies and starts a new experiment, this one to create Sephiroth Clones to test his Reunion Theory. Zack and Cloud are infused with Sephiroth's cells and lie asleep in tanks for four years until Zack is awoken by what seems to be Angeal. Since Zack is a SOLDIER, and resistant to Mako because of the SOLDIER process, he has enough strength to drag himself and a comatose Cloud out of a rebuilt Nibelheim through the ranks of Shinra soldiers.
The Gift of the GoddessEdit
As Zack and Cloud make their way across the world, they run into Genesis and his copies. Since Zack and Cloud are infused with S Cells, Genesis wishes to take the two to stop his degradation. A Genesis Copy tests Genesis's plan by eating a lock of Zack's hair but this turns the Copy into a monster, which Zack defeats. Zack travels to his hometown of Gongaga to see his parents, but Cissnei appears to warn Zack, telling him that going to Gongaga is too obvious; Shinra and others will expect this move. Genesis and Hollander, now a Genesis Copy, attack. Zack chases after Hollander who decides to stand and fight, but Zack defeats him. The person who Zack thought was Angeal that protects him and Cloud is actually Director Lazard, now an Angeal Copy dying of the same degradation that Genesis and his Copies are suffering from.
Zack puts together where Genesis has been hiding for so long. Genesis is always seen carrying a Banora White apple, and thus must have been hiding in Banora. Zack makes his way into an underground cavern beneath the cratered land that used to be Banora Village. He finds Genesis hiding at the end of the cave with a statue of "the Goddess" holding the Goddess Materia. He claims LOVELESS to now be fulfilled as the three friends are "reunited", with Zack inheriting Angeal's will and Sephiroth's cells. Genesis absorbs the Materia's power, transforms into Genesis Avatar, and engages Zack before returning to his human form.
Now healed of his degradation, Genesis fights Zack but is defeated. Genesis finds himself in a place filled with Lifestream and sees the statue turn into the Goddess. As he approaches her, the Goddess sees his desire to complete his duty as SOLDIER, and acting as the will of the Lifestream, prevents him from returning to the Planet so he may one day complete his goal. Afterward, Zack drags Genesis's limp body up to his campsite to join a comatose Cloud and a dying Lazard in a bizarre picnic of half-dead bodies. Lazard had just fought Shinra soldiers, with the help of a canine Angeal Copy, which Zack recognizes as the same one that defended Aerith at the church earlier. Both are dying, from their wounds and degradation.
Zack gathers everyone with some Banora Whites and fulfills Genesis's childhood dream of sharing the apple with Sephiroth. Through his fight with Zack, Genesis realizes the true Gift of the Goddess: SOLDIER honor. As Lazard and the Angeal Copy die and fade away, its body is replaced with a letter, one of eighty-nine that Aerith sent during the intervening four years, and the last she sent before giving up on receiving a reply. Upon reading the letter, Zack is shocked to find he has been gone for four years. Desperate to show her he is still alive, Zack makes his way to Midgar to rejoin Aerith. Later, Nero and Weiss, the future leaders of Deepground, arrive dressed as 1st Class SOLDIERs, and take the unconscious Genesis away. Genesis's voice can be heard a final time, creating his own final act of LOVELESS.
Zack's Final StandEdit
- See also: Zack's Final Stand
Back in Midgar, Tseng mobilizes the Turks to find Zack and Cloud before the Shinra army does. Before Zack can reach Midgar, the Shinra army tracks him down and appears in force to stop him. Zack makes a stand against them and fights with everything he has to join his love back in the city. The numbers are too much for him, and Zack is mortally wounded. Looking up into the raining sky, Zack feels his life fading away, as does Aerith, while tending to her garden a few short miles away in the Midgar Slums. A confused Cloud awakes, and sees his friend dying on the ground. Zack tells Cloud he will be proof that he lived, and therefore be his "living legacy." Just as Angeal before him, Zack passes down the Buster Sword and his SOLDIER honor to Cloud.
This, along with the torture he experienced at Hojo's hands, shatters Cloud's mind, and causes him to merge Zack's personality and memories with his own to create a new personality and history a short time later. The real Angeal descends from the sky as an angel to bring Zack into the Lifestream. Cloud wanders into Midgar, dragging the Buster Sword on the ground as he goes. Zack's lingering voice tells Cloud to say hi to Aerith for him if he sees her, and asking if he has finally become a hero.
Cloud rides the train towards the attack on Sector 1 Reactor, wearing a modification of the SOLDIER 1st Class uniform. He declares himself a SOLDIER 1st Class. Text on a black screen tells the player the story continues in the original Final Fantasy VII.
- Main article: Crisis Core -Final Fantasy VII- Original Soundtrack
- See also: CRISIS CORE Theme
Crisis Core -Final Fantasy VII-'s soundtrack was one of the few Final Fantasy soundtracks not composed by Nobuo Uematsu, and was primarily composed by Takeharu Ishimoto. The soundtrack includes many new remixes of pre-existing Final Fantasy VII and Last Order -Final Fantasy VII- songs. It was released in a two-CD format with 55 tracks.
Hajime Tabata was chosen as a director for an upcoming Final Fantasy title for the PlayStation Portable console, and after a discussion with Tetsuya Nomura and Yoshinori Kitase, decided he wanted to make a game for the Compilation of Final Fantasy VII.[1] The original idea was to make PlayStation Portable port of Before Crisis -Final Fantasy VII-, as it was released exclusively for mobile-phones and the staff wanted to expand its gamer base; for example, releasing it for PlayStation Portable would open the possibility of an international release. However, after casting Zack as the game's protagonist, the idea of a Before Crisis port was cancelled, and the original idea of naming the game "Before Crisis Core" was changed to "Crisis Core" without the intent of it matching with the other titles from the Compilation of Final Fantasy VII series with the AC (Advent Children), BC (Before Crisis), and DC (Dirge of Cerberus).[2]
Crisis Core -Final Fantasy VII- was announced at E3 2005 and its first trailer consisted of clips from Last Order.[3]
There was pressure of developing a Final Fantasy VII prequel, something which Yoshinori Kitase has remarked about: "Obviously as part of a beloved series, part of a popular world, there's immense pressure to produce. It wasn't about paying tribute to the original, but to create a connection between the original and all the other Compilation titles as well. It was in a unique position, as it takes place in the past, to connect to all of the titles."[4]
One of the primary reasons Zack was chosen as the game's protagonist was his predetermined fate.[1] Kitase has stated that Zack's story had "been cooking for 10 years" as conceptual artwork and back story already existed for him, despite Zack being only a minor character in Final Fantasy VII.[4] The game was initially meant to have more scenes involving Zack and Cloud's escape to Midgar to expand their connection, but it could not be included due to UMD limitations, and the staff chose to instead focus in Zack's work as a soldier.[5]
The game's main antagonist, Genesis Rhapsodos, was created as a collaboration between Camui Gackt and Hideki Imaizumi, the game's producer. Gackt's original involvement with Square Enix was singing the theme music for Dirge of Cerberus -Final Fantasy VII-, and appearing in a minor role in that game, playing Genesis. Imaizumi thought such a passing role was a waste and asked for more involvement. Imaizumi and Gackt came up with Genesis's design, describing everything from his attitude to his clothes. "I went to eat with him one time and described the Final Fantasy VII universe in rich detail. And it turned into this process of collaboration, creating the character together. Then we went to the studio and recorded the Japanese voice with all that in mind. So he really was a creative partner in all of this. And we really wanted the connection between Dirge of Cerberus and Crisis Core."[6]
One of the main background events from Final Fantasy VII, Nibelheim's destruction, was revised for the original video animation Last Order: Final Fantasy VII, but the staff of Crisis Core decided not to follow in the same lines. Producer Hideki Imaizumi has said this regarding the decision, "When we made that feature, we changed the presentation of that event from the original Final Fantasy VII. And the fan response was - well, there was considerable negative feedback in regard to changing a part of the story that they considered integral to the whole lore. So we listened to that and learned from that. And in fact, the Nibelheim incident is presented again in Crisis Core, and we were careful not to make the same decisions that we did in Last Order."[4]
Once it was decided Zack would be the game's protagonist, the story's nature barred the staff from utilizing a party of playable characters like in Final Fantasy VII, and instead the player has only one playable character, Zack. Crisis Core -Final Fantasy VII- was originally envisioned as an action game, but because the staff was more experienced in RPGs, they decided to modify it, making battles closer to the ones from RPGs, making it an action RPG in genre.[5] Final Fantasy VIIs battle system was used as the basis with action elements added to it; the Materia system was designed so that players could choose between "RPG-oriented enhancements" and "action-oriented enhancements," as well as to give the game balance.[1] The Digital Mind Wave system (DMW) was added to give the gameplay an element of luck as well as to avoid the combats feeling repetitive. Nomura and Kitase were inspired by the pachinko, a type of Japanese slots machine, in developing the system.[4] The staff initially had difficulty in developing the gameplay due to its departure from traditional Final Fantasy battles.[1]
One of the development team's regrets regarding Crisis Core -Final Fantasy VII- is that they did not include a feature to skip cut scenes. By the time the development team realized their mistake, it was already too late to add it.[5]
- "The overall theme of the game is "legacy." We wanted to show how one person lives his/her life influences the following generation, and paves the way for a new age."
- —Hajime Tabata
The concept of legacy is a prominent theme in Crisis Core -Final Fantasy VII-, and how the actions of one generation impact the next. The most evident display of this is the passing down of the Buster Sword and SOLDIER honor from Angeal to Zack and finally to Cloud.
Legacy is displayed in Cloud and Zack 'inheriting' S Cells from Sephiroth, Angeal's surviving copies representing Angeal after his death, and his will being passed down to Lazard after being transformed into an Angeal Copy. Lazard begins to act on Angeal's innermost desires, such as helping Zack, trying to save Genesis, and even save the world. The legacy theme is referenced to in the game's tagline by Zack shedding tears over the loss of Angeal, and Cloud crying over Zack's death at the end; thus "crying for their comrades" after inheriting their legacies.
The story of LOVELESS is a prominent theme in Crisis Core -Final Fantasy VII-. Being a fan obsessed with LOVELESS, Genesis tries to recreate the story, hoping that it will cure his degradation. In the end, his encounter with the goddess Minerva grants him a second chance at life and he realizes the Gift of the Goddess is his SOLDIER pride, something Angeal frequently spoke of and valued highly.
Release and ReceptionEdit
The game was released in Japan in 2007 and it was a commercial success, becoming Square Enix's best-selling game from April through September 2007.[7] Crisis Core -Final Fantasy VII- sold 301,600 copies upon its first month of release in the United States, making Crisis Core the second best-selling game for the PSP during the month of March and the sixth best-selling game overall.[8] Crisis Core sold nearly 3 million copies worldwide.
A new Hard Mode was added to the games released in the North America and PAL regions.
Voice CastEdit
Character | Seiyū | English |
Zack Fair | Kenichi Suzumura | Rick Gomez |
Angeal Hewley | Kazuhiko Inoue | Josh Gilman |
Genesis Rhapsodos | Gackt | Oliver Quinn |
Sephiroth | Toshiyuki Morikawa | George Newbern |
Cloud Strife | Takahiro Sakurai | Steve Burton |
Aerith Gainsborough | Maaya Sakamoto | Andrea Bowen |
Lazard Deusericus | Junpei Morita | Stefan Marks |
Tseng | Junichi Suwabe | Ryun Yu |
Cissnei | Asumi Nakata | Carrie Savage |
Reno | Keiji Fujiwara | Quinton Flynn |
Rude | Taiten Kusunoki | Crispin Freeman |
Professor Hojo | Nachi Nozawa | Paul Eiding |
Hollander | Shinya Ohwada | Sterling Young |
Weiss | Jouji Nakata | David Boat |
Nero | Ryotaro Okiayu | Mike Rock |
Kunsel | Crispin Freeman | |
Zack's Mother |
Production creditsEdit
- Director: Hajime Tabata
- Artist: Tetsuya Nomura
- Writer: Kazushige Nojima
- Producer: Yoshinori Kitase
- Composer: Takeharu Ishimoto
A special edition 10th Anniversary of Final Fantasy VII, Crisis Core -Final Fantasy VII- silver PlayStation Portable was released on September 13th, 2007, along with the game's Japanese release. It came bundled with a retail copy of the game, the special edition PSP-2000 (slim) unit covered in Tetsuya Nomura artwork, and a Buster Sword strap. Retailers also threw in a Crisis Core inner earphone set, supposedly as a pre-order bonus, although anyone who lined up on launch day was given one. All was packaged in a special box that seems to have been targeting collectors.
The PlayStation Portable is region free - meaning the console can play any games from around the world, but it cannot play UMD movies from the USA. The version of Crisis Core -Final Fantasy VII- bundled with it is a Japanese language version which allows no options to switch to English. The bundle was produced in limited quantities of 77,777 copies and retailed for 25,890 yen. Each individual special edition PlayStation Portable is engraved with a serial number from 00001 to 77,777.
A re-release of the PSP was done in Europe, but it did not have the unique serial number, and the silver color was less metallic.
Packaging artworkEdit
- In the poll in which Japanese gaming magazine Famitsu asked its readers which games made Japanese gamers cry, Crisis Core -Final Fantasy VII- came in at number 2, just after Final Fantasy X.[9]
- The opening sequence of Crisis Core -Final Fantasy VII- mirrors Final Fantasy VII; both start in a train station and both protagonists jump off of a train. This is one of the many allusions within the Compilation of Final Fantasy VII.
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 http://www.1up.com/previews/crisis-core
- ↑ Final Fantasy VII 10th Anniversary Ultimania (Revised Edition). Square Enix. 2009. pp. 8–13. ISBN 1019740597.
- ↑ http://www.the-nextlevel.com/feature/square-enixs-e3-press-conference-highlights/3
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 http://uk.psp.ign.com/articles/869/869858p1.html
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 http://andriasang.com/comq6w/3rd_birthday_and_crisis_core/
- ↑ http://uk.psp.ign.com/articles/869/869858p2.html
- ↑ http://www.joystiq.com/2007/11/21/crisis-core-is-squares-best-selling-game-this-year/
- ↑ http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6189483.html
- ↑ http://www.capsulecomputers.com.au/2012/01/famitsu-reveals-games-that-made-the-japanese-cry/
External linksEdit
- Official Japanese site
- Official North American site
- Official European site
- Crisis Core trailer - Last Order anime trailer (Windows media player required)
v · e · dCompilation of Final Fantasy VII |
Titles |
Before Crisis - Crisis Core - Last Order - Final Fantasy VII - On the Way to a Smile: Episode Denzel - Advent Children (Complete) - Dirge of Cerberus (Lost Episode) |
Literature |
On the Way to a Smile - Turks: The Kids Are Alright - Hoshi wo Meguru Otome |
Related titles |
Final Fantasy VII: Snowboarding |
Important recurring characters |
Aerith Gainsborough - Cloud Strife - Jenova - Professor Hojo - Rufus Shinra - Sephiroth - Tifa Lockhart - Vincent Valentine - Zack Fair |
Recurring terms |
AVALANCHE - Epiolnis - Gaia - Guard Hound - Holy - Jenova Project - Lifestream - LOVELESS - Mako - Materia - Meteor - Nibelheim Incident - Shinra Electric Power Company - SOLDIER - Turks - Weapon |


text:
hidden Object Games Free Download Pc
Read this article
hotklixed More than a Year Ago! Stop an evil magician becomes immortal causing an imbalance and destruction of the world. Follow the cryptic clues and avoid the traps prepared to find your brother magician hidden in the depths of a Victorian era castle and prevents you from using the agenda to build a machine Mystic bad for eterna
By Naveed Sindhu | More than a Year Ago
Source: hiddenbloggames.blogspot....

subset: commoncrawl


text:
click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
What is the Gift of Tongues?
by C Michael PattonDecember 2nd, 2012 52 Comments
Of all the gifts of the Spirit, I think the gift of tongues is the gift that I am most distanced from. I don't mean this solely from a personal standpoint (as I have never spoken in tongues), but also from a biblical standpoint. Every time I do more research into this issue, I end up with even less certainty about it. Growing up, I was surrounded by people who spoke in tongues. Often, during worship services or youth gatherings, I would hear them exercise their gift. However, most of the people I knew only did so in private. Once or twice I remember hearing it during a sermon. Every time I got the chance I would ask them what they believed tongues to be. I received lots of varied answers. Sometimes, it was prophetic utterances of God meant to guide the church (so long as it can be interpreted correctly). Other times, it was simply praise to God spoken in a language that was not understood by other hearers. Many would say that it was the language of angels. But most of my acquaintances who spoke in tongues said it was an unintelligible, private prayer language (with these, of course, I never heard them exercise their gift).
The gift of tongues first appears in the pages of Scripture in Acts 2 (Mark 16:17 does not qualify due to the probability that it is a late, spurious addition). Here are the four definite places where the gift of tongues is mentioned: Acts 2:1-13; Acts 10:44-48; Acts 19:1-7; and 1 Corinthians 12-14.
I find that this must be placed in two categories: ontology and teleology (just to use some big words and sound like I know what I am talking about!). Ontology deals with the nature of tongues, asking What is the gift of tongues? Teleology deals with the purpose of tongues, asking Why did God give it? or What is its occasion?
Here are a few options concerning the "what" or ontology of tongues:
1. Human Language
2. Unintelligible or Ecstatic Utterance
3. Angelic Language
Here are a few options concerning the "why" or teleology of tongues:
1. Evangelism
2. Evidence of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit
3. Private prayer language
4. Prophetic utterance
Now, of course, a chart!
I am going to use this chart to work through the options.
1. Human Language for Evangelism
This is the most accepted view among hard and soft cessationists (those who believe the gift has ceased due to an exhaustion of purpose). According to this view, every time the gift of tongues was exercised, it was a known human language being spoken for the purpose of evangelizing. This notion seems to be supported by the first occurrence of the gift in Acts 2:6-7: "Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. And they were amazed and astonished, saying, 'Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language?'" The case is strengthened when Paul tells the Corinthians (who seem to be using their gift of tongues, uninterpreted, during church service) that tongues is a "sign" for unbelievers and then links it to the evangelization, in known "tongues," of "foreigners": "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.' Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers." (1Co 14:21-22)
Due to the purpose (teleology) of the gift, many soft cessationists would say that this gift can (and probably is) still exercised on a limited basis on the mission field.
It is obvious that those in Acts 2 who heard the Apostles speaking in tongues did not need an interpreter. This suggests that when a native speaker of the language is present, they are their own interpreter — they receive the ultimate end or purpose of the gift as they hear God being praised in their own language.
While this view does hold some appeal and biblical support, I think it has some significant problems.
1. While it is definite that the Acts 2 occurrence has an ontology of speaking in known languages, it does not seem to have an evangelistic purpose. After all, in Peter's explanation of the phenomenon starting in Acts 2:14, he seems to return to his own native tongue (probably Aramaic or Hebrew) in order to evangelize. Therefore, he was no longer speaking in tongues when he shared with the Jews from every nation about Christ. I suppose we could say that the gift of tongues served an evangelistic purpose in gathering the people together, bringing "awe" and "bewilderment." This would be a sort of "pre-evangelism" purpose. But wouldn't that just make the gift of tongues a sub-gift of miracles? I suppose this could be.
2. The two other occurrences of the gift in the book of Acts do not include any evangelistic purpose (Acts 10:44-48; Acts 19:1-7). There were not even any unbelievers around. As to its ontology in these two cases, we just don't know. Nothing is mentioned about speaking in any known tongue.
3. Paul seems to give a definite purpose (teleology) for the gift in 1 Cor. 14:2 and 1 Cor. 14:4 when he says that the one who speaks in a tongue edifies himself as he speaks not to men but to God.
2. Angelic Language
I am not going to match here as I think it is sufficient to deal with the "angelic language" option by itself.
Some people believe that the ontology of tongues is to be able to speak in the language of angels. They get this from 1 Cor. 13:1 where Paul says, "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but do not love, I am nothing but a noisy gong or clanging cymbal." It may seem reasonable to suppose this, since it is included in the same section where Paul is talking about the issue of spiritual gifts.
I suppose I don't have much of a problem with this, other than the fact that Paul was probably being quite rhetorical here. In other words, his purpose was not to define the ontology of the gift of tongues, but to show how much greater love is than even something as magnificent as speaking in the language of angels. The Corinthians were elevating their gift of tongues above the virtue of love. I think Paul was saying that not only is the ability to speak in your gift of tongues not greater than love, but even the ability to speak in the tongue of angels is not greater than love. Therefore, this probably has nothing to do with the gift of tongues at all, except in an indirect way.
2. Evidence of the dwelling of the Holy Spirit
Again, I think it is important to deal with this teleological option by itself.
Classical Pentecostals have traditionally believed that speaking in tongues is the sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if you speak in tongues, then the Holy Spirit dwells in you. If you have not, then you do not have the Holy Spirit. This option, at first, seems reasonable, as this is what happened on the day of Pentecost. Christ told the Apostles to stay in Jerusalem and wait for the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4-5). In Acts 2, this baptism came and they were "filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues" (Acts 2:4). As well, in Acts 10, when the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit, the primary evidence of it was them speaking in tongues (Acts 10:44-46). Finally, in Acts 19:1-6, the Ephesians whom Paul laid his hands on evidenced the presence of the Holy Spirit by speaking in tongues.
While it is true that in the three instances listed above, an evidence that the Holy Spirit had indwelt believers was their ability to speak in tongues, there are five major problems I see with this belief:
1) These are the only three places where tongues is mentioned in connection with people becoming believers. All the others do not mention tongues being present (Acts 2:41; Acts 4:4; Acts 7:12, 17, 39; Acts 8:18; Acts 13:12; Acts 16:30-34, et al). Therefore, this does not seem to be normative.
2) Personal and historical experience militates against this. Let's face it, I have a dog in this fight. If tongues is the evidence that the Holy Spirit is present within a believer, I am in trouble, as I have never spoke in tongues. As well, this gift is hard to find in history. Virtually no saint of the past has experienced it.
3) If speaking in tongues was the sole way a person could know that the Holy Spirit was in them (i.e., that they are saved), then it goes without saying that it would be mentioned more explicitly elsewhere. John does not even mention this in 1 John, where one of his primary purposes is to show readers how they may know that they are children of God (1 John 5:13). If speaking in tongues is the evidence, then that is all he would have to say, right?
4) It may surprise people to know that other religions often have an expression of "worship" that is best described as tongues: Paganism, many shamans, Voodoo, and some forms of Hindu are just a few. Even Joseph Smith believed in the gift. In other words, it does not seem to be a uniquely Christian claim. Since tongues is a supernatural expression of God through us, it would seem that all expressions of the gift outside of Christianity are either from a different supernatural source, or are simply self-produced. Either way, they are illegitimate expressions. The point is that while the gift might have uniquely evidenced the presence of the Holy Spirit in the early church due to its novelty, now that it has been adopted by so many other faiths, it fails to qualify to fulfill this purpose today.
5) Most importantly, Paul clearly says that not all (Christians) speak in tongues (1 Cor. 12:30).
3. Unintelligible Utterances which are Prophetic
Many believe that the gift of tongues is (ontologically) unintelligible speech which (teleologically) is prophetic. In this case, tongues would be a subset of the gift of prophecy. The primary defense here, to me, would be the necessity of the gift of interpretation. Paul says that spiritual gifts are for the building up of the body. Therefore, according to this view, tongues is worth very little without communal understanding.
Listen to this:
1 Cor. 14:12-17
So with yourselves, since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, strive to excel in building up the church. 13 Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. 15 What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also. 16 Otherwise, if you give thanks with your spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider say "Amen" to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying? 17 For you may be giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not being built up.
Therefore, if you speak in a tongue, you need to have an interpreter. Otherwise, it is unfruitful. Paul's rhetoric adds to the idea that tongues are prophetic in purpose:
1 Cor. 14:6
Now, brothers, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching?
In other words, the only way tongues has communal benefit is if it brings revelation, knowledge, or teaching. Therefore, there must be an interpreter. If tongues was anything other than revelation, knowledge, or teaching (i.e., simple praise), then Paul's admonishment here makes little sense.
Finally, in Acts 2:17, Peter, in defense of the occurrence of the gift of tongues to the people, says that what they were seeing (all the Apostles speaking in tongues) fulfilled Joel's prophecy. However, the passage quoted in Joel does not speak about tongues, but rather prophecy. Therefore, Peter seemed to be telling them that what they were seeing was the liberal distribution of the gift of prophecy taking the form of tongues:
Act 2:16-18
"But this is what was spoken about through the prophet Joel: 'And in the last days it will be,' God says, 'that I will pour out my Spirit on all people, and your sons and your daughters will prophesy, and your young men will see visions, and your old men will dream dreams. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy."
While I can see where those who believe this are coming from with regard to 1 Corinthians 12-14 and in the quotation of Joel, I see some more explicit statements conflicting with this. In the three occurrences in Acts, there is never an interpreter mentioned (unless you see the natives as their own interpreters in Acts 2). As well, it does not seem to qualify as "prophecy" in each of the Acts passages, but praise. In Acts 2:11, it is said that the Apostles were speaking of the "mighty works of God." In Acts 10:39, Cornelius and his household were speaking in tongues and "praising God." In Acts 19:6, it says that "they began to speak in tongues and prophesy." The implication of this verse is that speaking in tongues is distinct from prophecy.
In addition to this, if tongues is nothing more than the gift of prophecy, what is up with Paul's distinction between the gift of tongues and prophecy in 1 Corinthians 12:28-29? And why do we suddenly need a tag team to hear God speak?
Finally, in 1 Cor. 14:16-17, Paul specifically links tongues with praise.
(Of course, it could be that praise and prophecy are not mutually exclusive, which would modify my criticism here quite a bit.)
4. Unintelligible Utterance which is a Private Prayer Language (i.e., self-edification)
Finally, there are those that believe that tongues is (ontologically) unintelligible utterance which is primarily (teleologically) purposed for personal edification through private prayer. The support for this view comes from Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians 14. There are three specific things he says that make the case for this view strong:
1 Cor. 14:2
"For the one speaking in a tongue does not speak to people but to God, for no one understands; he is speaking mysteries by the Spirit."
1 Cor. 14:4
"The one who speaks in a tongue builds himself up, but the one who prophesies builds up the church."
1 Cor 14:28
"But if there is no interpreter, he should be silent in the church. Let him speak to himself and to God."
In each one of these, we see that tongues seems to be primarily for the purpose of self-edification; it is between the speaker and God. Of course, there can be times when tongues are spoken in church, but this is not ideal (unless there is an interpreter).
While on the surface, these passages of Scripture seem compelling, I do have four problems with this view as well.
1. This does not seem to be the way the gift was used in the book of Acts. Again, Acts 1 clearly records the use of other known languages. In all three occurrences in Acts, this is not a private event and it is not interpreted. However, it is praise (prayer) to God and I suppose it would be presumptuous to say that there was not personal edification happening.
2. More importantly, Paul says that the charismata are given by the Holy Spirit "for the common good" (1 Cor. 12:7). That is what the "body" illustration is about, is it not? We all need each other. The eye cannot say to the hand, I don't need you. Neither can the foot say to the nose, you are no help. I don't see how a gift given primarily (if not exclusively) for private prayer can be said to be for the "common good," contributing to the whole. The passages listed above may not be meant to define what the gift of tongues is supposed to be, but to define how it could be misused for self-edification. "Let him speak to himself and to God" could be a bad thing, since Paul has just said that his mind is "unfruitful" when he speaks in a tongue without an interpreter (1 Cor. 14:14). The solution for this "unfruitful" prayer is to "pray with the spirit and the mind" (i.e., not in a tongue).
1 Cor. 14:15
"What should I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind. I will sing praises with my spirit, but I will also sing praises with my mind."
Translation: I will not pray in tongues. In other words, Paul could be saying that if there is not an interpreter, there is no point to tongues. But if you must speak in a tongue without one (and be unfruitful), don't do it in the church (1 Cor. 14:28).
Some may say that private edification will ultimately produce communal edification. I have a hard time seeing this, as one could say that about anything. For example, I may have the gift of giving, but I practice this alone. I just give to myself. After all, if I am happy, then this benefits everyone, as I will be more kind to them. I don't think we can go in this direction as it would seem to nullify everything that Paul is arguing.
I need to focus a bit more on the gift of interpretation in relation to this private prayer language idea. If the gift of tongues is meant to be primarily a private prayer language that is between the speaker and God, then why do we need to "gift of interpretation" (1 Cor. 12:10; 14:26)? Is this a "just in case" gift? Just in case someone exercises their private prayer language in a public setting (a general no-no), God has provided those with the gift of interpretation. Not only would this be a superfluous gift, but I am afraid that whoever possess this gift in the body of Christ will find their body part dead due to a lack of oxygen (so long as tongues is exercised properly). However, if the gift was meant to be more than a private prayer language, such as speaking in another known language or, better, prophecy, then the gift of interpretation makes more sense.
3. How could it be that an unintelligible private prayer language can be said to be a "sign for unbelievers"? (1 Cor. 14:22). 1 Corinthians 14:23-24 seems to say just the opposite, as unbelievers will think you are "mad" for speaking in tongues. I don't really know where to go there.
4. How does one legitimize the gift if it is an unintelligible private prayer language? Epistemic verification is very important to me. It answers the "how do you know?" question. When I hear people speak in tongues, I don't automatically believe that it is legitimate. In fact, I don't know if I have ever heard a legitimate expression of the gift. Why? Because if the gift of tongues is not a known language or prophecy, every time it is expressed it is not falsifiable. I would not even know how to evaluate its legitimacy if it came out of my mouth! Did I get tongue-tied? Am I having a stroke? Am I speaking out of my head? Is it a cave to emotional pressure?
Granted, when push comes to shove, if it is merely a private prayer language, I suppose it is not my job to know whether it is a legitimate expression. It is between the person and God. However, from a pastoral standpoint, it would be nice to have an answer to someone who asks how they are supposed to know whether they are speaking in tongues or not (and this is often asked; the "you just know" answer does not help much).
The gift of tongues is quite possibly the most bizarre of all the gifts of the Spirit. And when I say "bizarre," I mean the word in its technically precise way: "odd, out of the ordinary, sensational." I don't really know what to do with it. I want to lean in the direction that tongues is the ability to speak in a known language, which is unknown to the speaker, only because that seems to make the most sense out of it, gives it a communal purpose, and is falsifiable. However, I am not sure I can go there due to the difficulties I have already discussed. I find that all the options have benefits and drawbacks. At this point, it is a matter of choosing the option that has the least difficulties. If you ask me where I stand today, I would say that the unintelligible, spoken, private prayer language (that can occasionally be understood as other languages) option in spite of all its problems, seems best.
I know that what I have said here does not speak directly to the issue of whether the gift of tongues continued or ceased, but it does help. If tongues is merely a private prayer language with no prophetic element to it at all, I am going to have little reason to argue that it ceased. As bizarre as it still may be, that is no reason to reject it. If such were the case, to me it would become more like an inarticulate expression of spiritual emotion, not unlike laughter or crying. Maybe it is something you cannot help (although, if that is the case, it would seem that everyone should get the gift).
In sum, I sympathize more and more with John Chrysostom, the fourth-century commentator who, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 12, essentially says "I don't know what any of this means. It's too obscure" (Chrystostom, Homilies on First Corinthians, xxix, 1).
Similar Posts:
- What Does it Mean to Be Charismatic?
- Seeking a Miraculous Sign as Validation of the Prophetic
- The Day I Accused My Wife of Infidelity
- Why John MacArthur May Be Losing His Voice
- My Experience with a Prophetic Vision Today or "How to Test Prophecy"
52 Comments
Like or Dislike: 1
I like the way you made your charts and explained each option. It has been so long since I did that.
You listed the reasons you believe tongues are a private prayer language. Many of my friends pray in tongues. Paul does mention praying in tongues, but I think in the whole context, prophecy is greater as it edifies the body, and tongues edifies oneself.
Spiritual gifts are always given for edification of the body. I personally have no problem with someone who wants to go into their prayer closet and pray in tongues. That is their prerogative.
But when Paul clearly states the purpose of tongues in 1 Cor 14:20,21, I must reject the idea of praying in tongues. I often hear it in churches, and it is totally out of line with the guidelines Paul gives.
As I said before, if someone wants to pray in tongues, I am not going to stop them. But I do not believe that was ever the purpose of tongues. -
Like or Dislike: 2
I have spoken in tongues since i was age 7, i do it very rarely now in fact it has probably been close to a year since i have. Growing up i too was surrounded with tongues speech, it was a given in the church i grew up in that if you are going to pray you better pray in tongues. As i grew older though i found that it was very difficult for me to pray in just plain ole english, and this bothered me, i felt like i had nothing to say but i could prattle on in tongues all day long. So i began intentionally praying in justvregular intelligble english. Sometimes i would even in my best effort not begin speaking in tongues. I have said all of this to make a point. Sometime i think people like to speak in tongues or emphasize tongues because it is easier to jibber jabber than to take time to say something with aritculatiin and intent in your words. Thats why i started praying in english again cuz i felt like if iwanted to prayvfor someone how can that person take comfort in my prayer or say amen when all i do is jibber jabber.
Like or Dislike: 3
I think tongues is, by design, "bizarre". Humility guards every passage of grace. Unknown Tongues, as a devotional gift (as opposed to "divers kinds of tongues") are entirely volitional (as opposed to those gifts which operate "as He wills") and provide for our individual edification.
It is humbling to come to the end of our intellects ability to perceive the unknown. It is much more humbling to realize that we enjoy access to these mysteries and, indeed, more intimate communion with Christ through such an unintelligent (anti-intelligent?) behavior.
An interesting book was written nearly 50 years ago. The book sold millions of copies. Titled "They speak with other tongues" it provided a sort of theological explanation of the phenomenon within a narrative.
It tracks the odyssey of authors and journalists John and Elizabeth Sherrill as they explored the subject. Two characters featured prominently in the book are Harald Bredesen and David du Plessis.
Harald, an ordained Lutheran Minister and David would become pioneers in the Charismatic Movement.
Harald would become a dear friend and mentor to me in later years and David's brother, Justus, who labored alongside him would as well.
In fact, in only a few weeks I will be traveling to Massachusetts to conduct an interview with the Sherrills. I hope to reduce the many hours of interview into a 90 minute long documentary which explores the phenomenon.
While the phrase "charismatic movement" has become burdened by strange and, frankly, unscriptural practices it was not always so. I hope to recover its essence in this documentary.
Nevertheless, you owe it to yourself to read the book and follow the couples exploration of the subject and phenomenon (link here … http://www.amazon.com/They-Speak-Other-Tongues-Sherrill/dp/0800793595/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1354543917&sr=8-1&keywords=they+speak+with+other+tongues ). It makes for a very intriguing read.
Like or Dislike: 0
Very interesting article.
You come close, but you don't say it, and you did not add it to the chart: tounges are also a sign of the indwelling of a demon.
I think it is interesting that you did not add it to the chart. Is that because you did not want to offend? Or truly did not think of it?
If the latter, isn't it amazing how demons and the evil one do not seem to be on the mind of most of today's Christians, even though the Scriptural evidence of their activity is pretty clear?
1 John 4:1 – Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
Like or Dislike: 0
St. Paul reminds us that the important aspect of God's gifts to us, are their use.
No doubt some have the gift of tongues.
But of what use is it?
Like or Dislike: 1
I've enjoyed your thoughtful analysis of this subject.
For what it's worth, in your chart I think you left off the teleology of tongues that the scripture actually describes, that is, doxology.
Acts 2:11 -"we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God."
1 Corinthians 14:15 – "I will sing praise with my spirit"
1 Corinthians 14:16-17 – "Otherwise, if you give thanks with your spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider say "Amen" to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying? For you may be giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not being built up. "
I don't know that this influences your conclusion regarding cessationism, but in my reading I think it's seldom mentioned as the primary purpose for tongues in the first century and a possible reason for its continuance today.
Like or Dislike: 1
I spent a lot of time in a Pentecostal church, and while I do see how it can be useful in a church service, I also see how it is (often?) abused, or in the very least "unchecked" and accepted as "from God." But at the same time, I ame EXTREMELY hesitant to say an entire denomination of Christianity is that wrong – how that member of the body of Christ, while following Christ as wholeheartedly as any other denomination, could be SO wrong if there's nothing to it.
I come down on it in a similar way to many things that are debatable … "It's probably LESS important than pentecostals (who sort of put toungues on a pedestal) think it is, and MORE important than non-tounges-ers think it is." There's SOMETHING to it today, and I don't think it ceased. It think it does have a great spiritual value, I just don't think it's very manageable in a corpo rate sense, and that makes people nervous.
Bottom line is, the bible DOES support tongues, whatever it is. To say tongues ceased, although possibly true, I don't think is biblically supported. Where the bible says tongues may cease, I think it's saying the gift comes and goes – you don't ALWAYS pray in tongue, sometimes you stop. But I could be wrong.
I like CMPs last line … "I don't know what any of this means." But that obscurity is evidence neither that it does nor doesn't exist. Tongues, in the very least, DID exist, and in the very most DOES exist. ANd either way, it was A GIFT FROM GOD. Whatever our philosophical or logical assessment of it.
Like or Dislike: 1
My experience with tongues is personal. I don't do it all the time. I actually don't do it that often. For me, I pray in tongues when there's something particularly critical on my mind. For me, praying in tongues is like prayer with a little extra something on it.
When I pray in English, I tend to ask for what I want. But when I pray in tongues, I can take an important request and TRULY Put it in God's hands. When I pray in tongues, I'm praying about something specific, I just don't necessarily know WHAT to pray. I heard a speaker explain it like this (this was helpful to me). It's like praying for good food. When you pray in English, you ask for the foods you like. When you pray in tongues, you ask for spinach. It's what you need and you submit your desires to God, and you submit yourself to his will in that situation. You change the focus from what YOU want in a situation, to what GOD WANTS FOR YOU in a situation.
I also found, like @tory said above, that if I pray in tongues too habitually, I stop thinking and get lazy. Praying in English keeps me and my mind engaged. Praying in tongues allows me to submit my will to God's.
Like or Dislike: 1
First time I've responded to one of your blogs – most of the time I agree, but others I do not. Today is one of them. I don't understand why we disqualify Mark 16 just because it could have been added later – who cares? It's in the bible and it's scripture; therefore it is infalable and is the all breathing Word of God. Correct? Aso, why no reference to Romans 8?
Second, it's hard for me to hear a study on tongues by someone who has never spoken in tongues. To me it's like someone who have never tasted alcohol telling me drinking alcohol is a sin and if I have one drop I am going to be drunk.
Also, do we reduce the significance of being baptized by the Holy Spirit? Is tongues misused? Of course it is because we are humans. Why can't there be two types of tongues? One private and one public?
The translation of 1 Cor. 14:15 seems a little biased . Why can't we just accept it as fact? Not everything of the Spirit are we going to understand. I fully believe that the spirit if God moves today with healing and so on. I don't understand why some people get healed and others don't, but I will always believe in the spiritual gift of healing?
I am sorry if any of this comes across offensive, that is not my goal or desire.
Like or Dislike: 0
Let's clear up any bad logic in this – if someone is saved they might speak in tongues, but not necessarily. Thus, it is not "proof", in the logical sense of "If and only if". To say, I am saved if and only if I speak in tongues is clearly wrong, and unscriptural. Whew!
Scriptures tell us that the Spirit groans within us in unintelligible groanings, etc., so that tongues might also be considered spiritual "growing pains" as the Spirit moves. By my experience it is intimate and personal and as Jesus says, better to retreat to privacy when you pray than be a show-off.
Lastly, to say that there is no "need" for tongues, or healing, etc., because of evangelical efforts is incorrect in my opinion. The Gifts are more than mere utilitarian demonstrations of God's power to the world. -
Like or Dislike: 0
Indeed "Pauo" (Gk.) "cease" simply means to stop, to make an end, and it is used mostly in the Middle Voice in the Greek NT. Thus it comes to an end, but willingly. And this appears to be the case at the end of the 1st century Church. Though of course this had a bit of a time lag, but when the Apostles were finally gone, history seems to indicate this. And btw, we should see Tertullian's use of the New Prophecy as more of an apologetic, i.e. to argue, here he was simply more of a polemicist! And we still need this kind of African (Cyprian and Augustine), Latin Christian thinking Christianity!
Like or Dislike: 0
I didn't quite follow, Fr. Are you saying you think tongues are, or are not, active today?
And if not, then how do people who don't believe tongues is an active give today explain what I am doing when I pray in tongues?
I have a close relationship with the lord. If the tongues I speak aren't "real," then why doesn't Jesus tell me that when I'm talking to him?
I don't "need" tongues, I just use it sometimes when I'm praying fervently. If it wasn't real, wouldn't I have a check in my spirit (my sheep know my voice)?
Like or Dislike: 0
I posted earlier, yet the post continues to await moderation. Is that typical?
Like or Dislike: 1
@Mike: I generally don't believe myself in the whole of charismatic "gifts", and the glossolalia or fullest so-called doctrine of tongues. But that, does not include every facet of tongues etc., as I have mentioned before I do see the doctrine or teaching of the gift glossa or tongues for personal prayer, (1 Cor. 14: 2 ; 3 ; 9-11 ; 14-15 ; 19). But it would appear to my mind anyway, that the aspect of tongues, as a "sign" for unbelievers has itself "ceased", (1 Cor. 13: 8-11, etc.) But most certainly the Word of God has now the place of ascendancy and authority, in the life of the Church. And yes, after the life & ministry of the Apostles, I believe the so-called sign-gifts ceased. (Note, 2 Cor. 12: 12)
Like or Dislike: 0
Amen Lisa, I generally don't talk about my own experience here (having lived thru both part of the Catholic and Anglican charismatic movement – British 70′s and 80′s), which has been as only one who can use this gift in my prayer closet. But, I too don't see it as affecting me spiritually really. I mean as in the area of grace. And I would agree that it is somewhat psychological, and perhaps near some aspect of Jung's idea of the collective unconscious. Though Jung himself is not a systematic philosophical thinker, and should not be trusted, certainly. But some of his ideas that we all go thru some process of psychological 'individuation' whereby a person goes thru a developmental journey, which certainly moves toward our final destiny, and of course this is 'In Christ' for the Christian, does have some human validity.
Like or Dislike: 0
Note, perhaps one the hardest "individual" process's is realizing our most total sinfulness of self and selfishness (under the Law of God)! (Roman 7: 13-25). The so-called Augustinian Conversion, which is most certainly Pauline, is a great theological and yet very human spiritual reality! It was one of my most enlightening and so-called existential experences of faith, over 40 years ago now by God's grace & glory!
Like or Dislike: 0
Hmm. Well, I can't ignore my own experience. I agree with Lisa that public speaking in tongues is probably not more effective than a well-preached message on the same subject, I know my own experiences with Jesus. For example … I am in a serious conflict with my brother (physical brother, not Christian brother … although he is a Christian). I don't know what to pray. I don't know what to do. And when I pray about it, asking the Lord for wisdom or guidance, *sometimes* he tells me to pray in tongues. I stand by that. Has praying in tongues fixed my relationship with my brother? No. Not yet, at least. But it does keep me aligned with God. And when I'm talking to Him (Jesus), and I think he's telling me to pray in tongues, I don't know what to tell you … I'm going to do what I think Jesus is telling me to do.
Even if I'm wrong, my heart is right. My heart is to obey Christ. Is it psychological? Maybe – there's no way to prove it's not. But in my case, I can honestly say that my intent is to obey Christ. I believe I have the gift of tongues as a private prayer language. So for me, to not do what I believe Jesus is telling me to do in prayer would be to disobey him. Especially on a debatable topic. I MIGHT BE RIGHT!!! But even if I'm wrong and it's only psychological, in my spirit I am still walking in obedience to my savior and that's all I care about.
Like or Dislike: 0
@Mike were all psychological persons, and this does not make the human psychological wrong at all, but only God In Christ dare touch that place, certainly not us! But yes, always the obedience of grace!
Like or Dislike: 1
@ Ann (Comment 3)
According to you, classical Pentecostalism has never taught that tongues were the evidence of salvation or of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit but are the initial evidence of the BAPTISM of the Holy Spirit.If one pursues the logic presented in your comments, he/she has to concede that all the people who never displayed 'Tongues' as the initial evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit have never received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Please correct me if I am wrong. But the Bible says that "For in one Spirit WE WERE ALL BAPTIZED into one body. Whether Jews or Greeks or slaves or free, WE WERE ALL MADE TO DRINK of the one Spirit" (1 Cor 12:13 NET). I've got two questions.
1. Paul does not mention that Tongues were/are the evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. IS there any Scriptural evidence to substantiate your view/statement?
2. Does the absence of veritable proofs for the presence of tongues throughout the church history imply that all those great men of God including but not limited to the Reformers in history never received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit?
@CMP- The best analysis of tongues I've ever come across.
Like or Dislike: 0
Good "hammer" questions and points there "Mathew John"!
Like or Dislike: 0
You don't seem to be answering any of the questions raised here in the comments, but I really want to know your opinion on this:
Is it possible that the gift of tongues is multifaceted so that depending on the need or situation it will have a different ontological and teleological manifestation? In other words, maybe it is sometimes for prophecy and sometimes for private prayer. Maybe it is sometimes in human languages and sometimes in unintelligible utterance. What do you think?
Like or Dislike: 0
There appear to be two entirely different operations addressed by Paul. Tongues for personal edification, the other for the specific benefit of another.
One is volitional while the other occurs "as the Spirit wills". Paul seems to suggest that of all the charisms, the vocal gifts are more subject to abuse. That makes sense given their rather subjective nature.
Consequently Paul encourages a highly objective approach to their use … publicly. Yet he encourages all to speak with tongues privately.
He also hints at their remarkably potent nature. Tongues ("unintelligible"", not "different kinds" ) promotes spiritual edification as we "utter mysteries". This is a remarkable statement.
If tongues of this sort is volitional then it must necessarily exist beyond and in addition to the list of charisms listed in chapter 12. Furthermore, given Paul's admonition that he "would have you all speak with tongues" suggests this was a distinct and essential element in the normative Christian experience.
Nor is there any hint of its tentative nature. Indeed, the manner in which it is presented suggests it is an essential element of the Christian's devotional life.
Like or Dislike: 1
I've heard hundreds of people speak in tongues during my childhood years going to church my grandmother being just one of them, she loved Jesus more than life itself and I think it's a gift a wonderful gift even as a child it didn't scare me I knew it was somthing special at a young age, keep on praying people it's all we got. Love you all
Like or Dislike: 0
1 Cor 14:22 "Tongues are a sign… for unbelievers".
I think the use of the term "unbelievers" here must include an element of open-heartedness or willingness to learn. There is surely no benefit to the hardened unbeliever. In Acts 2 some were impressed by hearing words "in their own language" but others hearing the same speakers thought they were drunk! (This could also mean the gift was as much in the hearer's ear as on the speaker's tongue)
Used specifically in this way the term "unbeliever" could also be applied to committed Christians (like the apostle Peter) who had something new to learn, and in that case it would be wrong to say their were no "unbelievers" present at the home of Cornelius, for Peter was effectively an "unbeliever" as far as gentile inclusion was concerned. The witness of tongues was for his benefit and so the Acts 10 experience was a valid illustration of Paul's assertion in 1 Cor 14:22.
There may perhaps have been a similar case of doubt ("unbelief") from some believers, possibly from Paul himself, or he may have been wanting to reassure his companions (of the validity of the discipleship claimed in Acts 19:1) which would have justified the witness of the gift of tongues in the same way (i.e. as a sign for "unbelievers")
Like or Dislike: 0
Perhaps we can say that both these aspects of "tongues" were for the infant church? Just a point, since I have not found myself the personal gift of tongues in the prayer closet to be such a profound sense of personal Christian growth. In fact, it seems that more of a silent contemplative prayer life is a greater devotional! I have only touched the latter myself.
I love this piece and quote of John Wesley: The Prayer Room at John Wesley's House, London. He used to pray here night and morning: 'I sit down alone; my God is here.'
Like or Dislike: 0
This is an odd discussion – some have obviously have the gift of tongues, or at least think they do. And the ones that don't have it seem to feel the need to convince them that they're wrong.
Why? Why not just say, "Hmm. Maybe I don't understand."
I coincidentally heard a very apropos quote today …
"He that will believe only what he can fully comprehend must have a long head or a very short creed."
I find theological discussions very helpful UNTIL sides are taken and defended.
As a tongues-speaker, I can say with no reservations that it COULD BE purely psychological, but I don't think it is. I think there's something to it.
But with that said, I find it odd that tongues does only seem to manifest itself within denominations that believe it is real. So I could be wrong.
But at the same time, I find it odd that tongues tends NOT to manifest itself within denominations that DON'T believe it is real. It is just as likely that the lack of tongues is purely psychological – you don't experience it because, logically and psychologically, you can't accept it.
Interesting … yet we have this need to defend our positions.
Like or Dislike: 1
No, I cannot see that such a profoundly essential and influential gift would be unavailable or, more to the point, unnecessary for Christians today. Indeed, it would seem, given the trajectory of human history, to be far more invaluable today than it was for a nascent Church.
More importantly though, there simply exists nowhere in scripture, any suggestion that these gifts ceased to be of value or importance for later generations.
That you have experienced little personal value in the experience may simply suggest that you might wish to explore its purpose and meaning further. Perhaps your experience is hindered by perspectives not entirely informed by scripture.
Like or Dislike: 0
Indeed Larry your position is simply pro, which is fine for you, but is not yet so simple for many others! So suggest this further "perspectives" informed by Scripture! This sounds rather High-Strung at best!
Like or Dislike: 1
Are you suggesting that matters such as this are beyond certainty … that scripture is so ambiguous that certainty is impossible. Yes, there is a certainty bred of hubris … but also a certainty which the truth yields.
We are exploring a portion of scripture which, if allowed to speak for itself, offers rather clear guidance. When, however, we impose upon it, in the fashion of doctrinaires, our philosophical bent … well, clarity soon gives way to a sort of invented murkiness.
This text was written plainly in order to correct error and promote the presence of God in that (and our) assemblies and private lives. It strikes me as unwise to unnecessarily complicate what was communicated with such simplicity.
Like or Dislike: 1
@Larry: You must forgive me, I am a "theolog", first. I mean biblical theology really presses me, in what I think and allow. And I think this is part of our best existential faith & experience 'In Christ', for like Paul, our mystery is always in Him!
Like or Dislike: 0
I stated earlier what I believe the Bible teaches on tongues. As I am reading the various responses, I notice that they are either based on what the Bible teaches or experience.
In 1979 I got involved in a charismatic church where tongues were rampant. I was urged not to go back my previous Bible church or talk to anyone at Dallas Theological Seminary. They said Satan will use that to get me to doubt. If I told the pastor, "The Bible says…" his response was, "You can prove anything you want in the Bible." The longer I was in that church, the more I felt like I was drifting away from the God as the Bible reveals. I made a decision to leave the church. I started reading every book I could, talked to my pastor and was firmly convinced that the tongues being spoken today are not Biblical tongues.
One of the books, The Charismatics by John MacArthur was very helpful. Several months later, Moody Monthly Magazine printed excerpts from The Charismatics for 3 months. You should have seen all the negative responses, where MacArthur was called everything you can imagine. I remember talking to a friend later, and he pointed out, that none of the responses refuted MacArthur's teachings with the Bible. Instead they just called him names.
I won't deny you've had an experience. But friends, when I study Acts, 1 Corinthians and the gifts of the Spirit, it is clear that tongues was given for a distinct purpose; a sign to unbelievers. My former pastor, Tom Nelson gave a message on tongues, concluding with 10 things you need to know about tongues, all from the Bible. While I will not deny the experience of anyone who prays in tongues, the purpose of tongues is not a prayer language. It is for this reason I have never prayed in tongues, and I never will. -
Like or Dislike: 0
[...] C. Michael Patton: What is the Gift of Tongues? [...]
Like or Dislike: 0
I simply think you are over thinking this whole concept, speaking in tongues, when a person for me stood up in the middle of service and spoke in tongues, the true believers in Christ felt a presence, every man, woman and child, I remember getting the chills every time, so instead of trying to dissect this gift accept it for what it is
A GIFT for his children of the church, you just feel his presance and you know it's no rambling of someone seeking attention or faking it. Just believe -
Like or Dislike: 0
Ya know if you comprehend the bible to do this or to do that , that's fine for you, but I never died before, have you? Well then what do we really know, science has theories, but no facts, all a person simply has is his or her beliefs period. You can use all the big words you want and give meaning to the bible the way you want to interpitate it's meaning but who's knows for sure, we will ONEDAY!!!!!
Like or Dislike: 0
Science sent a man to the Moon, and that is factual, and they used factual science! Btw, my father was a scientist, RIP, an Irish Brit., and he got to meet that great American Neil Armstrong, once! So let's not play down good science and "facts"! Note, Math! And "beliefs" are not non-historical, even in Christianity! Just a note here, to be careful and even "historical"!
Like or Dislike: 0
@Michael Karpf, I don't think that is a fair assessment. Saying people's beliefs are based EITHER on scripture OR on experience is akin to saying YOUR interpretation is obviously based on scripture, so opposing views must not be.
How foolish!
Do you really mean to say that your brothers and sisters in Christ are IGNORING scripture because of their experience??? Why would any Christian do that?
The more rational, reasonable, and frankly logical conclusion would be people's views on tongues are based on scripture AND experience. Otherwise, you are relegating entire denominations to pigheadedness. "I know what the bible says, but I don't care … I believe in tongues."
I doubt that is the case very much. Especially since MY exprience is that I do speak in tongues, and MY reading of scripture (not my ignoring of scripture) supports it.
Like or Dislike: 0
One other comment, @Michael Karpf, is that I noticed your decision to leave a tongues-speaking church was based on experience, not scripture. You then went about finding books and assembling scripture to support your newfound position.
Just like we all do. I learned a new word here a few weeks ago … Eisegesis. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisegesis) Eisegesis is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that it introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, and/or biases into and onto the text. The act is often used to "prove" a pre-held point of concern to the reader and to provide him or her with confirmation bias in accordance with his or her pre-held agenda.
It's so easy to accuse others of it, but so difficult to see in ourselves. When in reality, we're ALL eat up with it. it's not good or bad, it's just fallible.
Like or Dislike: 0
@Mike: Nice, "into" (Eise) rather than "to lead out". Indeed Exegesis is always harder!
Like or Dislike: 0
@Mike O – Please reread Michael Karpf's post. It says, "As I am reading the various responses, I notice that they are either based on what the Bible teaches or experience." He DOESN'T say, "one side's responses are based on experience and the other on the Bible." Look again at the 39 responses: There are those who say there are no tongues today based on their experience and others who say there are tongues – again based on experience. Others say there are tongues today – and use the Bible to prove their point; others use the Bible to show they aren't for today. (Obviously, some are combinations.)
I took his point to mean that we are having discussing two issues here: my experience vs. your experience and my interpretation of the Bible vs. your interpretation of the Bible. I believe we must base our doctrine on the Word of God – experience can seem to support or go against our doctrine, but it should never produce our doctrine. If you believe that tongues are for today, fine. Just don't dismiss others by simply saying the Bible plainly supports your position or that your experience is so wonderful it must be God. If we look at truly godly people today, and those throughout church history, many of them do (did) not speak in tongues. Don't just say that it is because they don't want to or they aren't open to the leading of the Spirit. I think we need to believe people like CMP who say they really have wanted to experience this (and/or asked God for it) but have not experienced it.
Really – we all know experience can be used to prove almost anything. For example, the Mormons teach that you can KNOW that the book of Mormon is inspired by the "burning in your bosom."
Like or Dislike: 0
That's your come back, they sent a MAN to the moon. Wow that's great, did they also send one to heaven. Maybe lunch with The Lord? I think not Believe what you will, that's your right, but science has nothing to do with the creation of man or the existatance of god. Sorry dont buy all the stories I hear or read. Not being negative but I don't buy into science for my answers to life or death.
Like or Dislike: 0
No disrespect to your father, sorry
Like or Dislike: 0
@Mshep2 and @Michael Karpf, I stand corrected. And my intent was never to take my side. We're *all* using scripture, and we *all* have our own experiences.
So when all is said and done, and we are all finally with Jesus, who will have been wrong about tongues? Probably all of us.
Like or Dislike: 0
@Jim: You used the word "science" too generally! That was my point! Note here too human logic, which we still must somewhat use, and even press somewhat in our Biblical approach! Note the biblical Bereans in Acts 17:10-11) Indeed God's wants the human heart & mind!
Like or Dislike: 0
I agree with your last comment, forgive my ignorance.
Like or Dislike: 0
MikeO and MShep2 thank you both for your input. All of us, including myself, have the tendency to try to get scripture to say what we want it to say. Coming out of Dallas Theological Seminary, and what I was taught there, naturally I am more inclined to agree with them, rather than a different interpretation.
In contrast with "eisegesis" is "exegesis." This is what most solid Bible teaching is derived from. Exegesis is from the Greek verb "exergeomai" which means "to lead out." In Luke 24:35, the two men on the road to Emmaus, explained to Jesus what happened. In John 1:18, Jesus explained or revealed the Father.
Exegesis is a process, a science and an art. By studying the passage in it's original language, an exegete is able "to lead out" the meaning of the text. It is very slow and tedious but also very rewarding. I love doing it! It takes about 10 hours, and requires translation, comparing the Greek manuscripts, lexical, syntactical and grammatical analyses, all to help me understand what the author wrote, who he wrote it to, why he wrote it, and it's message. Without this, a Bible teacher is on a shaky foundation. It is my contention, and this is a whole different subject, that much of the prosperity preaching we hear today is not based on sound exegesis.
I understand not everyone has the privilege of attending seminary and studying Greek and Hebrew. God has placed gifted teachers in the body, and it is well worth our time to learn from them.
Something else happened, after I left the charismatic church. I found great freedom in Christ. That is liberating. God's truth does not enslave us, it liberates us.
Thank you for your input. And speaking of exegesis, I have 3 messages to preach over the next few weeks, so it's time for me to start exegeting. -
Like or Dislike: 0
Rock on DTS! I have a signed copy, hardback of course (1977 Zondervan), of Dwight Pentecost's book: Things To Come, A Study In Biblical Eschatology. Long story, but my older now Anglo-Irish cousin got this for me! He's an English Baptist now. Btw he claims we have some kind of family connection to the Scots-English, Peter Taylor Forsyth? But I think it is just in his head! Talk about an eclectic and eccentric! I guess it runs in the family! Wow, come to think of it, so was PT Forsyth, as a theologian… an unsystematic systematician!
Like or Dislike: 0
Hey Michael,
I have recently had an interesting thought on the 1 Cor. passage and by no means have I really investigated the theory to an end, but based on the fact that Paul in 1 Cor. is correcting the malpractice of tongues in the book, tongues here could simply the use which the Corinthian church had, not necessarily an authentic use. Paul though is not concerned with it being an authentic use or not, and Paul may not even know what all spiritual gifting may be! So Paul may even give the benefit of the doubt here (and even hints to that in chp. 13 as one of the outworkings of love), but does inform them as to the guidelines for the gifts (tongues especially) so that if it WAS a false use the guidelines would put an end to abuse of a false gift and if it was legit, it could be allowed to continue. After all, who is Paul (and I think Paul would agree) to say no to a legitimate outworking of the Holy Spirit.
I have never really voiced this theory, so I am interested to see what comments you might have! -
Like or Dislike: 1
Having worshipped in a church firsthand witnessing the use of tongues and prophetic utterances (forth telling, not foretelling) in a very practical and logical manner ("civil" if I may add, i.e., non emotional) and having the gift of tongues myself; I conclude that a private prayer language is all that I am left with these days. We worship in a Orthodox Calvinist church. Both my wife and I pray in tongues while praying together. What I mean by that is, we utter while the other prays with the mind. This works well even when I am listening to a sermon so my mind does not wander (I speak without sound so not to disturb others around me). I find there is just so much ignorance, unbelief and unwillingness to understand tongues among my Christian friends that I enjoy the gift in my home, car, during a walk, and in the presence of G-d alone! Have you ever wondered what most people are doing while the church collectively "prays silently?" Well, it is none my business!
Like or Dislike: 0
I think you did a good job with this, even though you have never spoke in tongues before. I do not think you were offensive or defensive in any way. I think you were very honest and sincere. I spoke in tongues for the first time when I was about 15. I was very depressed and I repented while laying in bed one night after a church service. I remember the moment I repented, a light shown from my ceiling, a peace I have never felt but always wanted saturated me, and I began to speak in tongues all at the same time. I do believe this subject is a hard one, especially if one has never been around it or witnessed it. I joined a UPC church, but this was after I had received this. I do not any longer agree with the teachings of UPC, but I do belong to a church that believes in the gift still. I do not believe it is a part of salvation, but just a gift. I know that throughout my life I have experienced some awesome encounters with God and other supernatural things while praying in the Spirit. I have had times when that is all I could do, I was so down or depressed. For the most part, every time I cried out to God in my spirit this way through his Spirit, I always have felt that peace come over me and leave me in peace, like the day I first did so. I am just appriciate the way you went about this, just giving your honest opinion, without putting it down or lifting it up. God bless all! LOVE is the key!!


text:
Real Estate Services is a unit within the OC Facilities & Real Estate Division of OC Public Works. Real Estate Services provides all real estate acquisition, property management, and valuation related services needed to support the various sections of OC Public Works.
To provide technical real estate support services for all OC Public Works divisions and sections in a professional, lawful, and timely manner.
Sections that Real Estate Services support are:


text:
Forget about that free croissant you got from the coffee shop last week? Don't let that formerly flaky goodness go to waste! Pour your favorite French toast batter over the croissant in a greased baking dish, let sit overnight (or for a few hours), then pop in the oven at 375° for 30-45 minutes and voilà! You've got a delicious breakfast of Baked French Toast.
mmmm girl I wanna try this!
Umm... you are a genius. This looks amazing!!


text:
OK, we'll forgive the fact that the HTC Aria seen here in this Best Buy circular is shown bigger than both the Evo 4G and LG Ally. Call it creative license. But the 4G icon there at the top of the screen? That's a Photoshop gaffe if we've ever seen one. Probably not as bad as putting Windows Mobile on an Android phone, but still worth a chuckle, that's for sure. [Best Buy via BGR]
tonie says:
This phone is probably a 4.5" which I think it's to big.
Mattio322 says:
i saw this a week or so ago when the magazine was out and chuckled
finanandroid says:
Hey Tonie are you kidding me ....its fake ! Arias is the most small HTC Android in the world .Display: 3.2" (diagonal) HVGA (320x480)
ro1224 says:
Too bad EVO stock seems to be limited nationwide. With all this advertising you'd expect them to at least have stock available so as not to disappoint customers. I'm eligible for an upgrade and now I can't find an EVO anywhere! Dammit.
maddmatt02 says:
keep lookin, I got my replacement yesterday and my best buy had 4 of them still.
storm14k says:
I think it only appears bigger because its closer to the viewer. They look like they are going for that carousel effect. If you moved focus to the Evo it would be centered and larger while the Ally might swing to the other side and the Aria would be smaller and to the left.
noaim says:
dwaynewilliams#WN says:
The touch sensitive buttons at the bottom are also missing from the phone. Lol.
dtblair24 says:
best buy sucks. well actually there mobile gig is actually pretty nice..but i hate everything else about best buy.
malibumac says:
It is so stupid when people unexperianced with the way a phone actually looks make ads... they obviously just took a screen shot of the HTC Evo and cut off all of the menu items. I've even seen pictures of the Moto Droid running cupcake in ads... i mean come on!
sjcea says:
One thing for sure is true , With the Evo , the pending launch of the Droid X and all the Galaxy phones and even the droid 2 . this is a GREAT time to be a Fan of Android baby !! Take your pic and enjoy the awesome handsets that are pouring into the market place !!! I fully intend on buying the Droid X when released !!! but I will probably own it for just a few months as I am sure other super phones will come out right behind it !! in the past year I have personally owned 7 differnt phones , the next year is looking exactly the same !!! I love to buy the best when released and that trend will never end , I am the guy the phone company loves !! LOL


text:
[ post edited by Hudson ]
[ post edited by Caydiem ]
Q u o t e: Very, very good. Tad too many layers on the Undead one, though.
Q u o t e: I'm moderately sure that i've seen a link from Caydiem of a Pandaren as well, but I just can't find it. Anybody have that one, or am I wrong?
Q u o t e: No way! Did you? Are you? Are you taking us for a ride?
Q u o t e: What about a night elf? Or are you just ignoring me because i'm a rogue? <~ Very sad panda now. :(
View all recent official Blue Posts


text:
Garden Potato Salad
Nutrition Content
Per Serving
Makes 10 Servings
calories: 151
total fat: 0.5g
saturated fat: 0.2g
carbohydrates: 30g
protein: 6g
cholesterol: 2.3mg
sodium: 118mg
dietary fiber: 3.1g
3 lbs potatoes (6 large)
1 cup chopped celery
1/2 cup sliced green onion
2 tablespoons chopped parsley
1 cup low-fat cottage cheese
3/4 cup skim milk
3 tablespoons lemon juice
2 tablespoons cider vinegar
1/2 teaspoon celery seed
1/2 teaspoon dillweed
1/2 teaspoon dry mustard
1/2 teaspoon white pepper
In a blender, blend cottage cheese, milk, lemon juice, vinegar, celery seed, dillweed, dry mustard, and white pepper until smooth. Chill for 1 hour.
Scrub potatoes; boil in jackets until tender. Cool; peel. Cut into 1/2-inch cubes. Add celery, green onion, and parsley.
Pour chilled cottage cheese mixture over vegetables; mix well. Chill at least 30 minutes before serving.