PDA

View Full Version : History of tongues



enarchay
Oct 6th 2007, 06:53 PM
Can anyone provide me with extra-biblical evidence that the Pentecostal understanding of speaking in tongues is not modern but was practiced throughout the Middle Ages up to the formation of the Pentecostal movement?

cwb
Oct 6th 2007, 07:12 PM
Can anyone provide me with extra-biblical evidence that the Pentecostal understanding of speaking in tongues is not modern but was practiced throughout the Middle Ages up to the formation of the Pentecostal movement?

Why do you want extra-biblical evidence. I see plenty of biblical eveidence for speaking in tongues. That is plenty for me.

Kahtar
Oct 6th 2007, 07:33 PM
There were many things that were not practiced through the Middle Ages, aka Dark Ages:
Laity Reading the Word of God
full immersion at baptism
full communion, including the wine
baptism and gifts of the Holy Spirit
casting out of demons and spiritual warfare
prophecy

Once the printing press was invented, and the laity began reading the Word for themselves, things began to change, and little by little, the practices of the church have returned to us.

David Taylor
Oct 6th 2007, 07:41 PM
Good post, I look forward to seeing the historical citations.

I hope those who only want to post here to detract from your query, or to dismiss it will refrain from doing so, and let the historians and those who might want to come forward and show their citations and quotes that are extant, do so. Examining the history of any doctrine or view should never be avoided or rejected. Truth stands the test of history, and even in the worst of times, truth continues to be embraced by the faithful of their day.

Surely this thread can stay on-OP, and on-topic, and let the historian-minded folks step forward and share their early historical pentecostal-tongues citations and dates as the Op requested. There are plenty of other threads out there for those not interested in what the historical record might report.

Thanks for starting this topic.

Perhaps in his vast research into the history of the anaBaptists, maybe the Parson will have found some similar historical writings on how tongues have been recorded over the years, and have something to share on that from his research.

Kahtar
Oct 6th 2007, 07:47 PM
Perhaps I wasn't clear in my post. It was a round-about way of saying there is probably not much written historical material in existance through that period.
Certainly if there is, by all means, let's hear it.

TrustGzus
Oct 6th 2007, 07:53 PM
While these references aren't to the Middle Ages, they aren't part of the modern Pentecostal movement. The following is about a Scottish Presbyterian, Edward Irving . . .
In the late 1820s prophetic study had led Irving to teach that churches could expect a spiritual renewal with the manifestation of the gifts of the Spirit. He was thus somewhat prepared for the claims of divine healing and speaking in tongues occurring first in Scotland and then in his own congregation in 1831. Irving supported those who claimed to exercise such gifts. That unpopular position, plus the heresy charges, cost him his post at Regent Square.
Douglas, J. D., Comfort, P. W., & Mitchell, D. (1997, c1992). Who's who in Christian history. Illustrated lining papers. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House.


However, the heresy charges against him were pretty serious. Also, I've read a lot from R. A. Torrey over the years. Torry, while he lived into the 20th century wasn't really part of the modern Pentecostal movement and he clearly believed in and claimed to speak in tongues.

enarchay
Oct 6th 2007, 08:03 PM
Why do you want extra-biblical evidence. I see plenty of biblical eveidence for speaking in tongues. That is plenty for me.

Because the so-called Biblical "evidence" is up for interpretation. I want evidence Christians interpreted this so-called evidence as Pentecostals do today and spoke in unintelligible languages.

enarchay
Oct 6th 2007, 08:07 PM
What I am trying to understand is if speaking in tongues as it is understood in Pentecostal churches today was an understanding of the majority of the Christian church throughout history. From this, perhaps the questions can be answered: was this a practice that was held only by small minorities (i.e. cults) that eventually became popular, was this a practice that is quite modern, or is this a practice the majority of the church had part in throughout history up until modern times?

amazzin
Oct 6th 2007, 08:28 PM
Because the so-called Biblical "evidence" is up for interpretation. I want evidence Christians interpreted this so-called evidence as Pentecostals do today and spoke in unintelligible languages.

History records a number of events. Many Pentecostal history book references these events. These events pre-date Azuza street.

First of all, speaking in tongues is refered to in history books as "glossolalia. It is often documented accompanying other spiritual manifestations and not only the "speaking in tongues". Some of the wording may be shocking but remember this is how it was expressed in the writings of the time mostly due to a lack of understanding.

Irenaeus (130 Ad) makes a reference to the "charismata": "Wherefore, also, those who are in truth the disciples, receiving grace from Him, do in His name perform [miracles].... Some do certainly and truly drive out devils.... Others have foreknowledge of things to come; they see visions and utter prophetic expressions. Others still, heal the sick by laying their hands upon them."

Montanus (156 AD) fought against the liturgical and official ministry swing in the church of his day. He called upon his followers to live in a state of frequent ecstasy and vision."

Tertullian (160 AD)also makes an ambiguous reference: "Now all these signs (spiritual gifts such as psalm, vision, prayer in ecstasy) are forthcoming from my side without any difficulty."

Chrysostom (345-407 AD). Charismatic gifts almost disappeared. Speaking in tongues associated with a gift of languages provided to missionaries like St. Francis Xavier and others, languages to be used in their missionary work among strange people.

Reformation (5th Century). History records that manifestations were almost nonexistent. Some accounts of "'Spirituals' who preached against the worldliness of the clergy, the hyperinstitutionalism; and who were themselves rather quick to respond to what they thought were the direct impulses of the Holy Spirit."

Vincent Ferrer (1351-1419) preached in the western Mediterranean area. His speaking, and the results of it, bear a strange resemblance to modern Pentecostalism. There are reports of many manifestations, including shaking and possibly glossolalia, and also reports of healings. The downside of Ferrer's work was how he persecuted and tortured Jews, in order to put fear into them and force conversions.

16th century onwards.

Radical Anabaptists in Germany - speaking in tongues were reported, though infrequently.
Camisards and Jansenists in France - again infrequent speaking in tongues.
Shakers in America. Mother Ann Lee "was often found singing or praying in an unknown tongue." "Respecting such as speak in an unknown tongue, they have a strong faith in this gift; and think a person greatly favored who has the gift of tongues; and at certain times, when the mind is overloaded with a fiery strong zeal, it must have vent some way or other; their faith, or belief, at the time being in this gift, and a will strikes the mind according to their faith; and then such break out in a fiery, energetic manner, and speak they know not what, as I have done several times."17th and 18th Century : Many pietists started to emphasize a spiritual expereince after conversion. For instance, some 17th century Puritans, notably Thomas Goodwin and John Owen, held that in this experience the Spirit seals the believer with confidence in being a beloved child of God. They didn't see a connection between the experience and signs or wonders; they saw it mostly as a blessing of enlightenment.

(Ref: Pre Pentecostal History Vol IV, Zondervan Press 1998)

enarchay
Oct 6th 2007, 08:32 PM
Chrysostom (345-407 AD). Charismatic gifts almost disappeared. Speaking in tongues associated with a gift of languages provided to missionaries like St. Francis Xavier and others, languages to be used in their missionary work among strange people.
This sounds interesting.


(Ref: Pre Pentecostal History Vol IV, Zondervan Press 1998)

Thanks for the quotes. I need to get me one of those books.

Do you mind me asking what conclusion you draw from the above quotations you gave?

amazzin
Oct 6th 2007, 08:40 PM
This sounds interesting.



Thanks for the quotes. I need to get me one of those books.

Do you mind me asking what conclusion you draw from the above quotations you gave?

It reinforces that "glossolalia" never ceased as many suggest. It operated in Bibical times and in post Bibical times.

enarchay
Oct 6th 2007, 08:52 PM
It reinforces that "glossolalia" never ceased as many suggest. It operated in Bibical times and in post Bibical times.

But did it operate as people say it does today? Most references you provided did not specifically speak of glossolalia. One of the older references says it was used to minister to other nations. Do those references, moreover, support glossolalia as something observed in minorities or the majority?

amazzin
Oct 6th 2007, 08:57 PM
But did it operate as people say it does today? Most references you provided did not specifically speak of glossolalia. One of the older references says it was used to minister to other nations. Do those references, moreover, support glossolalia as something observed in minorities or the majority?

I think today we see the excesses of spiritual manifestations. It is bent on "speaking in tongues" more so that "spirtual gifts". The beautiful part is when one speaks in tongues and a person from a foreign nation hears them speak thier language but discovers the person who spoke doesn't know the language. I have seen this happen and it is how my dad came to now the Lord...through the speaking in tongues of an american-irishman who spoke no Italian (let alone my dads dialic)

enarchay
Oct 6th 2007, 09:01 PM
I think today we see the excesses of spiritual manifestations. It is bent on "speaking in tongues" more so that "spirtual gifts". The beautiful part is when one speaks in tongues and a person from a foreign nation hears them speak thier language but discovers the person who spoke doesn't know the language. I have seen this happen and it is how my dad came to now the Lord...through the speaking in tongues of an american-irishman who spoke no Italian (let alone my dads dialic)

There have been studies that show that the tongues people typically speak are not actual human languages. I guess there are special cases.

amazzin
Oct 6th 2007, 09:07 PM
There have been studies that show that the tongues people typically speak are not actual human languages. I guess there are special cases.

This is very true enarchy. Tongues is/can also be an angelic language where we do not kow what is being said but it is our spirit communicating with God

Teke
Oct 6th 2007, 09:17 PM
But did it operate as people say it does today? Most references you provided did not specifically speak of glossolalia. One of the older references says it was used to minister to other nations. Do those references, moreover, support glossolalia as something observed in minorities or the majority?

The only historical references I know of unknown speech or language are not Christian references. Historically the church taught of known languages being used for the spread of the gospel.

Glossolalia is something described historically totally different than that of the modern Charismatic movement. Glossolalia was more ecstatic utterance in a state of grace (worship), so to speak.

Steadily through out church history tongues was taught of Pentecost along with what occurred at Babel. Pentecost being a reversal of that. Even language would not be a barrier to the spread of the gospel.:)

godsgirl
Oct 6th 2007, 10:08 PM
Church History (A.D. 30 to 1900)
Twentieth-century Pentecostalism was not the earliest instance of "speaking in tongues" in church history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_history); rather, there were antecedents in several centuries of the Christian era, e.g.

150 AD - Justin Martyr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Martyr) wrote “For the prophetical gifts remain with us, even to this present time.” [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia#_note-1) and “Now, it is possible to see amongst us women and men who possess gifts of the Spirit of God;” [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia#_note-2)
156-172: Montanus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montanism) and the women that followed him - Maximilla and Priscilla - were speaking in tongues and were trying to prove that they were true prophets. For this purpose they used a list with prophets from the times of the New Testament. But anti-montanists declared that no prophet ever had such attitude and that Montanists were moved by the spirit of deception.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia#_note-3)
175 AD - Irenaeus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus) in his treatise Against Heresies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Detection_and_Overthrow_of_the_So-Called_Gnosis) speaks (positively) of those in the Church "who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages."[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia#_note-4)
circa 230 AD - Novatian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novatian) said, “This is He who places prophets in the Church, instructs teachers, directs tongues, gives powers and healings, does wonderful works, often discrimination of spirits, affords powers of government, suggests counsels, and orders and arranges whatever other gifts there are of charismata; and thus make the Lord’s Church everywhere, and in all, perfected and completed.” [6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia#_note-5)
After the 1st, or 2nd century there is no record of "speaking in tongues" in any Eastern Orthodox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox) source.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia#_note-6)
circa 340 AD - Hilary of Poitiers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_of_Poitiers) wrote, “For God hath set same in the Church, first apostles…secondly prophets…thirdly teachers…next mighty works, among which are the healing of diseases… and gifts of either speaking or interpreting divers kinds of tongues. Clearly these are the Church’s agents of ministry and work of whom the body of Christ consists; and God has ordained them.” [8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia#_note-7)
circa 390 AD - Augustine of Hippo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo), in an exposition on Psalm 32, discusses a phenomenon contemporary to his time of those who "sing in jubilation", singing the praises of God not in their own language, but in a manner that "may not be confined by the limits of syllables" [9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia#_note-8).
1100s - Franciscan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franciscan) order of monks.
1100s - Hildegard of Bingen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hildegard_of_Bingen) is reputed to have spoken and sung in tongues. Her spiritual songs were referred to by contemporaries as "concerts in the Spirit."
1300s - The Moravians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravian_Church) are referred to by detractors as having spoken in tongues. John Roche, a contemporary critic, claimed that the Moravians "commonly broke into some disconnected Jargon, which they often passed upon the vulgar, 'as the exuberant and resistless Evacuations of the Spirit'" [10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia#_note-9).
1600s - The French Prophets: The Camisards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camisards) also spoke sometimes in languages that were unknown: "Several persons of both Sexes," James Du Bois of Montpellier recalled, "I have heard in their Extasies pronounce certain words, which seem'd to the Standers-by, to be some Foreign Language." These utterances were sometimes accompanied by the gift of interpretation exercised, in Du Bois' experience, by the same person who had spoken in tongues. [11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia#_note-10)
1600s - Early Quakers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers), such as Edward Burrough (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Burrough), make mention of tongues speaking in their meetings: "We spoke with new tongues, as the Lord gave us utterance, and His Spirit led us" [12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia#_note-11).
1700s - John Wesley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wesley) and Methodism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodism). Wesley sprouts revivalism across Europe and North America, including many miraculous events such as speaking in tongues. See The Supernatural Occurrences of John Wesley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Supernatural_Occurrences_of_John_Wesley).
1817 - In Germany, Gustav von Below (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_von_Below), an aristocratic officer of the Prussian Guard, and his brothers, founded a charismatic movement based on their estates in Pomerania, which may have included speaking in tongues.
1800s - Edward Irving (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Irving) and the Catholic Apostolic Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Apostolic_Church). Edward Irving, a minister in the Church of Scotland, writes of a woman who would "speak at great length, and with superhuman strength, in an unknown tongue, to the great astonishment of all who heard, and to her own great edification and enjoyment in God" [13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia#_note-12). Irving further stated that "tongues are a great instrument for personal edification, however mysterious it may seem to us."In the last days, I will pour out My Spirit upon all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions, and you old men will dream dreams.
In those days, I will pour out My Spirit upon all my servants,
men and women alike, and they will prophesy.
And I will cause wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below -
blood and fire and clouds of smoke.
The sun will be turned to darkness, and the moon will turn bloodred,
before that great and glorious day of the Lord arrives.
And anyone who calls on the Name of the Lord will be saved.

amazzin
Oct 6th 2007, 10:45 PM
Church History (A.D. 30 to 1900)
Twentieth-century Pentecostalism was not the earliest instance of "speaking in tongues" in church history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_history); rather, there were antecedents in several centuries of the Christian era, e.g.

150 AD - Justin Martyr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Martyr) wrote “For the prophetical gifts remain with us, even to this present time.” [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia#_note-1) and “Now, it is possible to see amongst us women and men who possess gifts of the Spirit of God;” [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia#_note-2)
156-172: Montanus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montanism) and the women that followed him - Maximilla and Priscilla - were speaking in tongues and were trying to prove that they were true prophets. For this purpose they used a list with prophets from the times of the New Testament. But anti-montanists declared that no prophet ever had such attitude and that Montanists were moved by the spirit of deception.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia#_note-3)
175 AD - Irenaeus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus) in his treatise Against Heresies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Detection_and_Overthrow_of_the_So-Called_Gnosis) speaks (positively) of those in the Church "who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages."[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia#_note-4)
circa 230 AD - Novatian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novatian) said, “This is He who places prophets in the Church, instructs teachers, directs tongues, gives powers and healings, does wonderful works, often discrimination of spirits, affords powers of government, suggests counsels, and orders and arranges whatever other gifts there are of charismata; and thus make the Lord’s Church everywhere, and in all, perfected and completed.” [6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia#_note-5)
After the 1st, or 2nd century there is no record of "speaking in tongues" in any Eastern Orthodox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox) source.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia#_note-6)
circa 340 AD - Hilary of Poitiers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_of_Poitiers) wrote, “For God hath set same in the Church, first apostles…secondly prophets…thirdly teachers…next mighty works, among which are the healing of diseases… and gifts of either speaking or interpreting divers kinds of tongues. Clearly these are the Church’s agents of ministry and work of whom the body of Christ consists; and God has ordained them.” [8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia#_note-7)
circa 390 AD - Augustine of Hippo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo), in an exposition on Psalm 32, discusses a phenomenon contemporary to his time of those who "sing in jubilation", singing the praises of God not in their own language, but in a manner that "may not be confined by the limits of syllables" [9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia#_note-8).
1100s - Franciscan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franciscan) order of monks.
1100s - Hildegard of Bingen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hildegard_of_Bingen) is reputed to have spoken and sung in tongues. Her spiritual songs were referred to by contemporaries as "concerts in the Spirit."
1300s - The Moravians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravian_Church) are referred to by detractors as having spoken in tongues. John Roche, a contemporary critic, claimed that the Moravians "commonly broke into some disconnected Jargon, which they often passed upon the vulgar, 'as the exuberant and resistless Evacuations of the Spirit'" [10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia#_note-9).
1600s - The French Prophets: The Camisards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camisards) also spoke sometimes in languages that were unknown: "Several persons of both Sexes," James Du Bois of Montpellier recalled, "I have heard in their Extasies pronounce certain words, which seem'd to the Standers-by, to be some Foreign Language." These utterances were sometimes accompanied by the gift of interpretation exercised, in Du Bois' experience, by the same person who had spoken in tongues. [11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia#_note-10)
1600s - Early Quakers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers), such as Edward Burrough (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Burrough), make mention of tongues speaking in their meetings: "We spoke with new tongues, as the Lord gave us utterance, and His Spirit led us" [12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia#_note-11).
1700s - John Wesley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wesley) and Methodism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodism). Wesley sprouts revivalism across Europe and North America, including many miraculous events such as speaking in tongues. See The Supernatural Occurrences of John Wesley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Supernatural_Occurrences_of_John_Wesley).
1817 - In Germany, Gustav von Below (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_von_Below), an aristocratic officer of the Prussian Guard, and his brothers, founded a charismatic movement based on their estates in Pomerania, which may have included speaking in tongues.
1800s - Edward Irving (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Irving) and the Catholic Apostolic Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Apostolic_Church). Edward Irving, a minister in the Church of Scotland, writes of a woman who would "speak at great length, and with superhuman strength, in an unknown tongue, to the great astonishment of all who heard, and to her own great edification and enjoyment in God" [13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia#_note-12). Irving further stated that "tongues are a great instrument for personal edification, however mysterious it may seem to us."In the last days, I will pour out My Spirit upon all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions, and you old men will dream dreams.
In those days, I will pour out My Spirit upon all my servants,
men and women alike, and they will prophesy.
And I will cause wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below -
blood and fire and clouds of smoke.
The sun will be turned to darkness, and the moon will turn bloodred,
before that great and glorious day of the Lord arrives.
And anyone who calls on the Name of the Lord will be saved.


Godsgirl

Can you please post the reference(s) for your post please

Teke
Oct 6th 2007, 11:00 PM
I'm familiar with the first three references by godsgirl and they are not references to the modern phenomenon. The second and third one are addressing heresies.

amazzin
Oct 6th 2007, 11:05 PM
I'm familiar with the first three references by godsgirl and they are not references to the modern phenomenon. The second and third one are addressing heresies.

That's not what I meant. It posts like it is a copy and paste with hyperlinks. I think the right thing to do is to reference the site in which this was taken from.

Good info but we need to give credit where credit is due

Whispering Grace
Oct 6th 2007, 11:35 PM
Is this "Bash the Pentecostals" week here at Bibleforums or what? I must have missed the memo!

enarchay
Oct 6th 2007, 11:37 PM
This is very true enarchy. Tongues is/can also be an angelic language where we do not kow what is being said but it is our spirit communicating with God

Angels speak human languages.

enarchay
Oct 6th 2007, 11:38 PM
The only historical references I know of unknown speech or language are not Christian references. Historically the church taught of known languages being used for the spread of the gospel.

Glossolalia is something described historically totally different than that of the modern Charismatic movement. Glossolalia was more ecstatic utterance in a state of grace (worship), so to speak.

Steadily through out church history tongues was taught of Pentecost along with what occurred at Babel. Pentecost being a reversal of that. Even language would not be a barrier to the spread of the gospel.:)

I agree, but what extra-biblical historical evidence do you have for the above claims?

godsgirl
Oct 6th 2007, 11:53 PM
I just got it from wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_history

cheech
Oct 6th 2007, 11:58 PM
Is this "Bash the Pentecostals" week here at Bibleforums or what? I must have missed the memo!

Don't let it get to you WG :hug:...just remember what our main goal is...spreading the word of God to all and leading others to Christ. Showing kindness, love, mercy and charity to all, forgiving easily and having a servants heart. When we follow these principles that Christ left for us, that is what truly matters. I believe there will always be debates on who believes what and whether it is right or not, but we (in general) must not let it distract us from our true mission in life. That is how we become divided...when the enemy brings confusion and many different views. It happens easily too.

godsgirl
Oct 7th 2007, 12:13 AM
throughout history many great truths of the church have practically disappeared from view-salvation by faith, the baptism in the Holy Spirit, believers baptism by immersion living a life of holiness ect...that doesn't mean that they were not important and it doesn't mean that God's Word has changed.
We are now in the last days and God is pouring out His Spirit.

amazzin
Oct 7th 2007, 02:06 AM
I just got it from wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_history


Godsgirl

Wikipedia is not a good source. Wikipedia informatrion is compulated from different contributors. It is not a locked site where only a few editors have control. Basically, if I wanted to add or delete info on Wikipedia I can.

SIG
Oct 7th 2007, 04:34 AM
[QUOTE=amazzin;1403069]Godsgirl

...It is not a locked site where only a few editors have control... QUOTE]

That's why I like it :D

cwb
Oct 7th 2007, 05:58 AM
Is this "Bash the Pentecostals" week here at Bibleforums or what? I must have missed the memo!

Though I do not belong to any Pentecostal church and might not totally agree with all the different branches of Pentecostals on every single issue, I am very grateful for Pentecostals. Especially for the reason that it is in large part because of Pentecostals that many Christians are learning again to pray in the Spirit and make perfect intercession for the Saints according to the will of God. I see this as so necessary for the church in these times. Obviously the Apostle Paul saw it as extremely beneficial and necessary in his day which is why he did it alot - more than all the Corinthian Church put together. It is unfortunate that this great benefit to the Christian Church has been lost since Paul's day. Thank God for Pentecostals that so many Christians around the world today are learning to pray in tongues again like it was done by the first century Christians. I pray in tongues for you and all Pentecostals.

Steven3
Oct 7th 2007, 06:35 AM
Thank God for Pentecostals that so many Christians around the world today are learning to pray in tongues again like it was done by the first century Christians.

Don't particularly want to rain on anyone's parade but tape-recorder evidence shows that that's actually physically impossible for anyone today - even in modern Corinth, because to reproduce tongues exactly as it was done in 50sAD Corinth you'd have to be a native speaker of the Achaian dialect of Greek as it was spoken then.

Glossolalia is made of reorganized phonemes from the native language of the person producing the phenomenon. Hindi-speaking Hindus glossolate in Hindi, Americans glossolate in English-based "tongues of angels", Russian Pentecostals glossolate in Russian, and so on. For every cogent language there is a reorganized glossolalic equivalent. Consequently no one today can duplicate the "tongues of angels" produced by charismatic Christians (and also by charismatic Jews), of 2000 years ago any more than a modern English-speaker can produce the "inarticulate cries" (Lucan, de Bello Civili 5:169-174) of the Python-priestess at Delphi.

The exceptions are when someone throws in phonemes from a second language, such as Alexander of Abunoteichos 150-170AD who used to throw a few words of Hebrew or Phoenecian (which neither he nor his hearers spoke) into his oracles. This happens with Russian Pentecostals throwing odd words of English and Russified OT Hebrew (from the Synodal translation).

Steven

godsgirl
Oct 7th 2007, 11:50 AM
Nowhere does Scripture mandate that tongues -speaking must be a foreign language. There are
indications, however, that the nature of tongues is unintelligible, transcendent, and without natural
counterpart. Certain verses in 1 Corinthians 14 simply make better sense if tongues are understood in this
way. For example, 1 Corinthians 14:2: “Anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God.
Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit.” Without divine intervention, in other
words, no one can understand an utterance in tongues. Yet if it were a foreign language, would not the
utterance be recognizable by native speakers? “The interpretation of tongues demands a special gift of the
Spirit . . . not a nationality” (Goudge, p. 134)

http://www.pneumafoundation.com/resources/articles/rwgraves005.pdf

Oh and here's another source concerning tongues in early Christian experience....

Encyclopedia Britannica, 1972 Edition, Vol. 22, p. 75 -

Tongue-speaking manifested itself early in the Christian experience. At Pentecost (Acts 2) the gift appeared as a sign of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which marked the character of the earliest Christians...During later church history, glossolalia (speaking in tongues) occurred among the mendicant friars of the 13th century, little prophets of Cevennes, the Jansenists, and the Irvingites. Tongues were found also among the early Quakers, as well as among the converts of John Wesley and George Whitefield... In modern times glossolalia has been found chiefly among Holiness and Pentecostal groups. The Saturday Evening Post, May 16, 1964, p.32 - Praying in tongues has recurred at intervals throughout the Christian era, although it did not affect large masses until early in this century.

Steven3
Oct 7th 2007, 01:29 PM
Hi Godsgirl :)
Nowhere does Scripture mandate that tongues -speaking must be a foreign language. Actually yes Scripture does. Paul says that if no-one can translate then the person should be quiet or do it at home. How can someone translate unless the tongue has a meaning?


Tongue-speaking manifested itself early in the Christian experience. At Pentecost (Acts 2) the gift appeared as a sign of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which marked the character of the earliest Christians...This is where the ..... come in the quote on http://www.apostolic-voice.org/tracts/truth_about_tongues.htm but any idea what is in the .... bit? :) Yes this is the miracle of real languages, with "each of us understanding in our local dialect", a fact emphasized 3 times in Acts 2, this was a genuine gift of comprehensible tongues.


During later church history, glossolalia (speaking in tongues) occurred among the mendicant friars of the 13th century, little prophets of Cevennes, the Jansenists, and the Irvingites. Tongues were found also among the early Quakers, as well as among the converts of John Wesley and George Whitefield... In modern times glossolalia has been found chiefly among Holiness and Pentecostal groups. The Saturday Evening Post, May 16, 1964, p.32 - Praying in tongues has recurred at intervals throughout the Christian era, although it did not affect large masses until early in this century.This article, if not truncated, isn't strictly true. Glossolalia is pre-Christian and found among Christians much earlier than the 13th Century. The fact that Paul describes tongues "without meaning" shows that unintelligible glossolalia was occuring in Corinth only a generation after the intelligible tongues of Pentecost. But just because the church at Corinth did something doesn't mean we have to imitate it - particularly when Paul tells us not to.
God bless
Steven

godsgirl
Oct 7th 2007, 01:35 PM
The word he uses is "interpret" not "translate"-there is a difference-The bottom line is that the gifts of the Spirit are supernatural-The Holy Spirit is the one who gives the gifts-not just someone understanding what is said in the natural and explaining it to the congregation.

Paul definity didn't tell us not to-in fact, he said, "I want you all to speak in tongues"-and said that he did it quite often-he was merely laying down the rules for the gifts of the Sprit in the church.-those rules still hold true today.

Steven3
Oct 7th 2007, 02:04 PM
Hi Godsgirl :)
The word he uses is "interpret" not "translate"-there is a differenceNo there isn't :) Sorry, but there's no difference, not in English or Greek. Paul said if there is no one to translate/interpret (whatever) and it cannot be understood, then don't do it.

He also said "one at time" correct? At least we can agree that "one at a time" means "one at a time".

God bless :)
Steven

godsgirl
Oct 7th 2007, 02:08 PM
Actually yes, there is a difference-in English and Greek.

And yes, when used as a Spiritual Gift-tongues are to be one at a time-each in turn and let one interpret.

Steven3
Oct 7th 2007, 02:41 PM
Hi Godsgirl :)
Actually yes, there is a difference-in English and Greek.What do you feel then is the difference in English? - in the trade we generally use it for written as opposed to spoken, but that's arbitrary. In Greek the word Paul uses DIERMHNEUW means to turn one language (Phoenician) into another (Greek).


And yes, when used as a Spiritual Gift-tongues are to be one at a time-each in turn and let one interpret.Well that's good. I've never actually seen those rules be followed, but I'm delighted to hear that some do. If so then no problem. As long as everyone admits what it is - jumbled phonemes of English, not a real angelic tongue. The honesty issue bugs me a bit, not just as a translator/interpreter.
God bless
Steven

watchinginawe
Oct 7th 2007, 02:49 PM
Thank God for Pentecostals that so many Christians around the world today are learning to pray in tongues again like it was done by the first century Christians.
Don't particularly want to rain on anyone's parade but tape-recorder evidence shows that that's actually physically impossible for anyone today - even in modern Corinth, because to reproduce tongues exactly as it was done in 50sAD Corinth you'd have to be a native speaker of the Achaian dialect of Greek as it was spoken then.:dunno: What kind of response is that? That is "raining on a parade"? Man, that response is so outside of the Spirit Steven. Don't argue just for arguement's sake. By your standard, Christians today can not practice prayer at all like it was done by the first century Christians, tape recordings prove it. Prayer would be a "lost practice" or "has ceased" because of ... phonemes?
Actually yes Scripture does. Paul says that if no-one can translate then the person should be quiet or do it at home. How can someone translate unless the tongue has a meaning?Translate, interpret. OK, consider this for a moment. Suppose someone translates and says "I saw 7 ears of corn blasted by the east wind". How does that benefit the congregation? You could line up the wise men to hear the accurate translation and have nothing. Here is the way it works:

Genesis 40:7 And he asked Pharaoh's officers that were with him in the ward of his lord's house, saying, Wherefore look ye so sadly to day?

8 And they said unto him, We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of it. And Joseph said unto them, Do not interpretations belong to God? tell me them, I pray you.
...
Genesis 41:15 And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, I have dreamed a dream, and there is none that can interpret it: and I have heard say of thee, that thou canst understand a dream to interpret it.

16 And Joseph answered Pharaoh, saying, It is not in me: God shall give Pharaoh an answer of peace.
...
25 And Joseph said unto Pharaoh, The dream of Pharaoh is one: God hath showed Pharaoh what he is about to do.

Pharaoh's dream didn't need translated, it needed interpreted. Wise men can't do it, it is God that gives the dream and God that gives the interpretation. This is how the gifts of the Spirit flow, for a purpose.

God Bless!

Steven3
Oct 7th 2007, 03:10 PM
Hi Watchinginawe :)
:dunno: What kind of response is that? That is "raining on a parade"? Man, that response is so outside of the Spirit Steven. Don't argue just for arguement's sake. By your standard, Christians today can not practice prayer at all like it was done by the first century Christians, tape recordings prove it. Because I'm suggesting people should follow Paul's guidelines on having translators for tongues that's equivalent to banning prayer? Come on, you know that's not the same thing. More importantly Paul says "love is not easily offended", so please don't be offended by me.

As to translation - again Paul demands it. Not me, Paul. The word "translate" DIERMHNNEUW can mean exegesis in other contexts, but here it clearly means the same as when "Tabitha which being translated is Dorcas" - because Paul wants "meaning", "understanding".

Also it is not my fault that tapes of tongues when played back and linguistically analysed always reveal the tongue to be a jumbled form of the native language (English for English speakers). In fact the tapes don't even need to be played back. It's usually obvious in the first few utterances. Surely everyone who submits to being taped knows this? What do people think that such tapes would reveal? Tibetan? Extraterrestial languages?? Come on. That's not going to happen.

I wish people were producing Tibetan or angelic languages in churches. But they aren't.
God bless
Steven

watchinginawe
Oct 7th 2007, 03:33 PM
Steven,

Is praying in tongues referenced in the Bible? Does the Bible require an interpreter being present when we pray?
Thank God for Pentecostals that so many Christians around the world today are learning to pray in tongues again like it was done by the first century Christians.Is cwb suggesting that modern day Pentecostals are producing exact reproductions of prayers uttered in the first century? It seems that is what you are suggesting.
Don't particularly want to rain on anyone's parade but tape-recorder evidence shows that that's actually physically impossible for anyone today - even in modern Corinth, because to reproduce tongues exactly as it was done in 50sAD Corinth you'd have to be a native speaker of the Achaian dialect of Greek as it was spoken then. If one says that the first century Christians prayed in tongues as well as prayed in their native tongue, by your standard, neither can be practiced today. You are the one busy qualifying prayer by phenomes, not me. :dunno:

BTW, I'm not offended. I am trying to get you to step back a few feet and look at your arguements. They are secular at best and silly at worst regarding a Spiritual topic.

God Bless!

Teke
Oct 7th 2007, 03:47 PM
I agree, but what extra-biblical historical evidence do you have for the above claims?

Here is some info I posted in another thread, looking at both biblical and historical records. IMHO the church has always taught "tongues" as known languages.



When Paul warns of the misuse of tongues in 1 Cor. 14:21, he quotes from Isaiah 28:11. The context of Isaiah 28 indicates that the tongues in view are foreign languages, namely the language of the Assyrian invaders. As Paul quotes the passage to the Corinthians he does not feel the need to explain whether there is a difference between the form of tongues among the Corinthians and the foreign languages of the Assyrians, except that it is implicitly understood that the latter did not speak under the power of the Holy Spirit. By quoting Isaiah 28:11 Paul seems to assume the Corinthians know that tongues come in the form of foreign languages.

On Paul's third missionary journey, around 53-56 A.D., Acts 19 records that the twelve Ephesians spoke in tongues. According to estimates of chronology gleaned from the historical narratives of the New Testament, the tongues at Ephesus were spoken at the approximate time 1 Corinthians was written. Since the Ephesians were speaking in tongues as a continual fulfillment of the events at Pentecost, it would be strange for Paul to be dealing with one kind of tongues with the Ephesians and another kind with the Corinthians, especially when Paul gives no clear indication of such a change.

Points brought up by apologist Robert Sungenis

Some history (pre NT) on the phenomenon of unknown language, which isn't "new" in the NT.

The first recorded evidence of tongues-speaking, also know as glossolalia (Greek: glwssa lalia), dates back to 1,100 B.C. Known as the Report of Wenamon, cultic figures are said to have uttered ecstatic speech while worshiping certain deities. This phenomenon, which came from the Byblos on the Syro-Palestine coast, also spread to many other regions

From the Hellenistic era, Plato (429 - 347 B.C.) wrote of his acquaintance with religious ecstatic speech in his works the Phaedrus, the Ion, and the Timaeus. He remarks that the speaker was oblivious to what he was saying: "Even as they who deliver oracles and the soothsayers say many and excellent things, but know nothing of what they utter." (NPNF2, v. 12, p. 169). Plato remarks on the recipients altered state of consciousness resulting in the inability to function normally. He considered them possessed by an external force. At times he mentions that other manifestations appeared alongside the ecstatic speech, sometimes including physical healing.

Virgil (70 - 19 B.C.) in the Aeneid, makes reference to the Sibylline priestess of Delos who engaged in ecstatic speech as part of her religious rituals. In the Greek mystery religions, especially the Osiris cult, glossolalia was a common occurrence. Here the Greek terms pneu:ma (pneuma = "spirit") and lalei:n glwvssais (lalein glossais = "to speak in tongues") are used. This evidence shows that tongues-speaking was not an entirely new phenomenon in New Testament times.

Anyone who's seen the movie "300", has seen an example of what is meant in Greek understanding. Where the Spartan King Leonidas must consult the oracle (a young woman speaking in an unknown language), which is then interpreted by the priests to him, as he hasn't a clue to what she says.

Steven3
Oct 7th 2007, 04:09 PM
Hi Watchinginawe
Is praying in tongues referenced in the Bible? Does the Bible require an interpreter being present when we pray?1Co14:13-14. Yes, if we are going to pray in a tongue in front of the church then there must be a translator, that's what Paul says.

However there are seven days a week, and we don't have to save our prayers up to perform publicly in front of the church. What Christ says about God knowing what we need before we pray, and what Paul says about the spirit expressing what we need to say in groans in Romans 8 mean that in the privacy of one's own room, with the door closed we can pray how we like. Provided we don't Babel-on as the pagans do, which is another of Christ's guidelines Matt6:7.
Is cwb suggesting that modern day Pentecostals are producing exact reproductions of prayers uttered in the first century? It seems that is what you are suggesting.I can't speak for CWB, but modern Pentecostals are not producing exact reproductions of prayers in Ancient Greek or Aramaic, what modern Pentecostals produce is what has been documented since the Reformation - jumbled phonemes of the mother language with no grammar or inherent meaning. This is fact, the linguistic equivalent of a round earth or an old earth. Although of course like the round earth and the old earth it can be denied.
If one says that the first century Christians prayed in tongues as well as prayed in their native tongue, by your standard, neither can be practiced today. It's Paul's standard. Paul gave people freedom to do whatever they wanted in the privacy of their own rooms. It's simply that in front of the rest of the church, and those visitors to Corinth whom Paul said "will think you are out of your mind", Paul wanted those praying in a tongue to have an interpreter.



BTW, I'm not offended. I am trying to get you to step back a few feet and look at your arguements. They are secular at best and silly at worst regarding a Spiritual topic.I'm sorry but I really don't understand this reaction. Is doing as Paul says "secular"? And is disobeying Paul "spiritual"? Is it unspiritual to say "keep it at home" when that is what Paul says?

And what exactly is "spiritual" about denying the evidence of a tape recorder? God created our ears and brains as much as our heart and throat. Why is it "silly" to recognise the cold hard fact that English-speakers when they speak tongues speak their tongues in English (or from English at least). Again I ask, what do people expect they are speaking? Real angelic tongues? Does anyone seriously expect that? Why? Who told them to expect that??

1Co14:13 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. 18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. 19 Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue.

God bless
Steven

Mograce2U
Oct 7th 2007, 04:50 PM
<snip>
Steadily through out church history tongues was taught of Pentecost along with what occurred at Babel. Pentecost being a reversal of that. Even language would not be a barrier to the spread of the gospel.:)I think Teke makes an important point.

At Babel the people were trying to make a name for themselves:

(Gen 11:4 KJV) And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

They seemed to know that this was not God's will for them to do this, as the nations were divided according to the sons of Noah.

(Gen 10:32 KJV) These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.

Shem's line was the line chosen by God, therefore these who were in Shinar were attempting to form a unity in their own strength in order to have power over and above that which God's elect might have.

By confounding their language, God divides and scatters them which accomplishes His will and not theirs, and breaks up their unity with one another.

(Gen 11:6-8 KJV) And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. {7} Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. {8} So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

Now at Pentecost - with the believers - we see the exact opposite in the arrival of the Holy Spirit and the manifestation of the gift of tongues. This was what united the believers in the hearing of God's glory. The previous barrier now broken.

What is interesting to me is what is the purpose of the manifestation of tongues that we see today? Does it divide or unify believers in the one body? Or is what we are seeing much like what was happening in Corinth due to error and abuse of these gifts? It seems to me this is why Paul stresses LOVE as being the greater evidence. Because without love, the gifts are pretty much useless and subject to abuse and the promotion of error. And is the reason why heresy divides also (1 Cor 11:19). So that those who are approved may be manifested - not by their ability to speak ecstatically, but by their holding to truth and love in the body.

watchinginawe
Oct 7th 2007, 04:52 PM
And what exactly is "spiritual" about denying the evidence of a tape recorder? God created our ears and brains as much as our heart and throat. Why is it "silly" to recognise the cold hard fact that English-speakers when they speak tongues speak their tongues in English (or from English at least).What is silly is that you are expecting phoenetic reproductions as a test for praying in tongues. You are saying that praying in tongues is therefore impossible today because these reproductions are "lost" and can't be validated by a tape recorder. :dunno:

1Co14:13 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. 18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. 19 Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue.

What do you suppose is implied by the above verses? Why does Paul make a distinction about being in Church and not? Why does Paul equate tongues with praying, praising, and singing in the Spirit? The outsider in verse 16, are they understanding the tongue or the interpretation? Where in this Chapter is it said that anyone in attendance might possibly understand a tongue without God given interpretation?

I Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

No man understands him? He speaks in the spirit?

5 I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

There is an except in the above verse. Why wouldn't Paul just have the gift operate with the interpretation only? Why speak the tongue, which no one can understand, and then offer the interpretation? Why not just utter the interpretation? We have the spirit first, then the mind which is edified. It takes both halves.

12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.

13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

So we see that speaking in tongues is profitable for the spirit and the mind when interpreted. Without interpretation, only the speaker is edified and it is not profitable for the assembled congregation.

We see other evidences of Paul's concern for organized worship in the Church. In verse 26, Paul expresses concern for: 26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

So we see that edification is not just a linguistic understanding of a tongue but that many things might be edifying to the one offering but not to the whole congregation.

God Bless!

enarchay
Oct 7th 2007, 04:56 PM
What is interesting to me is what is the purpose of the manifestation of tongues that we see today? Does it divide or unify believers in the one body? Or is what we are seeing much like what was happening in Corinth due to error and abuse of these gifts? It seems to me this is why Paul stresses LOVE as being the greater evidence. Because without love, the gifts are pretty much useless and subject to abuse and the promotion of error. And is the reason why heresy divides also (1 Cor 11:19). So that those who are approved my be manifested - not by their ability to speak ecstatically, but by their holding to truth and love in the body.

I think these are some good points to consider. I wonder why those who speak in the modern version of tongues don't step back and think, "What purpose does this serve?" Because I don't think it serves any purpose. The tongues of Acts had a purpose and reversed the curse of Babel, but what I see going on in most churches seems to embrace the curse of Babel.

watchinginawe
Oct 7th 2007, 05:03 PM
What is interesting to me is what is the purpose of the manifestation of tongues that we see today? Does it divide or unify believers in the one body? Or is what we are seeing much like what was happening in Corinth due to error and abuse of these gifts? It seems to me this is why Paul stresses LOVE as being the greater evidence. Because without love, the gifts are pretty much useless and subject to abuse and the promotion of error. And is the reason why heresy divides also (1 Cor 11:19). So that those who are approved my be manifested - not by their ability to speak ecstatically, but by their holding to truth and love in the body.
I think these are some good points to consider. I wonder why those who speak in the modern version of tongues don't step back and think, "What purpose does this serve?" Because I don't think it serves any purpose. The tongues of Acts had a purpose and reversed the curse of Babel, but what I see going on in most churches seems to embrace the curse of Babel.We could use the same test for doctrine. For example, certainly tongues is not responsible behind the Protestant reformation. Is the reformation something that divides or unites us? Is the Bible being in the hands of the common believer something that divides or unites us? What kind of Church would we have if we excluded any thing that someone labeled as divisive or in error?

Is this just impossible now? II Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

History and tradition, while important, do not pass the test of scripture, at least for the Protestant.

God Bless!

enarchay
Oct 7th 2007, 05:09 PM
History and tradition, while important, do not pass the test of scripture, at least for the Protestant.

There's a difference between saying Scripture says this and doing it and having a personal experience then reading that experience back into the text. I know someone who says he saw the risen Jesus who taught him doctrine so now he believes there is no physical bodily resurrection and he reads this idea back into the texts. Does the egg come first or the chicken?

watchinginawe
Oct 7th 2007, 05:23 PM
There's a difference between saying Scripture says this and doing it and having a personal experience then reading that experience back into the text. I know someone who says he saw the risen Jesus who taught him doctrine so now he believes there is no physical bodily resurrection and he reads this idea back into the texts. Does the egg come first or the chicken?We don't have to go extra-Biblical for examples. Let's take water Baptism by immersion vs. infant Baptism. Is there a difference between the scriptures and history/tradition? Is there a potential for division? Does it serve any purpose? You will get the same range of answers regarging that topic as we do for tongues. It simply isn't the last word to say "it divides, therefore it must be wrong". We must consult the scriptures.

God Bless!

Mograce2U
Oct 7th 2007, 05:37 PM
Watchinginawe, #43 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1403429&postcount=43)

12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.

We see other evidences of Paul's concern for organized worship in the Church. In verse 26, Paul expresses concern for: 26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

So we see that edification is not just a linguistic understanding of a tongue but that many things might be edifying to the one offering but not to the whole congregation.The singular is contained in the plural.

The edifying of the individual is implied in the edification of the body. The whole cannot be edified unless the individual members are. But the purpose of the gifts - given to individuals, is to be shared with one another that all might receive the benefit.

How is that benefit to be conferred to the body if fellowships are formed around the gifts, or if they are relegated to only the private practice of those gifts? It seems both are in error here. v12 seems clear that in our zeal to manifest these spiritual gifts, that our motive ought to be to build up one another in the faith.

Praying in an unknown tongue privately may build up one's confidence, but what good is that if he has no understanding of what he is praying about? Does he hear the glory and thanksgiving that he is expressing with understanding? Which would seem to be why the one speaking is also told to pray for the interpretation. Yet this least of the gifts is the one that is elevated above the others.

I must admit I do not get it, nor see a reason to desire to have this gift as I have heard others speak about it. Therefore I focus on the gift that I am told to seek - prophesying which has a benefit to all.

enarchay
Oct 7th 2007, 05:41 PM
I must admit I do not get it, nor see a reason to desire to have this gift as I have heard others speak about it. Therefore I focus on the gift that I am told to seek - prophesying which has a benefit to all.

Same here. I'm not sure why anyone would want it. I'm not so convinced it is a "gift" either. I've seen people speak in tongues at will. That is, they can make themselves do it.

cwb
Oct 7th 2007, 05:49 PM
Praying in an unknown tongue privately may build up one's confidence, but what good is that if he has no understanding of what he is praying about? Does he hear the glory and thanksgiving that he is expressing with understanding? Which would seem to be why the one speaking is also told to pray for the interpretation. Yet this least of the gifts is the one that is elevated above the others.


The apostle Paul saw it as something he wanted to do alot. Making perfect intercession for the saints according to the will of God is certainly something I want to do. Paul only said to pray for the interpretation when doing it publicly. If you don't want to do it, that is fine. Then don't speak in tongues. At the same time the apostle Paul said to not forbid tongues. Also I am not sure where you got the idea from that Speaking in tongues is the least of the gifts.

cwb
Oct 7th 2007, 05:50 PM
Same here. I'm not sure why anyone would want it. I'm not so convinced it is a "gift" either. I've seen people speak in tongues at will. That is, they can make themselves do it.

If you don't want to speak in tongues, then don't.

cwb
Oct 7th 2007, 05:52 PM
Quote:

Is cwb suggesting that modern day Pentecostals are producing exact reproductions of prayers uttered in the first century? It seems that is what you are suggesting.
I can't speak for CWB, but modern Pentecostals are not producing exact reproductions of prayers in Ancient Greek or Aramaic, what modern Pentecostals produce is what has been documented since the Reformation - jumbled phonemes of the mother language with no grammar or inherent meaning. This is fact, the linguistic equivalent of a round earth or an old earth. Although of course like the round earth and the old earth it can be denied.


Neither did the apostle Paul.

watchinginawe
Oct 7th 2007, 05:57 PM
I must admit I do not get it, nor see a reason to desire to have this gift as I have heard others speak about it. Therefore I focus on the gift that I am told to seek - prophesying which has a benefit to all.
Same here. I'm not sure why anyone would want it. I'm not so convinced it is a "gift" either. I've seen people speak in tongues at will. That is, they can make themselves do it.Makes you wonder why God even offers it as a gift in the scriptures. :rolleyes:

Seek the scriptural Spiritual gifts. If you are in a congregation that says they have ceased, or aren't applicable, or aren't profitable, or that makes difference between members of the same body, then compare that with scripture and do as you are led.

The fact is that the scriptures go to great lengths promoting Spiritual gifts. If you see no reason or purpose to seek them, then OK.

You know, Paul begins the 12th chapter and ends that 14th chapter with:

II Corinthians 12:1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.
...
II Corinthians 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

Also check to see if you are in a congregation that forbids speaking in tongues. If so, check that scripturally and do as you are led.

In any event, in verse 38, whether it be me, or whether it be you, we are to tolerate each other's views on this topic.

God Bless!

Teke
Oct 7th 2007, 06:33 PM
History and tradition, while important, do not pass the test of scripture, at least for the Protestant.


:confused Without history which includes tradition, there would be no bible.

watchinginawe
Oct 7th 2007, 06:55 PM
:confused Without history which includes tradition, there would be no bible.Well, you'll just have to excuse us protestants. :lol:

If the scriptures are preserved and a direct product of only history and tradition then we are in trouble. Are you suggesting that history and tradition have created what we have as God's word in the Bible?

I offered the following scripture: II Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Scripture is given by inspiration of God, not history and tradition. You are making a circular arguement that postulates God's word is brought into being by history and tradition. :confused

If you want to kick the leg out from under the Bible, then so be it. I'll stick with the Bible as being a God procured thing, not a man procured thing.

God Bless!

Teke
Oct 7th 2007, 07:17 PM
Well, you'll just have to excuse us protestants. :lol:

If the scriptures are preserved and a direct product of only history and tradition then we are in trouble. Are you suggesting that history and tradition have created what we have as God's word in the Bible?

I offered the following scripture: II Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Scripture is given by inspiration of God, not history and tradition. You are making a circular arguement that postulates God's word is brought into being by history and tradition. :confused

If you want to kick the leg out from under the Bible, then so be it. I'll stick with the Bible as being a God procured thing, not a man procured thing.

God Bless!

The bible is a holy testament of God by His people throughout the history of humanity.
I said nothing of kicking a leg out from under the bible.

godsgirl
Oct 7th 2007, 07:18 PM
Same here. I'm not sure why anyone would want it. I'm not so convinced it is a "gift" either. I've seen people speak in tongues at will. That is, they can make themselves do it.


paul said, "I WILL pray with my mind and I WILL ALSO pray with my spirit--"
so yes, to an extent, we can pray in tongues any time we want to. The gift of tongues-is for the church gathered and is accompained by the companion gift-that of interpretation-these like the rest of the Spiritual gifts are given as the Sprit wills,

Reasons for speaking in tongues...


1. It is God's will.
1 CORINTHIANS 14:5 NKJ
5 I wish you all spoke with tongues . . . .
1 CORINTHIANS 14:37 NKJ
37 . . . the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.
2. Jesus said we would.
MARK 16:17 NKJ
17 "And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues;
3. It builds you up spiritually.
1 CORINTHIANS 14:4 NKJ
4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself . . . .
4. It stimulates your faith because faith must be exercised to speak in tongues.
JUDE 1:20 NKJ
20 But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit,
5. It enables you to pray for things you otherwise would not even know about.
ROMANS 8:26 NKJ
26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
6. It helps you pray according to God's will. It eliminates unbelief and selfishness from your praying.
ROMANS 8:27 NKJ
27 Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
JOHN 14:16-17 NKJ
16 "And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever,
17 "even the Spirit of truth . . . ."
7. It provides a spiritual rest and refreshing.
ISAIAH 28:11-12 NKJ
11 For with stammering lips and another tongue He will speak to this people,
12 to whom He said, "This is the rest with which you may cause the weary to rest," And, "This is the refreshing"; yet they would not hear.
8. It is a supernatural evidence of the Holy Spirit's presence in your life. As you continue to speak in tongues you stay conscious of His presence. That will affect your conduct.
ACTS 2:4 NKJ
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
ACTS 10:45-46 NKJ
45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God...
9. It is a means of releasing the wisdom and guidance of God.
1 CORINTHIANS 14:2 NKJ
2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.
1 CORINTHIANS 2:7 NKJ
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory,
PROVERBS 18:4 NKJ
4 The words of a man's mouth are deep waters; the wellspring of wisdom is a flowing brook.
10. It is a supernatural means of communication with God.
1 CORINTHIANS 14:2 NKJ
2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God . . . .
11. It provides a way to give thanks well.
1 CORINTHIANS 14:17 NKJ
17 For you indeed give thanks well . . . .
12. Yielding your tongue to the Holy Spirit to speak in tongues is a big step toward yielding all your members to God. If you can yield your tongue, you can yield any member.
JAMES 3:8 NKJ
8 But no man can tame the tongue. It is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.
13. It allows the Holy Spirit to help you in the most important area, speaking the right words, so the will of God will be accomplished in your life.
ACTS 2:4 NKJ
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
MARK 11:23 NKJ
23 ". . . but believes that those things he says will come to pass, he will have whatever he says."
14. Gifts and power are released in your life.
ACTS 1:8 NKJ
8 "But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."
JOHN 7:38-39 NKJ
38 "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water."
39 But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
15. It helps you worship God.
JOHN 16:13-14 NKJ
13 "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.
14 "He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you.
ACTS 10:46 NKJ
46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God...
There are many benefits to speaking in tongues for the Christian believer: including spiritual edification and help in prayer. Do not go without all these benefits any longer. Ask Jesus to baptise you in His Holy Spirit today.

watchinginawe
Oct 7th 2007, 07:25 PM
The bible is a holy testament of God by His people throughout the history of humanity.
I said nothing of kicking a leg out from under the bible.Well, where is the last 2000 year's installment then?

God Bless!

Teke
Oct 7th 2007, 07:34 PM
Well, where is the last 2000 year's installment then?

God Bless!

In the Church. There is nothing new.
There is no other revelation, no other dogma, than Jesus Christ.

godsgirl
Oct 7th 2007, 08:04 PM
In the Church. There is nothing new.
There is no other revelation, no other dogma, than Jesus Christ.

And Jesus is our baptiser in the Holy Spirit-He is the same forever!:pp

Teke
Oct 7th 2007, 08:14 PM
And Jesus is our baptiser in the Holy Spirit-He is the same forever!:pp

Yes, and Jesus was baptized in water which is why the church calls for people to be baptized in water.
Jesus never spoke in an unknown language praying or otherwise and so the church has not been dogmatic about the subject except when addressing heresies which could undermine the truth of Christ who is the dogma of the churches and all its teachings.

If you explore some of those quotes you posted, in their context you will find out which heresies they are addressing. And what they mean by speaking "strange language" (meaning not the truth of the Christ).

godsgirl
Oct 7th 2007, 09:57 PM
Jesus said that we would. He is the One who told the disciples to not even begin their earthly ministry until they received this promise of the Father.

godsgirl
Oct 7th 2007, 10:01 PM
1.Since He was God, there were no languages He didn't know.

2.Since He was sinless, He had perfect communication with the Father, and therefore, He did not need tongues.

3.He was the last person to function as a prophet under the Old Covenant. Tongues are a New Testament phenomenon. Not until Jesus was glorified and the church was born did the Holy Spirit fall in this way. He told us that it would happen.


Even if Jesus didn't personally speak in tongues, He Himself stated that tongues would be a normative sign to follow believers (Mark 16:17 .) (2) The entire New Testament was written by people who spoke in tongues.

NightWatchman
Oct 8th 2007, 12:57 AM
Greetings godsgirl. Great insights.:)

Tongues aren't written about as some 'wizard's trick' at all. In 1 Corinthians ch.12 and ch.14, Paul writes much of what we know about tongues, including that not every believer speaks in tongues, and that it needs to be orderly.

Steven3
Oct 8th 2007, 03:19 AM
Hi God's girl :)
Even if Jesus didn't personally speak in tongues, He Himself stated that tongues would be a normative sign to follow believers (Mark 16:17

They did and it was. In Acts - all except (d) below are documented in Acts itself. But even 30 years later in Corinth the believers could not perform the intelligible tongues of Pentecost.

Mark 16:17-18 And these signs will accompany those who believe:
(a) in my name they will cast out demons;
(b) they will speak in new tongues;
(c) they will pick up serpents with their hands;
(d) and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them;
(e) they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

If tongues were genuinely a continuing sign after the generation of the apostles then (c,d) drinking poison and handling snakes would also be a continuing sign, (b) the continuing sign of tongues would continue in the same fashion as at Pentecost - intelligible human tongues not "tongues of angels" a.k.a. glossolalia. How can glossolalia be said to be a continuation of the Pentecost tongues that every man understood in his own dialect when now no man understands in his own dialect?

God bless
Steven

Mograce2U
Oct 8th 2007, 03:26 AM
Makes you wonder why God even offers it as a gift in the scriptures. :rolleyes:

Seek the scriptural Spiritual gifts. If you are in a congregation that says they have ceased, or aren't applicable, or aren't profitable, or that makes difference between members of the same body, then compare that with scripture and do as you are led.

The fact is that the scriptures go to great lengths promoting Spiritual gifts. If you see no reason or purpose to seek them, then OK.Oh but I do see a purpose for them - this one which we have been given:

(1 Cor 14:21-22 KJV) In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. {22} Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

(Isa 28:11-12 KJV) For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. {12} To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

Peter also in his first sermon in Acts 2 tells us it was a special sign for Israel that the man Jesus whom they crucified was now both Lord and Christ.

What I don't see is that that purpose still exists today, now that the judgment it announced has been fulfilled.

David Taylor
Oct 8th 2007, 02:22 PM
H

If tongues were genuinely a continuing sign after the generation of the apostles then (c,d) drinking poison and handling snakes would also be a continuing sign, (b) the continuing sign of tongues would continue in the same fashion as at Pentecost - intelligible human tongues not "tongues of angels" a.k.a. glossolalia. How can glossolalia be said to be a continuation of the Pentecost tongues that every man understood in his own dialect when now no man understands in his own dialect?

God bless
Steven


Good point Steven.

That is exactly why I brought up the question earlier, about when the biblical precidence of tongues as given in Acts 2, was changed from one of transcending the known languages of the members of the listening group as given in Acts 2, ---- into the modern azura-street variation of tongues which involves groups of same-languaged people speaking in unintelligible and unknown tongues amongst themselves.

The continuation of the tongues displayed in todays era, should follow the same characteristics and framework of the tongues that were displayed at Pentecost itselfin Acts 2....if a continuation is to be claimed to that event.

Mograce2U
Oct 8th 2007, 02:49 PM
Good point Steven.

That is exactly why I brought up the question earlier, about when the biblical precidence of tongues as given in Acts 2, was changed from one of transcending the known languages of the members of the listening group as given in Acts 2, ---- into the modern azura-street variation of tongues which involves groups of same-languaged people speaking in unintelligible and unknown tongues amongst themselves.

The continuation of the tongues displayed in todays era, should follow the same characteristics and framework of the tongues that were displayed at Pentecost itselfin Acts 2....if a continuation is to be claimed to that event.The quote I have in my signature from Miles Sanford states clearly that we need to be able to discern among what appears to be the same. How will anyone recognize a counterfeit and reject it if they do not practice this needed discernment? If it is NOT the same then it ought to be rejected, not embraced for use as our new prayer language.

Our prayers to the Lord are precious and what puts us in touch with the real power of God who answers them. To pray in the Spirit is to engage the mind according to the will of God which puts me in alignment with that Will though I may not be able to express it clearly in words spoken. The Lord knows my heart and what I desire even without verbal expression, therefore He hears my groans. What I need is clarity and understanding of what the will of the Lord is so that I might have the desires of HIS heart within my own. This is what prayer is to accomplish in me and is the vehicle by which I express my faith in the Lord to the Lord.

(1 Cor 13:11-13 KJV) When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. {12} For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. {13} And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

When maturity comes we will no longer behave as children and will grow up in the things which we have been given which are intended to generate love and good works in us. At that time we will find that prophecies, tongues and words of knowledge will no longer be our guides as they were when we were babes - rather love will be our motivator. It is love that never fails (ceases) because it is love that is the goal.

(John 15:13 KJV) Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

His love is perfect - that is why He had no need to speak in tongues. If His love is perfected in us, neither will we.

Sold Out
Oct 8th 2007, 03:17 PM
Though I do not belong to any Pentecostal church and might not totally agree with all the different branches of Pentecostals on every single issue, I am very grateful for Pentecostals. Especially for the reason that it is in large part because of Pentecostals that many Christians are learning again to pray in the Spirit and make perfect intercession for the Saints according to the will of God. I see this as so necessary for the church in these times. Obviously the Apostle Paul saw it as extremely beneficial and necessary in his day which is why he did it alot - more than all the Corinthian Church put together. It is unfortunate that this great benefit to the Christian Church has been lost since Paul's day. Thank God for Pentecostals that so many Christians around the world today are learning to pray in tongues again like it was done by the first century Christians. I pray in tongues for you and all Pentecostals.

Are you saying I can't pray effectively in my own language?

cwb
Oct 8th 2007, 03:21 PM
Are you saying I can't pray effectively in my own language?
I am not saying it. The scripture says it.

cwb
Oct 8th 2007, 03:25 PM
Good point Steven.

That is exactly why I brought up the question earlier, about when the biblical precidence of tongues as given in Acts 2, was changed from one of transcending the known languages of the members of the listening group as given in Acts 2, ---- into the modern azura-street variation of tongues which involves groups of same-languaged people speaking in unintelligible and unknown tongues amongst themselves.

The continuation of the tongues displayed in todays era, should follow the same characteristics and framework of the tongues that were displayed at Pentecost itselfin Acts 2....if a continuation is to be claimed to that event.

On Pentecost, there were people present that understood the languages that were spoken in tongues. There is no quarantee that this will always be the case. If fact the apostle Paul makes it clear in I cor 14 that this is usually not the case. Hence no biblical precidence was set in Acts 2 as you suggest.

David Taylor
Oct 8th 2007, 03:42 PM
On Pentecost, there were people present that understood the languages that were spoken in tongues. There is no quarantee that this will always be the case. If fact the apostle Paul makes it clear in I cor 14 that this is usually not the case.
I don't see where I Cor 14 tells us that the tongues being spoken weren't different languages understandable to those in the audience they were addressed to via the interpreter.

You seem to want to make a distinction between the tongues of Acts 2 and I Cor 14. I believe rather, they are the same, and for the same intent and application.




Hence no biblical precidence was set in Acts 2 as you suggest.


So are you saying, in the modern application of tongues, we should go with the precedence that if everyone in a group speak the same common language, then another unknown language is preferable for both the audience and the Lord to be able to understand the speak the most accurately and efficiently?

Steven3
Oct 8th 2007, 03:49 PM
Hi CWB :)
I am not saying it. The scripture says it.

There is a certain truth in that when praying in private, yes the Romans 8 spirit "groans" do express things that words cannot. Yes. Okay, is anyone saying otherwise? :)

But. The problem comes when a person considers (perhaps because they've been taught so to do by teachers who have misread 1Co14) that our most personal and private "groans" are so much more meaningful than intelligible communal prayer that they must be saved up till Sunday and everyone else in the congregation must have to suffer listening to our private and personal "groans" performed publicly.

This is not what God (speaking through Paul) wants. In fact it is the exact opposite of what God (via Paul) says about prayer in 1Co14:13-14. God wants people to pray in languages that can be understood, or translated, or keep it at home.

We all of us, me too, tend to assume that the NT contains rules for others (like the highway code and speed limits are for other drivers not me), but the five rules God (via Paul) set down for Corinth in the last 8 verses of 1Co14 are for everyone, every church.

i 27
ii 28
iii 29
iv 31
v 34

And these five rules come with a killer punch. Paul says (14:39) that if anyone considers him or herself "spiritually gifted" and thinks Paul's rules don't apply to him "then that person is to be ignored", i.e. shut up. Considering oneself "spiritually gifted" does not make a person above Paul's five rules for orderly worship.

God bless
Steven

Steven3
Oct 8th 2007, 04:16 PM
Hi David :)
You seem to want to make a distinction between the tongues of Acts 2 and I Cor 14. I believe rather, they are the same, and for the same intent and application.I used to think that too. In fact I broke my brain on trying to reconcile the intelligible tongues of Acts 2 and the unintelligible tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 for years. Then a scholar of Judaism referred me to a precedent for angelic tongues in an Alexandrian Jewish text that predates Paul by about 50 years:


http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/ot/pseudo/test-job.htm

23 Then rose the one whose name was Day (Yemima) and girt herself; and immediately she departed her body, as her father had said, and she put on another heart, as if she never cared for earthly things. 24 And she sang angelic hymns in the voice of angels, and she chanted forth the angelic praise of God while dancing.

25 Then the other daughter, Kassia by name, put on the girdle, and her heart was transformed, so that she no longer wished for worldly things. 26 And her mouth assumed the dialect of the heavenly Archonts and she sang the donology of the work of the High Place and if any one wishes to know the work of the heavens he may take an insight into the hymns of Kassia.

27 Then did the other daughter by the name of Amalthea’s Horn (Keren Happukh) gird herself and her mouth spoke in the language of those on high; for her heart was transformed, being lifted above the worldly things. 28 She spoke in the dialect of the Cherubim, singing the praise of the Ruler of the cosmic powers (virtues) and extolling their (His?) glory.

This text, the so-called Testament of Job (http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/ot/pseudo/test-job.htm), is a fictionalised account of Job's three charismati, spirit-gifted daughters, and almost certainly (according to Charlesworth's Pseudepigrapha, Kraft and so on) describes female charismatic worship in an Alexandrian Therapeutae synagogue or Therapeutae house-meeting roughly contemporary with Christ.

So "angelic tongues" were not unique to Corinth. They were also found at the home town of the man who succeeded Paul at Corinth, Apollos.

Now there is no indication that these charismatic/angelic tongues in Therapeutae synagogues were glossolalic. The account Philo gives of worship in a Therapeutae community (Philo 'On the Contemplative Life (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book34.html)) mentions musical instruments, charismatic expression, spontaneity of emotion, female choirs and leaders, agape-feast, sexual abstinence/fasts between married couples, --- all items found in Corinth uniquely in the NT - which just so happens to be the church led by a convert from Alexandrian Jewish background. But Philo does not mention glossolalia. The only records of glossolalia from this period are Delphic-pagan, not Therapeutae-Jewish. It doesn't appear that the three daughters of Job are singing in glossolalic tongues either - despite the "out of body" experience - since their inspired utterances are written down as angelic hymns. One scholar, I forget who, wrote that the Testament of Job may be related to an attempt to claim angelic inspiration for the Therapeutae synagogue hymnbook.

Perhaps a bit of a long stretch? But, nevertheless this is too much coincidence to be deliberately and totally ignored. Something with a particularly Alexandrian Jewish flavour appears to have been at work in part of the Corinth church - presumably the Alexandrian-Jew Apollos' faction.

Anyway, the point of this - what is happening in Corinth does not have to be the same tongues as Pentecost, it may have something to do with Therapeutae influence from Alexandria.

Or there were Peter-style tongues being spoken by the Peter-group, Therapeutae-style angelic and Cherubim tongues by the Apollos-group? We can't assume the warring groups in Corinth had the same worship styles.

God bless
Steven

Sold Out
Oct 8th 2007, 04:27 PM
I am not saying it. The scripture says it.

I must have missed it, can you post the scripture for me?

Mograce2U
Oct 8th 2007, 05:09 PM
Stephen3,
Did you notice that in that (uninspired) testament of Job, Elihu is called evil?

Also Philo seems to be drawing a comparison and contrast between the Greek idolators and the Jewish mystics. He mentions (Jewish) asceticism and love of wisdom and the things they did to bring themselves into a state of ecstacy. He likens their worship as being the same as that which Moses & Miriam led the people in after being brought out of Egypt. Which is worth noting denigrated quickly into idolatry though he does not mention that similarity.

Whispering Grace
Oct 8th 2007, 05:21 PM
It honestly saddens me that so many people try to reason away such a precious gift from the Lord.

You can look back at past posts of mine right here on the board where I tried to do the very same thing, but THANK GOD He opened my eyes to His glorious truth.

I don't think a person has to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit (and speak in tongues) to be saved, but I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone wouldn't want everything God has to offer His children!

Mograce2U
Oct 8th 2007, 05:36 PM
It honestly saddens me that so many people try to reason away such a precious gift from the Lord.

You can look back at past posts of mine right here on the board where I tried to do the very same thing, but THANK GOD He opened my eyes to His glorious truth.

I don't think a person has to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit (and speak in tongues) to be saved, but I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone wouldn't want everything God has to offer His children!
Mainly because of this verse:

(2 Cor 11:12-15 KJV) But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we. {13} For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. {14} And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. {15} Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

And also this one:

(2 Cor 11:3-4 KJV) But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. {4} For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

If someone claims to have this apostolic gift by which he can lay hands on you and confer this gift, you ought to be suspicious of his claims. If the gift you receive is then not according to the biblical example, then you ought to reject it. Prophesying (speaking forth the word of God) on the other hand is a gift we can all seek to receive and partake in.

Steven3
Oct 8th 2007, 05:38 PM
Hi Mograce :)
Did you notice that in that (uninspired) testament of Job, Elihu is called evil?It's been so long since I've read it that I'd forgotten that. Not sure why the Therapeutae would have thought that.


Also Philo seems to be drawing a comparison and contrast between the Greek idolators and the Jewish mystics. He mentions (Jewish) asceticism and love of wisdom and the things they did to bring themselves into a state of ecstacy. He likens their worship as being the same as that which Moses & Miriam led the people in after being brought out of Egypt. Which is worth noting denigrated quickly into idolatry though he does not mention that similarity.Well, yes, it's clear that Philo is very sympathetic to the Therapeutae - and he doesn't make the Miriam connection. It's doubly unfortunate that Philo is a rather partisan source because we have so little information on the Therapeutae that almost everything we know is from Philo, or gleaned reading between the lines of the few known Therapeutae texts like the so-called Testament of Job.

Some commentators suspect that Philo's account of Therapeutae worship is somewhat sanitized - it seems far more orderly than the out-of-body ecstatic worship of the so-called "daughters of Job". The suggested explanation, again not mine, is that Philo describes a formal Therapeutae synagogue meeting, wheras Testament of Job describes a less formal Therapeutae house meeting.

The other issue is the role of the Moses-prophet and Miriam-figure (below) in Therapeutae synagogues, and whether this is the same thing as the "pneumatikos" or spiritual-one, such as 1Co14:37 "if anyone thinks he or she is a prophet or a pneumatikos, then let them recognise what I write"


under the influence of divine inspiration, becoming all one chorus, sang hymns of thanksgiving to God the Saviour, Moses the prophet leading the men, and Miriam the prophetess leading the women. (88) Now the chorus of male and female worshippers being formed, as far as possible on this model, makes a most humorous concert, and a truly musical symphony, the shrill voices of the women mingling with the deep-toned voices of the men. The ideas were beautiful, the expressions beautiful, and the chorus-singers were beautiful; and the end of ideas, and expressions, and chorussingers, was piety; (89) therefore, being intoxicated all night till the morning with this beautiful intoxication, without feeling their heads heavy or closing their eyes for sleep, but being even more awake than when they came to the feast, as to their eyes and their whole bodies, and standing there till morning, when they saw the sun rising they raised their hands to heaven, imploring tranquillity and truth, and acuteness of understanding.

But again, no actual glossolalia. Just emotional rapture, music, all-night vigils, etc.

Plus what does Philo mean when he says the Therapeutae "men and women, all alike, were rapt with the Divine Spirit". This presumably is somewhat different from the staid (and male-female segregated) Pharisee synagogue environment in which Paul grew up. It may have been something Paul had little or no experience of in small-town Tarsus or in Jerusalem - although there were Therapeutae synagogues in several diaspora cities.
God bless
Steven

cwb
Oct 8th 2007, 05:44 PM
I don't see where I Cor 14 tells us that the tongues being spoken weren't different languages understandable to those in the audience they were addressed to via the interpreter.

You seem to want to make a distinction between the tongues of Acts 2 and I Cor 14. I believe rather, they are the same, and for the same intent and application.





So are you saying, in the modern application of tongues, we should go with the precedence that if everyone in a group speak the same common language, then another unknown language is preferable for both the audience and the Lord to be able to understand the speak the most accurately and efficiently?


There is no difference between tongues in Act 2 and tongues in I cor 14. The only difference is in those that heard it not in those that spoke in tongues. In Acts 2 there were some people present who understood what was being spoken. For example, let's just say that when I speak in tongues, it is German that I speak. Everytime I speak in tongues there is no guarantee that there is someone present who speaks German. There could be but there is no guarantee. That is why that other manifestation, interpretation of tongues is necessary. If what you suggest is true, that every time somebody speaks in tongues, there is going to be someone present who understands the language being spoken, why would the manifestation of interpretation of tongues ever be necessary. Paul makes it clear in I cor 14 that there is no guarantee when somebody speaks in tongues that there will be anybody present who will understand it.

cwb
Oct 8th 2007, 05:49 PM
It honestly saddens me that so many people try to reason away such a precious gift from the Lord.

You can look back at past posts of mine right here on the board where I tried to do the very same thing, but THANK GOD He opened my eyes to His glorious truth.

I don't think a person has to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit (and speak in tongues) to be saved, but I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone wouldn't want everything God has to offer His children!

I agree with you Whispering Grace. It saddens me also that many people try to reasos away such a precious gift from the Lord. However I am thankful to God that He has opened your eyes and my eyes to His glorious truth. I am thankful that He is also opening the eyes of many people to His glorious truth.

Steven3
Oct 8th 2007, 05:54 PM
Hi Whispering Grace :)
I don't think a person has to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit (and speak in tongues) to be saved, but I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone wouldn't want everything God has to offer His children!

Paul says that speaking in intelligible tongues for five words is a more precious gift than 10,000 words in an unintelligible tongue. The math on that is quite impressive 10,000/5 = 2000x more gift.

Let's say that someone speaks 200 wpm (200 words per minute is a typical rate, since normal conversation is usually 200 wpm, politicians and preachers often go at 300~400 wpm). Speaking in an unintelligible tongue for 5 minutes would mean speaking 1000 words unitelligible to anyone listening. But if the speaker switched to the gift of intelligible speech the hearer would receive 2,000x the blessing. So the blessing of 2000 x 1000 = 2,000,000. 5 minutes of understandable speech contains the gift or blessing of 2 million words in a tongue according to Paul's math.

Also, aside from the joy and blessing of the gift of intelligible speech, what about the peace and order and lack of confusion that is also a gift that God offers his children. Compare the way the Therapeutae synagogue practised their "dialects of the cherubim" in Paul's day:
And after him then others also arise in their ranks, in becoming order, while every one else listens in decent silence, except when it is proper for them to take up the burden of the song, and to join in at the end; for then they all, both men and women, join in the hymn

With the Therapeutae they had all the emotion, the out-of-body experience, the spiritual ones, the inspiration, but, Philo records, everything "in order", "in becoming order", as Paul wanted, no-one talking at once, people waiting in turn, "decent silence".

What is wrong with God's gift of meaning, intelligible speech, God's blessing of order to his children?

That's what's being discussed here. Does God give the gift of intelligible tongues. Does God want Christians to follow the five rules Paul lays out at the end of 1Co14.
God bless
Steven

cwb
Oct 8th 2007, 05:58 PM
I must have missed it, can you post the scripture for me?

Romans 8:26
Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

In I cor 14, Paul explains how he prays in the Spirit

I cor 14:14,15
For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

Prayer in the Spirit is in contrast to praying with the understanding.

Steven3
Oct 8th 2007, 06:05 PM
Hi CWB
Okay but again, as far as I can see no one is objecting to spirit-groans we all experience at home. The question is whether Paul wants prayer-tongues to be used without interpretation in church.
God bless
Steven

Theophilus
Oct 8th 2007, 06:11 PM
Okay, buckaroos...So far, fairly good.

However...I'm always concerned when I see all caps, bold lettering, and excessive use of exclamation marks.

This is a topic that has the potential for emotional and zealous response...please just remember to think twice before posting, and be quick to hit the "edit" button if you re-read and realize you've been less than gracious, or if someone has a legitimate complaint about something you've posted.

...and, remember, read the posts calmly, and giving the benefit of the doubt to the poster. The whole wide world can read what's written here, and by the grace of God, they will read beliefs that may not agree, but that will show the love of Christ.

Resume play.

ShirleyFord
Oct 8th 2007, 06:23 PM
Oh but I do see a purpose for them - this one which we have been given:

(1 Cor 14:21-22 KJV) In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. {22} Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

(Isa 28:11-12 KJV) For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. {12} To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

Peter also in his first sermon in Acts 2 tells us it was a special sign for Israel that the man Jesus whom they crucified was now both Lord and Christ.

Amen Robin.

Isn't it amazing that Paul would give only those Christians in Corinth Isaiah's prophecy and God's purpose for "tongues" in the main Chapter of the Bible that is used today as support for the speaking in tongues in the assembled Christian congregation!

And the only place where we find tongues being spoken by Christians and the unsaved interpreted them is in Acts 2 to let us know that the "tongues" that Paul is writing the Church at Corinth about to correct their misuse of tongues are the same tongues spoken by the 120 Christians at Penticost, and it was the unsaved who interpreted them when they heard them spoken and heard and understood them in their own particular language from the area in the world where they were born!

Never do we find in the Bible where Christians speak in tongues and Christians interpret them.

I think that Paul was speaking to the Church at Corinth in Chapter 14 in the same way that He spoke to them in Chapter 6:

1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?

2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?

3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.

5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?


I don't believe that Paul wrote Chapter 14 to set in order the correct way for the gift of tongues and the gift of interpretation to be used in the Church service as the Charasmatic leaders taught me and I accepted and applied incorrectly and unscripturally in my opinion for at least 10 years.


Shirley

David Taylor
Oct 8th 2007, 06:29 PM
Romans 8:26
Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.


The context here is an individual prayer between Paul and the Lord, where the Spirit knowing Paul's innermost being, is able to understand his need moreso that the words Paul himself would be able to put together and convey.

Nothing in this verse speaks of an unknown tongue that is to be spoken in public in the midst of a group of same-languaged listeners.





In I cor 14, Paul explains how he prays in the Spirit

I cor 14:14,15
For if I pray in an tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.


I Cor 14:14 doesn't say unknown tongue. The mean that the word is a scribal-translational insertation, and not found in the original Greek language. The context is not 'unknown tongue', but rather, another language that is a known language.

All I Cor 14:14 is saying, is that when the Lord uses Paul to speak in tongues to others (of a different language), so that they can understand, that the Spirit will be sure to correctly convey what is spoken to the understanding of the listeners.....even if Paul himself is unfruitful in being able to understand what he himself is speaking.

Perfect harmony with the framework and application of how tongues were given in Acts 2 at Pentecost.

A more accurate translation, and one that remains in harmony with the Acts 2 Pentecostal framework of tongues, comes from the Holman Christian Standard Bible.

14:4The person who speaks [B]in another language builds himself up, but he who prophesies builds up the church.14:5I wish all of you spoke in other languages, but even more that you prophesied. The person who prophesies is greater than the person who speaks in languages, unless he interprets so that the church may be built up. 14:6But now, brothers, if I come to you speaking in other languages, how will I benefit you unless I speak to you with a revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching? 14:7Even inanimate things producing sounds--whether flute or harp--[U]if they don't make a distinction in the notes, how will what is played on the flute or harp be recognized? 14:8In fact, if the trumpet makes an unclear sound, who will prepare for battle? 14:9In the same way, unless you use your tongue for intelligible speech, how will what is spoken be known? For you will be speaking into the air. 14:10There are doubtless many different kinds of languages in the world, and all have meaning. 14:11Therefore, if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker, and the speaker will be a foreigner to me.

Sold Out
Oct 8th 2007, 06:41 PM
It honestly saddens me that so many people try to reason away such a precious gift from the Lord.

You can look back at past posts of mine right here on the board where I tried to do the very same thing, but THANK GOD He opened my eyes to His glorious truth.

I don't think a person has to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit (and speak in tongues) to be saved, but I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone wouldn't want everything God has to offer His children!

Let me ask you this....is it more important that you speak in tongues to edify yourself, rather than witness to folks and see them saved?

watchinginawe
Oct 8th 2007, 07:00 PM
Mainly because of this verse:

(2 Cor 11:12-15 KJV) But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we. {13} For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. {14} And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. {15} Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.You know, as I have already pointed out, Paul says in the very next chapter that he didn't want the Corinthians ignorant regarding Spiritual gifts and went on to insist for them to not forbid speaking in tongues. Where did the idea that tongues should be forbidden come from? :dunno: One could easily make a case that these false apostles were the ones doing the forbidding. Regardless, Paul cuts off occasion by insisting the allowance of speaking in tongues.

If someone claims to have this apostolic gift by which he can lay hands on you and confer this gift, you ought to be suspicious of his claims. If the gift you receive is then not according to the biblical example, then you ought to reject it. Prophesying (speaking forth the word of God) on the other hand is a gift we can all seek to receive and partake in.
There are some who openly state they won't seek, don't understand the purpose, and don't want certain gifts of the Spirit such as speaking in tongues. I believe you have testified to that (if I am wrong, I apologize). To themselves, they forbid speaking in tongues. Still others insist that God should just take control of them if He wants them to speak in tongues. But God makes clear that these gifts are to be desired and sought after and asked for. We need to learn to make supplication with our prayers being desirous of what God promises to us.

Paul commands: Covet to prophesy. Forbid not to speak in tongues. Quench not the Spirit. Despise not prophesyings. We need to be careful what we "forbid" ourselves concerning the Holy Ghost.

God Bless!

Steven3
Oct 8th 2007, 07:03 PM
Hi David
I think I'm going to drop out of this thread as I'm repeating myself. I broadly agree with your approach, and I certainly agree with your intention. But I think you're probably making things unneccessarily difficult for yourself by shouldering the assumption that the Corinthians were all as neatly inside the Peter-Pentecost model of tongues as Paul undoubtedly would have liked them to be.

Why? Because it's very difficult indeed to squeeze several verses in 1Co14, among them 14:2, into the real-foreign-languages model of Acts 2.

14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.

I won't go through every verse - I don't need to, but I'd recommend anyone interested to themselves go offline for an hour and read 1Co13&14 through one-step-removed as if it was Paul's epistle to the Charismatics (I mean that in the nicest possible way). it's worth doing, just as an exercise in lateral reading :), then perhaps read through Philo on the Therapeutae, and a little of Samarin and Kildahl on glossolalia.

Yes, for sure, there have to be some Acts2-type real foreign languages mixed in in 1Co13&14. It would be amazing if there weren't enthno-linguistic issues since Corinth was an ethnic and linguistic babylon (the New York of Paul's day), and when Paul says "I speak in tongues more than all of you" it's likely he has Latin, Greek, Scythian, Hebrew, Aramaic etc in mind rather than Therapeutae-style "dialects of the cherubim".

And yet, the foreign-languages theory can only go so far, it can only explain Paul, but it cannot cover everything that's happening in Corinth. It doesn't fit every verse in 1Co14. The charismatic Therapeutae influence from Alexandrian Jews doesn't fit every verse either. Yet there's something happening in Corinth that doesn't fit the Acts 2 model, doesn't fit the Therapeutae model.

And also, though we don't have tape recordings (obviously) we do have evidence of glossolalia from this period - transcriptions made by travellers from pagan worship which support Samarin and Kildahl that even 2000 years ago glossolalia was a jumble of the native tongue - not an unlearned foreign language.

Good night ;)
Steven

Steven3
Oct 8th 2007, 07:07 PM
Hi Watchinginawe :)
Where did the idea that tongues should be forbidden come from?From verse 37. Paul anticipated that some people wouldn't listen to his 5 rules, so he says if they ignore my rules ignore them. This is the thing - will those speaking in tongues accept Paul's 5 rules or not? If they can abide by these 5 rules then there's no need to forbid.
God bless
Steven

watchinginawe
Oct 8th 2007, 07:08 PM
I won't go through every verse - I don't need to, but I'd recommend anyone interested to themselves go offline for an hour and read 1Co13&14 through one-step-removed as if it was Paul's epistle to the Charismatics (I mean that in the nicest possible way). it's worth doing, just as an exercise in lateral reading :),That part is not a bad suggestion, but one would really need to start at Chapter 12 or they would risk being "ignorant" of a lot of what Paul wanted us to understand regarding the charismatic gifts. ;)

God Bless!

David Taylor
Oct 8th 2007, 07:13 PM
There are some who openly state they won't seek, don't understand the purpose, and don't want certain gifts of the Spirit such as speaking in tongues.

Do people really openly state this about speaking in tongues per-sae, or is it rather that some are questioning the modern azura-street variation of tongues (unknown tongues spoken in public in same-languaged groups)

in contrast to

the Acts 2 Pentecostal example of speaking in tongues. (mixed-known languaged groups)


Does anyone here really believe that the Lord won't use His servants today, in special unique bi-lingual situations, to share the gospel with people of other languages as was done in Acts chapter 2 at Pentecost?

I would be suprised to see many if any, who doubt that this type (Acts 2 Pentecostal multi-language-bridging tongues) of 'speaking in tongues' is doubted or ceased.



What I am observing in this conversation, is two types of speaking in tongues being presented, and only the modern azura-street variation and its unique application being questioned....not the Acts 2 Pentecostal type of tongues. Perhaps I am over simplifying what I think I see as the discussion.

Are there any folks here who do not think the Lord today in our time, would give someone the gift of tongues to transcend their own native language, to be able to share the gospel with someone of another language as was done at Pentecost?

I personally think He still does this in those settings....

cwb
Oct 8th 2007, 07:16 PM
The context here is an individual prayer between Paul and the Lord, where the Spirit knowing Paul's innermost being, is able to understand his need moreso that the words Paul himself would be able to put together and convey.

Nothing in this verse speaks of an unknown tongue that is to be spoken in public in the midst of a group of same-languaged listeners.





I Cor 14:14 doesn't say unknown tongue. The mean that the word is a scribal-translational insertation, and not found in the original Greek language. The context is not 'unknown tongue', but rather, another language that is a known language.

All I Cor 14:14 is saying, is that when the Lord uses Paul to speak in tongues to others (of a different language), so that they can understand, that the Spirit will be sure to correctly convey what is spoken to the understanding of the listeners.....even if Paul himself is unfruitful in being able to understand what he himself is speaking.

Perfect harmony with the framework and application of how tongues were given in Acts 2 at Pentecost.

A more accurate translation, and one that remains in harmony with the Acts 2 Pentecostal framework of tongues, comes from the Holman Christian Standard Bible.

14:4The person who speaks [B]in another language builds himself up, but he who prophesies builds up the church.14:5I wish all of you spoke in other languages, but even more that you prophesied. The person who prophesies is greater than the person who speaks in languages, unless he interprets so that the church may be built up. 14:6But now, brothers, if I come to you speaking in other languages, how will I benefit you unless I speak to you with a revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching? 14:7Even inanimate things producing sounds--whether flute or harp--if they don't make a distinction in the notes, how will what is played on the flute or harp be recognized? 14:8In fact, if the trumpet makes an unclear sound, who will prepare for battle? 14:9In the same way, unless you use your tongue for intelligible speech, how will what is spoken be known? For you will be speaking into the air. 14:10There are doubtless many different kinds of languages in the world, and all have meaning. 14:11Therefore, if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker, and the speaker will be a foreigner to me.

Whether the word unknown is in brackets or not is irrelevant. Paul makes it clear that when he prayed in tongues, his Spirit was praying and He did not understand the words he was saying. You can reason it away all you want. The scriptures are pretty clear to those who have a desire to learn. Paul did not understand what he was speaking when he prayed in the Spirit. This is why he said to not do it publickly without an interpretation.

cwb
Oct 8th 2007, 07:20 PM
Never do we find in the Bible where Christians speak in tongues and Christians interpret them.



Interpretation of tongues is one of the 9 manifestations listed in I Cor 12. Somebody can not operate a manifestation of the Holy Spirit unless he has that Spirit.

David Taylor
Oct 8th 2007, 07:24 PM
Whether the word unknown is in brackets or not is irrelevant. Paul makes it clear that when he prayed in tongues, his Spirit was praying and He did not understand the words he was saying.
That doesn't make it an unknown tongue, as is modernly applied though.

That is why the forced-inclusion of '[unknown]' is relevant.

If Paul was using the Acts 2 Pentecostal 'gift of tongues' to teach the gospel to a group of Germans, and those Germans heard and understood Paul's teaching even though Paul didn't know and understand the German words coming out of his mouth....then why wouldn't this aptly fulfill this I Cor 14 verse as well?

By Paul's own mental ability, he didn't know German; but through the Spirit, the German tongue coming out of his lips was understood to his German audience, and the Lord was uplifted, and the German audience was edified.





You can reason it away all you want.
I don't want to reason anything away. However, I do want the proper intent and the proper application of the scriptures to be applied, and to be consistent.

My entire point, is that I believe the biblical precidence of Acts 2 speaking in tongues at Pentecost can be properly and consistent applied in I Cor 14....without having to create a whole another brand and variation of the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues to become something completely different. Not trying to take away anything from the tongues gift found in I Cor 14; but rather, trying to see its consistent application with the original manifestation of the gift of tongues as was done in Acts 2 at Pentecost.






The scriptures are pretty clear to those who have a desire to learn.

You implying I don't have a desire to learn really is unwarranted. How does that edify anyone in the discussion?




Paul did not understand what he was speaking when he prayed in the Spirit. This is why he said to not do it publickly without an interpretation.

But simply because Paul didn't understand what he was speaking, didn't mean he was speaking in an unknown tongue, within a group of same-languaged individuals.

watchinginawe
Oct 8th 2007, 07:24 PM
Hi Watchinginawe :) From verse 37. Paul anticipated that some people wouldn't listen to his 5 rules, so he says if they ignore my rules ignore them. This is the thing - will those speaking in tongues accept Paul's 5 rules or not? If they can abide by these 5 rules then there's no need to forbid.
God bless
StevenI don't see that connection to verse 37. So, does where you worship practice the 5 rules or does your congregation just outright forbid? :) I've seen it suggested that Paul was using "rules" to actually forbid tongues. It seems that it would just be more like Paul to say "forbid speaking in tongues" and be done with it.

What Paul puts forth are rules for worship, not just tongues, so everything could be done decently and in order. Everyone makes chapter 14 "restrictions on tongues" when Paul is talking about the order of worship, conduct of those assembled, and how the gifts of the Spirit may operate. Everyone is quick to put verse 34 in a cultural context and then seek the most restrictive guidelines for anything Spiritual. Quench not the Spirit. Let everything be done decently and in order.

God Bless!

cwb
Oct 8th 2007, 07:25 PM
Do people really openly state this about speaking in tongues per-sae, or is it rather that some are questioning the modern azura-street variation of tongues (unknown tongues spoken in public in same-languaged groups)

in contrast to

the Acts 2 Pentecostal example of speaking in tongues. (mixed-known languaged groups)


Does anyone here really believe that the Lord won't use His servants today, in special unique bi-lingual situations, to share the gospel with people of other languages as was done in Acts chapter 2 at Pentecost?

I would be suprised to see many if any, who doubt that this type (Acts 2 Pentecostal multi-language-bridging tongues) of 'speaking in tongues' is doubted or ceased.



What I am observing in this conversation, is two types of speaking in tongues being presented, and only the modern azura-street variation and its unique application being questioned....not the Acts 2 Pentecostal type of tongues. Perhaps I am over simplifying what I think I see as the discussion.

Are there any folks here who do not think the Lord today in our time, would give someone the gift of tongues to transcend their own native language, to be able to share the gospel with someone of another language as was done at Pentecost?

I personally think He still does this in those settings....

You are saying that this is the only way tongues are used - in a public setting to tracend language barriers. The apostle Paul says differently. He spoke in tongues alot in his private prayer life. He spoke in a language he did not understand in his private prayer life.

David Taylor
Oct 8th 2007, 07:29 PM
You are saying that this is the only way tongues are used - in a public setting to tracend language barriers. The apostle Paul says differently. He spoke in tongues alot in his private prayer life. He spoke in a language he did not understand in his private prayer life.

Yes, my focus, is about when the gift of tongues is used in a public setting.

In that venue, I believe their are no variations, and the Act 2 Pentecostal gift of tongues precedence, should remain consistent.

In the case of a prayer, whether we speak, grunt, whistle, or tap-dance, the Lord knows the intents of our hearts better than we can convey them in any type of language; so there really is nothing to question here in this venue...when it involves an individual and the Lord only.

Acts 2, and I Corinthians 14 however, both refer to the gift of tongues in a public venue with many people involved in listening to what is occurring.

watchinginawe
Oct 8th 2007, 07:37 PM
Does anyone here really believe that the Lord won't use His servants today, in special unique bi-lingual situations, to share the gospel with people of other languages as was done in Acts chapter 2 at Pentecost?
...
Are there any folks here who do not think the Lord today in our time, would give someone the gift of tongues to transcend their own native language, to be able to share the gospel with someone of another language as was done at Pentecost?David, there are other instances of speaking in tongues and the Holy Ghost falling in Acts besides Acts 2. There are differences. It is only in Acts 2 that those who the Holy Ghost fell upon were accused of being drunk. Do you think being mistaken for drunk is a consistent characteristic? What about others mocking the actions of those upon who the Holy Ghost fell?

I'll leave it up to you to see if there were other Biblical examples of tongues and if they "line up" with your Acts 2 test of evangelizing in special unique bi-lingual situations.

God Bless!

cwb
Oct 8th 2007, 07:44 PM
That doesn't make it an unknown tongue, as is modernly applied though.

That is why the forced-inclusion of '[unknown]' is relevant.

If Paul was using the Acts 2 Pentecostal 'gift of tongues' to teach the gospel to a group of Germans, and those Germans heard and understood Paul's teaching even though Paul didn't know and understand the German words coming out of his mouth....then why wouldn't this aptly fulfill this I Cor 14 verse as well?

By Paul's own mental ability, he didn't know German; but through the Spirit, the German tongue coming out of his lips was understood to his German audience, and the Lord was uplifted, and the German audience was edified.






It does apply to I cor 14. That is why if the tongue Paul was speaking was German and there was nobody present who spoke German, Paul would not speaks in tongues publicly in that situation. He would do his praying in tongues privately and to himself unless there was somebody present who understod the language he was speaking or there was an interpretation. He himself said that in private he spoke in tongues more than all the Corinthian church. He must have seen it as something important to do.


I don't want to reason anything away. However, I do want the proper intent and the proper application of the scriptures to be applied, and to be consistent.

My entire point, is that I believe the biblical precidence of Acts 2 speaking in tongues at Pentecost can be properly and consistent applied in I Cor 14....without having to create a whole another brand and variation of the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues to become something completely different. Not trying to take away anything from the tongues gift found in I Cor 14; but rather, trying to see its consistent application with the original manifestation of the gift of tongues as was done in Acts 2 at Pentecost.


I am not creating a different brand of the spiritual gift of tongues. The only reason it was done out loud publicly in Acts 2 was because there were some present who understood the languages being spoken. This is why no interpretation was necessary. Had there not been those present on Pentecost who understood, an interpretation would have to have been given as it says in I cor 14. If there is no interpretation given and nobody is present who understands, then speaking in tongues should not be done publicly but privately.



But simply because Paul didn't understand what he was speaking, didn't mean he was speaking in an unknown tongue, within a group of same-languaged individuals.


I agree. He would not speak in tongues publicly within a group of same languaged individuals. This is what he instructed the Corithians not to do. That is why when there was no interpretation, he did not speak in tongues publicly but spoke in tongues privately and to God. Praying in tongues privately and to God is something he did alot.

David Taylor
Oct 8th 2007, 07:50 PM
David, there are other instances of speaking in tongues and the Holy Ghost falling in Acts besides Acts 2. There are differences. It is only in Acts 2 that those who the Holy Ghost fell upon were accused of being drunk. Do you think being mistaken for drunk is a consistent characteristic? What about others mocking the actions of those upon who the Holy Ghost fell?

I'll leave it up to you to see if there were other Biblical examples of tongues and if they "line up" with your Acts 2 test of evangelizing in special unique bi-lingual situations.

God Bless!

Why were they accused of being drunk? Because this was the first time the Holy Spirit had made this type of manifestation, and prior to this, noone had ever seen anyone speak in tongues.

"appearing to be drunk' was just a figure of speech explaining the misunderstanding of what was going on.

Had you been one of the mockers there watching Peter and the disciples, a Jewish Galileans, start ripping out into Ethiopian....and you didn't know Ethiopian, it might appear that Peter was drunk and mumbling incoherently as a drunk would do.

To an unbelieving mocker, whom the message was not intended for, the comparison to how a drunkard would speak is a very fitting analogy whether in Acts 2, or in 1 Cor 14.

I don't see any specific characteristics of Acts 2's manifestation of the gift of tongues by the Holy Spirit that would not be equally applicable to 1 Corinthians 14's venue.

Can you share why you think they must be two different speaking in tongues types, instead of the same?

David Taylor
Oct 8th 2007, 07:56 PM
I am not creating a different brand of the spiritual gift of tongues. The only reason it was done out loud publicly in Acts 2 was because there were some present who understood the languages being spoken.


If there is no interpretation given and nobody is present who understands, then speaking in tongues should not be done publicly


He would not speak in tongues publicly within a group of same languaged individuals.

This is what he instructed the Corithians not to do.

Good to see, once we boil things down a little, we have much more in common than in disagreement. I agree firmly with everything you said above, and that is why I think the connection and consistent application of Acts 2 with 1 Cor 14 is important.

The entire 'public same languaged group of individuals' verses 'privately alone with God' is, IMO, the angst that generates the conflict with this entire topic.

When that application is adhered to, I would expect all Christians, whether Charismatic or not, tend to agree.

It is when public tongues in same-languaged groups occurs, that I see many non-Pentecostals then raising a flag of disagreement.

cwb
Oct 8th 2007, 07:56 PM
Yes, my focus, is about when the gift of tongues is used in a public setting.

In that venue, I believe their are no variations, and the Act 2 Pentecostal gift of tongues precedence, should remain consistent.

In the case of a prayer, whether we speak, grunt, whistle, or tap-dance, the Lord knows the intents of our hearts better than we can convey them in any type of language; so there really is nothing to question here in this venue...when it involves an individual and the Lord only.

Acts 2, and I Corinthians 14 however, both refer to the gift of tongues in a public venue with many people involved in listening to what is occurring.

I agree with you. In a public venue, speaking in tongues should not be done without an interpretation. It is unfortunate that there are churches that disobey I cor 14 in a public venue. However, I feel that Paul makes it pretty clear that there is a benefit to speaking in tongues in a language he did not understand when in private. It seems in your posts that you are saying that there is no benefit to praying in the Spirit by speaking in tongues in a language you yourself do not understand (when in private). Maybe I was just misunderstanding your posts. It seems to me the apostle Paul saw a great benefit to speaking to tongues privately in a language he did not understand.

Teke
Oct 8th 2007, 07:59 PM
Are there any folks here who do not think the Lord today in our time, would give someone the gift of tongues to transcend their own native language, to be able to share the gospel with someone of another language as was done at Pentecost?

I personally think He still does this in those settings....

I see known languages being spoken all the time in my church. I don't understand them all, but those who speak the languages do. ie. Russian, Lebanese, Greek etc. An English speaking person translates for us English speaking people or vice versa.

Only reason I'm still looking at this thread is to see if any offer any historical evidence that the, modern unknown tongue phenomenon, has been consistently done in the church from the beginning of the church.
So far that has not been shown. :no:

David Taylor
Oct 8th 2007, 08:02 PM
I agree with you. In a public venue, speaking in tongues should not be done without an interpretation. It is unfortunate that there are churches that disobey I cor 14 in a public venue. However, I feel that Paul makes it pretty clear that there is a benefit to speaking in tongues in a language he did not understand when in private. It seems in your posts that you are saying that there is no benefit to praying in the Spirit by speaking in tongues in a language you yourself do not understand (when in private). Maybe I was just misunderstanding your posts. It seems to me the apostle Paul saw a great benefit to speaking to tongues privately in a language he did not understand.


Yeah, we get excitable sometimes, and run with the wrong dog.

I really wasn't interested or focusing on private (Me-God) situations at all.

My entire concern on this topic, is the public-venue (not private)...and moreso, modern public-venues of same-languaged people.

I agree with you completely, that in the public setting, there should be no tongues, and Paul taught specifically against doing it.

Only in a mixed-languaged group, with an interpreter, would there be otherwise.

Whispering Grace
Oct 8th 2007, 08:04 PM
Let me ask you this....is it more important that you speak in tongues to edify yourself, rather than witness to folks and see them saved?

Why does it have to be either/or?

watchinginawe
Oct 8th 2007, 08:05 PM
Can you share why you think they must be two different speaking in tongues types, instead of the same?David, forgetting I Corinthians 14 for the moment, please validate your claim about tongues being for bi-lingual sharing of the Gospel regarding the other accounts in Acts. Here is what you said:
Are there any folks here who do not think the Lord today in our time, would give someone the gift of tongues to transcend their own native language, to be able to share the gospel with someone of another language as was done at Pentecost?You imply a limitation of one use for tongues here. Can you back that up with the other accounts of tongues in the Acts of the Apostles?

God Bless!

Whispering Grace
Oct 8th 2007, 08:16 PM
"appearing to be drunk' was just a figure of speech explaining the misunderstanding of what was going on.

Had you been one of the mockers there watching Peter and the disciples, a Jewish Galileans, start ripping out into Ethiopian....and you didn't know Ethiopian, it might appear that Peter was drunk and mumbling incoherently as a drunk would do.



OR...the apostles could have very well been acting drunk.

David Taylor
Oct 8th 2007, 08:32 PM
David, forgetting I Corinthians 14 for the moment, please validate your claim about tongues being for bi-lingual sharing of the Gospel regarding the other accounts in Acts. Here is what you said:You imply a limitation of one use for tongues here. Can you back that up with the other accounts of tongues in the Acts of the Apostles?
God Bless!

There are 3 examples in Acts that involve speaking in tongues.


Acts 2
Acts 10
Acts 19.All three involve multi-languaged participants.

Acts 2:6 "Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God."

Acts 10:1, 44-46 "There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band; While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.

Acts 19:2 "Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. And all the men were about twelve. And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God. But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus. And this continued by the space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks. "

Mograce2U
Oct 8th 2007, 08:52 PM
Watchinginawe,
I am sure that ecstatic utterances do occur - mostly because I have heard them. People have different emotional makeup and I do not doubt that the Spirit moves on each of us differently - and yet similarly. So that somehow we ought to be able to recognize what is of the Spirit and what is not.

The fact that some lack this discernment and give themselves over to barking like dogs and rolling on the floor in uncontrollable laughter or falling down "slain in the spirit", however suggests to me that another spirit is at work. And when you see these men who promote such things speaking in the SAME sort of tongues that those who do profess to be filled with the Holy Spirit do, well I just have to wonder.

If one retains his self control then he can also choose when and where he will do such things. If the object is to work oneself up into an ecstatic frenzy as the Therapeutae mystics Stephen was talking about were doing, he is liable to receive another spirit than the one he is expecting.

And when I see fellowships that have embraced false teachings, it doesn't surprise me to hear that their worship is centered in these sorts of things (usually accompanied by music designed for this purpose). Its kind of an accumulation of things that has formed my opinion on this subject. On the other hand I would reject no gift that the Spirit is pleased to give me as He has been faithful so far. I would not expect to receive a stone when I asked for a fish. The Spirit gives us only good things to eat. But whoever it is who throws sand in the pot ruins it for everybody else and so no one is properly nourished by it. That is the admixture that I see and so I do not partake of it.

watchinginawe
Oct 8th 2007, 09:15 PM
There are 3 examples in Acts that involve speaking in tongues.

Acts 2
Acts 10
Acts 19.All three involve multi-languaged participants.I am looking at purpose here for the moment. Did the tongues in Acts 10 or Acts 19 serve to as you suggest for a test "share the gospel with someone of another language as was done at Pentecost?"? Well, we know that these other accounts did not. In the cases in Acts 10 and 19, it was the converts who spoke in tongues. The purpose was different than that in Acts 2.

Also, in both Acts 10 and 19, there is no mention of language difficulties between the Apostles and those present.

At Cornelius', it was all that "heard the word", as "Peter yet spake". Peter was not using a miraculous gift to "share the Gospel".

At Ephesus, Paul appears to have one on one conversations with those present with no lingual difficulty at all. Tongues just weren't needed according to your test in these accounts.

God Bless!

watchinginawe
Oct 8th 2007, 09:31 PM
Watchinginawe,
...
Its kind of an accumulation of things that has formed my opinion on this subject. On the other hand I would reject no gift that the Spirit is pleased to give me as He has been faithful so far. I would not expect to receive a stone when I asked for a fish.It is the asking that is key. "Whatever" can be a humble request, but it can also be an apathetic request.
The Spirit gives us only good things to eat. But whoever it is who throws sand in the pot ruins it for everybody else and so no one is properly nourished by it. That is the admixture that I see and so I do not partake of it.But you apply that discriminatley Robin. Throwing sand in the pot can be said for a number of things. For example, giving as an investment of sorts. That would pass your test yet I feel certain you still throw into the sandy pot, your money mingled with theirs. I have seen the same applied to even going to Church and not mixing with the sandy pot of "hypocrites".

I could go on, but I will accept your comment. You have hesitation at the "pot of tongues" so to speak. I am OK with that. I had hesitation for more years than not as a Christian so I am in understanding. However, I was ever careful not to judge the pot or doubting the giver and when I quit "forbidding tongues" for myself God blessed me with a new dimension in my walk.

God Bless!

ProjectPeter
Oct 8th 2007, 09:42 PM
There is this particular part of chapter 14 which I didn't see mentioned or really responded to. Maybe it was and I missed it... always a possibility. But perhaps it worthy to bring out.

1 Corinthians 14:1 Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy.
2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men, but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.
3 But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation.

Now if no one understands but it is the spirit speaking mysteries... stands to reason why it would need interpreted for man to understand it and thus be edified. But this begs to question the fact that nothing is alluded to here at all that it is a known language.

Now I understand that there are folks that believe that the gifts have ceased and if that is your stand then not going to mess with that for now. But for those who don't think that the case and that it is speaking of a human language... how do you deal with this particular part of the passage?

Mograce2U
Oct 9th 2007, 12:18 AM
There is this particular part of chapter 14 which I didn't see mentioned or really responded to. Maybe it was and I missed it... always a possibility. But perhaps it worthy to bring out.

1 Corinthians 14:1 Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy.
2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men, but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.
3 But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation.

Now if no one understands but it is the spirit speaking mysteries... stands to reason why it would need interpreted for man to understand it and thus be edified. But this begs to question the fact that nothing is alluded to here at all that it is a known language.

Now I understand that there are folks that believe that the gifts have ceased and if that is your stand then not going to mess with that for now. But for those who don't think that the case and that it is speaking of a human language... how do you deal with this particular part of the passage?I think there may be a type/anti-type going on here with Jesus speaking in parables and the arrival of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Jesus spoke so that only the disciples would hear and understand what He was saying - yet using normal speech to speak mysteries. [Pre-cross] The Holy Spirit's arrival at Pentecost was the fulfillment of the promise to Israel - which was a sign of judgment to those who did not believe. Those who did believe understood that God was being glorified. [Post-cross] Each heard clearly in his own language and understood what was said BY THE SPIRIT. Did the Parthanians or Medes, etc. hear any other language being spoken other than their own? Whatever came out of the disciples mouth went into their ears in a language they understood. This bypassed the understanding of those who accused them of being drunk, however. The Spirit thus deciphered the sound into intelligible speech for those to whom were intended to hear it - the rest heard gibberish (perhaps).

I think this gibberish may well have been what was coming out of the mouths of the Corinthians. But in their own fellowship it served no purpose unless there was someone to interpret it. This is why tongues is a sign for those who do not believe, but for those who are ignorant of what is going on (in their fellowship) interpretation must be given so they can understand. That is why prophesying is more important in the church - since I doubt many unbelievers were attending. But in the 1st century before judgment fell upon Jerusalem and some of the remnant had yet to be saved, this sign gift still played a role - much as the parables did which Jesus spoke. Prophesying is a clear revelation from God while tongues is hiding the mystery from the uninitiated.

I don't know if this is making sense to anyone but me...

David Taylor
Oct 9th 2007, 12:55 AM
I am looking at purpose here for the moment. Did the tongues in Acts 10 or Acts 19 serve to as you suggest for a test "share the gospel with someone of another language as was done at Pentecost?"



I didn't have any trouble see that application in all three passages.

Acts 2 was very explicit and went to g5reat detail to convey that application.

Acts 10 likewise, made a point in showing just like Pentecost, that all who heard Peter's voice heard the word, and it was a great witness to the Jews present, that the just converted Italian Gentiles began to speak in tongues as a testimony of Christ and their being indwelt with the Holy Spirit, even though they weren't circumcized.

The testimony of those in Acts 19 continued for 2 more years throughout the upper coasts of Ephesus and eventually all Asia, so that Jews and Gentiles like "heard the word of the Lord Jesus".

Amazing testimonies of God using the Holy Spirit to trancend peoples, languages, and boundaries.

cwb
Oct 9th 2007, 12:57 AM
Yeah, we get excitable sometimes, and run with the wrong dog.

I really wasn't interested or focusing on private (Me-God) situations at all.

My entire concern on this topic, is the public-venue (not private)...and moreso, modern public-venues of same-languaged people.

I agree with you completely, that in the public setting, there should be no tongues, and Paul taught specifically against doing it.

Only in a mixed-languaged group, with an interpreter, would there be otherwise.

There is certainly a difference between what Paul said about tongues in a public setting and what he said concerning tongues in private setting. It could be that because of not making the distinction in my posts, I have agreed with some I disagree with and disagreed with some whom I agree with.

ProjectPeter
Oct 9th 2007, 01:07 AM
I think there may be a type/anti-type going on here with Jesus speaking in parables and the arrival of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Jesus spoke so that only the disciples would hear and understand what He was saying - yet using normal speech to speak mysteries. [Pre-cross] The Holy Spirit's arrival at Pentecost was the fulfillment of the promise to Israel - which was a sign of judgment to those who did not believe. Those who did believe understood that God was being glorified. [Post-cross] Each heard clearly in his own language and understood what was said BY THE SPIRIT. Did the Parthanians or Medes, etc. hear any other language being spoken other than their own? Whatever came out of the disciples mouth went into their ears in a language they understood. This bypassed the understanding of those who accused them of being drunk, however. The Spirit thus deciphered the sound into intelligible speech for those to whom were intended to hear it - the rest heard gibberish (perhaps).

I think this gibberish may well have been what was coming out of the mouths of the Corinthians. But in their own fellowship it served no purpose unless there was someone to interpret it. This is why tongues is a sign for those who do not believe, but for those who are ignorant of what is going on (in their fellowship) interpretation must be given so they can understand. That is why prophesying is more important in the church - since I doubt many unbelievers were attending. But in the 1st century before judgment fell upon Jerusalem and some of the remnant had yet to be saved, this sign gift still played a role - much as the parables did which Jesus spoke. Prophesying is a clear revelation from God while tongues is hiding the mystery from the uninitiated.

I don't know if this is making sense to anyone but me...Since Paul was speaking to the Corinth Church why would you assume this was a precross thing? It was obviously happening and being taught post cross... so gotta figure it was applicable during this time right?

ProjectPeter
Oct 9th 2007, 01:10 AM
Same question I'll ask you too though David... what about that early part of 1 Corinthians 14...

1 Corinthians 14:1 Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy.
2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men, but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.
3 But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation.

watchinginawe
Oct 9th 2007, 01:16 AM
I didn't have any trouble see that application in all three passages.Well, that is how positions are made, they ignore the clear facts in favor of the position.

In both Acts 10 and Acts 19 the tongues came after the Gospel was delivered, plain and simple. Tongues were not employed to "share the gospel with someone of another language as was done at Pentecost" anywhere else in the New Testament except for on the day of Pentecost. We might imagine so, as you do in your statement regarding Acts 19, but that is not indicated at all in the Bible. Saying so just puts the missing pieces of the "position" into place but it doesn't make it biblical. I would say there just is something wrong with your position stating a singular purpose for tongues.

God Bless!

cwb
Oct 9th 2007, 01:23 AM
When talking about speaking in tongues, I believe there is a difference between speaking in tongues in a private setting and speaking in tongues in a public setting.

In a public setting, There is no benefit to speaking in tongues unless the tongues spoken is interpreted. If there is anybody on this board who goes to a church where speaking in tongues is done out loud without an interpretation, I do not agree with you that this is acceptable behaviour.


In a private setting, there is no need for the tongues spoken to be interpreted. There are benefits to speaking in tongues (a language you do not understand) even if the tongues spoken is not interpreted. For those who say there is no benefit to praying in a language you do not understand, I disagree with you. Here are some of the scriptures I see where Paul shows some of the benefits of speaking in tongues in a private setting.

Speaking divine mysteries to God - (I Cor 14:2)
Perfect Prayer in the Spirit - (I cor 14:14,15)
To give thanks well (I cor 14:17)
To build yourself up (I cor 14:4)

Mograce2U
Oct 9th 2007, 01:33 AM
Since Paul was speaking to the Corinth Church why would you assume this was a precross thing? It was obviously happening and being taught post cross... so gotta figure it was applicable during this time right?Because the pre-cross type established was the parables Jesus spoke - see His purpose in that was to work judgment. This is the comparable post-cross anti-type which the Spirit wrought at Pentecost. What Jesus accomplished in the natural pre-cross was what the Spirit accomplished spiritually post-cross. The anti-type thus fulfilled. It has to do with speaking mysteries, which only some could receive. The Spirit thus continued the ministry of Jesus.

ProjectPeter
Oct 9th 2007, 01:42 AM
Because the pre-cross type established was the parables Jesus spoke - see His purpose in that was to work judgment. This is the comparable post-cross anti-type which the Spirit wrought at Pentecost. What Jesus accomplished in the natural pre-cross was what the Spirit accomplished spiritually post-cross. The anti-type thus fulfilled. It has to do with speaking mysteries, which only some could receive. The Spirit thus continued the ministry of Jesus.
And he did this through men and this language... that is what are saying this "unknown" tongue is? Just asking for clarification.

cwb
Oct 9th 2007, 01:44 AM
Watchinginawe,
I am sure that ecstatic utterances do occur - mostly because I have heard them. People have different emotional makeup and I do not doubt that the Spirit moves on each of us differently - and yet similarly. So that somehow we ought to be able to recognize what is of the Spirit and what is not.

The fact that some lack this discernment and give themselves over to barking like dogs and rolling on the floor in uncontrollable laughter or falling down "slain in the spirit", however suggests to me that another spirit is at work. And when you see these men who promote such things speaking in the SAME sort of tongues that those who do profess to be filled with the Holy Spirit do, well I just have to wonder.

If one retains his self control then he can also choose when and where he will do such things. If the object is to work oneself up into an ecstatic frenzy as the Therapeutae mystics Stephen was talking about were doing, he is liable to receive another spirit than the one he is expecting.

And when I see fellowships that have embraced false teachings, it doesn't surprise me to hear that their worship is centered in these sorts of things (usually accompanied by music designed for this purpose). Its kind of an accumulation of things that has formed my opinion on this subject. On the other hand I would reject no gift that the Spirit is pleased to give me as He has been faithful so far. I would not expect to receive a stone when I asked for a fish. The Spirit gives us only good things to eat. But whoever it is who throws sand in the pot ruins it for everybody else and so no one is properly nourished by it. That is the admixture that I see and so I do not partake of it.

Because some have acted disorderly in a church setting by "barking like dogs, and rolling on the floor in uncontrollable laughter or falling down "slain in the spirit"" should not hinder you from seeing the benefits of speaking in tongues in private prayer that the apostle Paul spoke of in I cor 14, and in Romans 8. I have been to many home fellowships and churches where speaking in tongues is not done unless interpreted. I have also been to a church where the things which you have mentioned were practiced. That is not something I would want to be a part of either.

Mograce2U
Oct 9th 2007, 01:54 AM
And he did this through men and this language... that is what are saying this "unknown" tongue is? Just asking for clarification.Yes I think so. The appearance of speaking languages was the evidence the Holy Spirit had arrived as was promised. He then continued the work of Jesus in bringing judgment to bear upon apostate Israel as well as saving the remnant. However long after the fact that Paul addresses the Corinthians, he does admonish them that the gifts have a purpose - a purpose they were not employing in practice. They were speaking mysteries (as Jesus' parables had done) but now they would need interpretation to be understood. Before the Holy Spirit did this work. I do think we are seeing the gifts "fading" at this time as the church is more firmly established. Hence the reason he tells them to grow up in love and put the childish (used by babes) things away, and focus instead on bringing forth the clear revelation of God thru prophesying.

cwb
Oct 9th 2007, 02:02 AM
Yes I think so. The appearance of speaking languages was the evidence the Holy Spirit had arrived as was promised. He then continued the work of Jesus in bringing judgment to bear upon apostate Israel as well as saving the remnant. However long after the fact that Paul addresses the Corinthians, he does admonish them that the gifts have a purpose - a purpose they were not employing in practice. They were speaking mysteries (as Jesus' parables had done) but now they would need interpretation to be understood. Before the Holy Spirit did this work. I do think we are seeing the gifts "fading" at this time as the church is more firmly established. Hence the reason he tells them to grow up in love and put the childish (used by babes) things away, and focus instead on bringing forth the clear revelation of God thru prophesying.

If the gifts were "fading" at this time, why did the Apostle Paul say he spoke in tongues more than all of the Corinthian church put together.

ProjectPeter
Oct 9th 2007, 02:08 AM
Yes I think so. The appearance of speaking languages was the evidence the Holy Spirit had arrived as was promised. He then continued the work of Jesus in bringing judgment to bear upon apostate Israel as well as saving the remnant. However long after the fact that Paul addresses the Corinthians, he does admonish them that the gifts have a purpose - a purpose they were not employing in practice. They were speaking mysteries (as Jesus' parables had done) but now they would need interpretation to be understood. Before the Holy Spirit did this work. I do think we are seeing the gifts "fading" at this time as the church is more firmly established. Hence the reason he tells them to grow up in love and put the childish (used by babes) things away, and focus instead on bringing forth the clear revelation of God thru prophesying.
Do you honestly see the church as more "firmly established" today? I actually see it much like the Corinth church truth be told.

Mograce2U
Oct 9th 2007, 02:16 AM
Do you honestly see the church as more "firmly established" today? I actually see it much like the Corinth church truth be told.Well I suppose I do too. But then it was firmly established and moved out into the world. We have since embraced many heresies and seem weak in the world. But those who know the Lord do exploits:

(Dan 11:32 KJV) And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.

The strong are growing stronger and the weak weaker - as I see it.

Mograce2U
Oct 9th 2007, 02:18 AM
If the gifts were "fading" at this time, why did the Apostle Paul say he spoke in tongues more than all of the Corinthian church put together.Because he was an apostle?

ProjectPeter
Oct 9th 2007, 02:27 AM
Well I suppose I do too. But then it was firmly established and moved out into the world. We have since embraced many heresies and seem weak in the world. But those who know the Lord do exploits:

(Dan 11:32 KJV) And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.

The strong are growing stronger and the weak weaker - as I see it.
So we know when the Church is weak the Spirit will build it up and gifts are a way that is done right? I often see folks who ask for historic evidence but then we all know that much in history never say a pen or paper or much that did get written has been lost or destroyed for various reasons. Why then do we discount the ability of the Spirit to do the same today? I suppose to me that just makes sense. Paul said in that 12th Chapter that the Spirit doles it out as He sees fit (my paraphrase) so who are we to determine when the Spirit sees fit? Make sense?

cwb
Oct 9th 2007, 02:27 AM
Because he was an apostle?

Yeah but if the gifts were "fading" as you suggest, wouldn't he also have faded out speaking in tongues and quit doing it so much?

Steven3
Oct 9th 2007, 05:35 AM
Hi Teke
I too see the thread deviating from any objective assessment of the OP and subject "History of Tongues". Re Russian, Lebanese, Greek, I've been in various situations in India where it's normal and necessary to have translation of talks and prayer - Malayalam and Tamil and Telugu and English all going on together doesn't work, and could produce disorder without following guidelines similar to Paul's five rules at the end of 1Co14. But even with that experience there are things in 1Co12-14 which don't fit over a multilingual church in India. Ethnic languages at Corinth are part of the problem but they aren't all of the problem. 1Co14:2 for example cannot be true of Tamil (or ancient Scythian, or modern German).


I see known languages being spoken all the time in my church. I don't understand them all, but those who speak the languages do. ie. Russian, Lebanese, Greek etc. An English speaking person translates for us English speaking people or vice versa.

Only reason I'm still looking at this thread is to see if any offer any historical evidence that the, modern unknown tongue phenomenon, has been consistently done in the church from the beginning of the church.
So far that has not been shown. :no:

External evidence 1. Earlier in the thread we have seen that certain charismatic groups in 3rd and 5th Centuries probably did practice the modern unknown tongue phenomenon. The descriptions of ancient travellers, and papyri records of the incanted syllables, seem to fit with Dr Samarin's tape analysis in the 1970s.

External evidence 2. We have also seen a number of parallels between the Jewish Therapeutae syngaogues and Therapeutae house meetings and the content of 1Co12-14. It may be that when the choir leader called "Miriam the prophetess" and her choir, or the "Daughters of Job" the "out of body" inspired experience described in both Therapeutae texts included an element of glossolalia - "her mind was changed" seems to indicate that the "dialect of the cherubim" "angelic tongues" would not be normal coherent language - despite the transcription of the notes as music into the Therapeutae hymbook.


Back to Corinth, I missed this verse earlier from Philo which shows that there were Therapeutae synagogues in Greece as well as Alexandria: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book34.html


III. (21) Now this class of persons may be met with in many places, for it was fitting that both Greece and the country of the barbarians should partake of whatever is perfectly good; and there is the greatest number of such men in Egypt, in every one of the districts, or nomi as they are called, and especially around Alexandria; (22) and from all quarters those who are the best of these therapeutae proceed

The major Jewish centre of Greece was Corinth (as the New York of the day the major trade and cosmopolitan city), so if the Therapeutae had their own synagogues or house meetings in Greece, as Philo says, then they would have had one or more in Corinth. Paul may not have made much impact on them when preaching in Acts 18 - he seems to have preached to the mainstream Pharisee synagaogue. But Apollos when he took over from Paul would naturally lean towards people, like him, with an Alexandrian background, and it may be that the Apollos-faction in Corinth was made up of people who were (a) not known to Paul and didn't respect him, (b) partly of a more Alexandrian-style Judaism.

So this is the problem with 1Co12-14, we're not dealing with a homogenous church. We have the Cephas-faction (looking to James in Jerusalem, hung up on Jewish food laws, following the example of Peter-Cephas at Antioch when Peter-Cephas had to be opposed by Paul), we have the Paul-faction (Chloe, Stephanus etc, a more middle-of-the-road Paul-style Christianity), and then we have the Apollos-faction (to which the more Alexandrian-inclined, charismatic-inclined, converts would gravitate). And then on top of all this we have all the completely clueless converts from Greek religion (Delphic glossolalia etc) joining a divided church basically split along the 3 lines of conservative, reform and charismatic-mystic Judaism which still persist in Judaism today. And these Gentile converts knowing almost nothing of Christianity's OT foundation gravitate like sheep into these three competing Jewish-Christian factions.


Conclusion: Under these circumstances it is unreasonable to assume a continuity or consistency between these 3 groups - Apollos, Cephas and Paulos - on any issue, let alone something as subjective as tongues.

Cephas faction - minimal emotional expression, women banned from even singing hymns or choir, strict rules on musical instruments, concern of food laws relating to agape-feast. Tongues only real tongues as at Pentecost/Cornelius' house.

Paulos faction - use of real languages (Latin etc) "I speak in tongues more than all of you" for preaching and public worship, and translation (Lycaonian which Paul hadn't learnt see Acts 14:14), plus allowance in private prayer of "groanings too deep for words" Rom8:26 ESV.

Apollos faction - example of women leading charismatic "inspired" worship in Therapeutae/Alexandrian context. "transformed mind" and "out of body" worship experiences. Tongues may be "tongues of angels", "dialects of cherubim", "tongues of those on high", "heavenly principalities" etc.



Am I making it too complicated? I hope at least someon on this thread can get the point? :) The point is that it is meaningless to speak of "The Corinthians" as if they were one church. There were three churches - of radically different character - meeting (and fighting) in the same house. Clearly we would expect the Peter-faction to have a consistent tongues experience with the Peter of Acts 2 or the Peter of Acts 10, but the Apollos group were not followers of Peter, what Peter did at Pentecost (or what Paul did preaching in the Mediterranean) probably counted for nothing with them.

God bless
Steven

Sold Out
Oct 9th 2007, 12:49 PM
Why does it have to be either/or?

Because the GREATEST thing we can do as Christians is further the kingdom of God by witnessing to the lost. Jesus said in Luke 19:10 that He came to seek & to save that which was lost. He did not come so we could sit around and bask in the glow of our 'spiritualness'.

Sold Out
Oct 9th 2007, 01:06 PM
Originally Posted by cwb http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1403252#post1403252)
Though I do not belong to any Pentecostal church and might not totally agree with all the different branches of Pentecostals on every single issue, I am very grateful for Pentecostals. Especially for the reason that it is in large part because of Pentecostals that many Christians are learning again to pray in the Spirit and make perfect intercession for the Saints according to the will of God. I see this as so necessary for the church in these times. Obviously the Apostle Paul saw it as extremely beneficial and necessary in his day which is why he did it alot - more than all the Corinthian Church put together. It is unfortunate that this great benefit to the Christian Church has been lost since Paul's day. Thank God for Pentecostals that so many Christians around the world today are learning to pray in tongues again like it was done by the first century Christians. I pray in tongues for you and all Pentecostals.


Are you saying I can't pray effectively in my own language?



I am not saying it. The scripture says it.

See here folks...we have a perfect example of someone who speaks in tongues that thinks they are more spiritual than someone who doesn't. This person thinks my prayers are hindered because I don't pray in tongues.

".....The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous (saved) man availeth much." James 5:16

Whispering Grace
Oct 9th 2007, 01:10 PM
Because the GREATEST thing we can do as Christians is further the kingdom of God by witnessing to the lost. Jesus said in Luke 19:10 that He came to seek & to save that which was lost. He did not come so we could sit around and bask in the glow of our 'spiritualness'.

So you are saying we as Christians should not be edified and built up in our faith? :confused

Makes it kind of hard to be a witness out in the world if I am empty spiritually.

Sold Out
Oct 9th 2007, 02:22 PM
So you are saying we as Christians should not be edified and built up in our faith? :confused

Makes it kind of hard to be a witness out in the world if I am empty spiritually.


I have NEVER spoken in tongues, and I'm not empty spiritually.

Whispering Grace
Oct 9th 2007, 02:28 PM
I have NEVER spoken in tongues, and I'm not empty spiritually.

And.....?

Are you saying you never do anything to edify yourself and build up your faith?

Teke
Oct 9th 2007, 03:28 PM
So you are saying we as Christians should not be edified and built up in our faith? :confused

Isn't that what the Church does with God.



Makes it kind of hard to be a witness out in the world if I am empty spiritually.

I don't understand this statement.:confused
If your in Christ, how can you be ever be empty?
Jhn 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

Mograce2U
Oct 9th 2007, 03:50 PM
So we know when the Church is weak the Spirit will build it up and gifts are a way that is done right? I often see folks who ask for historic evidence but then we all know that much in history never say a pen or paper or much that did get written has been lost or destroyed for various reasons. Why then do we discount the ability of the Spirit to do the same today? I suppose to me that just makes sense. Paul said in that 12th Chapter that the Spirit doles it out as He sees fit (my paraphrase) so who are we to determine when the Spirit sees fit? Make sense?I don't discount the Spirit's ability to do anything. But without holiness the Spirit is quenched in the lives of those who continue in their sins. The only test I see we can judge is about fruit since this is the purpose in why the gifts are given. Much speaking in tongues is not that evidence since such gifts can be abused. Multiple cards signed at crusades is not the evidence either - but changed lives is.

Here is the evidence we ought to look for:

(2 Th 1:3-5 KJV) We are bound to thank God always for you, brethren, as it is meet, because that your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity of every one of you all toward each other aboundeth; {4} So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure: {5} Which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer:

Teke
Oct 9th 2007, 04:08 PM
Hi Teke
I too see the thread deviating from any objective assessment of the OP and subject "History of Tongues". Re Russian, Lebanese, Greek, I've been in various situations in India where it's normal and necessary to have translation of talks and prayer - Malayalam and Tamil and Telugu and English all going on together doesn't work, and could produce disorder without following guidelines similar to Paul's five rules at the end of 1Co14. But even with that experience there are things in 1Co12-14 which don't fit over a multilingual church in India. Ethnic languages at Corinth are part of the problem but they aren't all of the problem. 1Co14:2 for example cannot be true of Tamil (or ancient Scythian, or modern German).



External evidence 1. Earlier in the thread we have seen that certain charismatic groups in 3rd and 5th Centuries probably did practice the modern unknown tongue phenomenon. The descriptions of ancient travellers, and papyri records of the incanted syllables, seem to fit with Dr Samarin's tape analysis in the 1970s.

External evidence 2. We have also seen a number of parallels between the Jewish Therapeutae syngaogues and Therapeutae house meetings and the content of 1Co12-14. It may be that when the choir leader called "Miriam the prophetess" and her choir, or the "Daughters of Job" the "out of body" inspired experience described in both Therapeutae texts included an element of glossolalia - "her mind was changed" seems to indicate that the "dialect of the cherubim" "angelic tongues" would not be normal coherent language - despite the transcription of the notes as music into the Therapeutae hymbook.


Back to Corinth, I missed this verse earlier from Philo which shows that there were Therapeutae synagogues in Greece as well as Alexandria: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book34.html



The major Jewish centre of Greece was Corinth (as the New York of the day the major trade and cosmopolitan city), so if the Therapeutae had their own synagogues or house meetings in Greece, as Philo says, then they would have had one or more in Corinth. Paul may not have made much impact on them when preaching in Acts 18 - he seems to have preached to the mainstream Pharisee synagaogue. But Apollos when he took over from Paul would naturally lean towards people, like him, with an Alexandrian background, and it may be that the Apollos-faction in Corinth was made up of people who were (a) not known to Paul and didn't respect him, (b) partly of a more Alexandrian-style Judaism.

So this is the problem with 1Co12-14, we're not dealing with a homogenous church. We have the Cephas-faction (looking to James in Jerusalem, hung up on Jewish food laws, following the example of Peter-Cephas at Antioch when Peter-Cephas had to be opposed by Paul), we have the Paul-faction (Chloe, Stephanus etc, a more middle-of-the-road Paul-style Christianity), and then we have the Apollos-faction (to which the more Alexandrian-inclined, charismatic-inclined, converts would gravitate). And then on top of all this we have all the completely clueless converts from Greek religion (Delphic glossolalia etc) joining a divided church basically split along the 3 lines of conservative, reform and charismatic-mystic Judaism which still persist in Judaism today. And these Gentile converts knowing almost nothing of Christianity's OT foundation gravitate like sheep into these three competing Jewish-Christian factions.


Conclusion: Under these circumstances it is unreasonable to assume a continuity or consistency between these 3 groups - Apollos, Cephas and Paulos - on any issue, let alone something as subjective as tongues.

Cephas faction - minimal emotional expression, women banned from even singing hymns or choir, strict rules on musical instruments, concern of food laws relating to agape-feast. Tongues only real tongues as at Pentecost/Cornelius' house.

Paulos faction - use of real languages (Latin etc) "I speak in tongues more than all of you" [I]for preaching and public worship, and translation (Lycaonian which Paul hadn't learnt see Acts 14:14), plus allowance in private prayer of "groanings too deep for words" Rom8:26 ESV.

Apollos faction - example of women leading charismatic "inspired" worship in Therapeutae/Alexandrian context. "transformed mind" and "out of body" worship experiences. Tongues may be "tongues of angels", "dialects of cherubim", "tongues of those on high", "heavenly principalities" etc.



Am I making it too complicated? I hope at least someon on this thread can get the point? :) The point is that it is meaningless to speak of "The Corinthians" as if they were one church. There were three churches - of radically different character - meeting (and fighting) in the same house. Clearly we would expect the Peter-faction to have a consistent tongues experience with the Peter of Acts 2 or the Peter of Acts 10, but the Apollos group were not followers of Peter, what Peter did at Pentecost (or what Paul did preaching in the Mediterranean) probably counted for nothing with them.

God bless
Steven

Hey Steven, I follow you on this. The Greek mystery religions were likely a problem at Corinth. In the beginning of the letter to this particular church, Paul seems clear to me that he is telling them that Apollo's isn't going to be happy with what they are doing. According to historical records of the church, Apollos was believed to have left the Corinth church and later returned after Paul straightened them out. Apollo having been an Alexandrain Jew wouldn't have tolerated any pagan forms in the church. Apollo was known for his great teaching ability, which was likened to the parable type.

There is some confusion also in wording when language is translated, then add to that 'modern' understanding. For instance the Greek word for 'mysteries' in the 1 Cor. verse (14:2), the Greek word is 'musterion' which means a sacred secret. It occurs in the Sept. nine times. It occurs frequently in the Apocryphal books, so they can also be used to determine meaning. In these books 'musterion' always means, the secret of friends, or of a king (Tolbit 12, 7:11, Judith 2:2, Wisdom 2:22 etc.).
By the end of the 2nd century AD, it was used interchangably with tupos (=type), sumbolon (=symbol), and parabole (=parable).


Greece had long experience of the utterances of the Pythian prophetess at Delphi and the enthusiastic invocations of the votaries of Dionysus. Hence Paul insists that it is not the phenomenon of "tongues" or prophesying in itself that gives evidence of the presence and activity of the Holy Spirit, but the actual content of the utterances. That "actual content" is what the early fathers address in their writings against heresy.

The converted pagans could have been using some of their familiar practices (customs). Cultural traditions have always been part of the church and it's practices. This is evident all around the world. They are only harmful if they breed heresy or bring contention in the church. It is quite evident there is a contention in the Corinthian churches. So some discernment was necessary, as it could have presented itself as true Christianity in that there were certain elements which seemed alike to the pagan converts.


some info from Gardner in "Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics", and "Mystery Religions, Greco-Oriental," by Karl Pruemm

"The major teaching in the mystery religions was rebirth and immortality of the initiates. Their rites were baptism, dedication, and the sacramental meals. These are discussed in several sources. The primary concern in this article is the ecstatic nature of their worship. Fortunately, since ecstasy was not part of their secret rites, a fairly accurate knowledge of this aspect of the cults is available."

"The mystery-cults of the empire were designed to induce both higher and lower forms of ecstatic feeling." The expression of the ecstatic state took various forms, such as gashing one’s flesh, dancing nude in a frenzy, and speaking in ecstatic utterance. The latter was the means whereby the devotees sought to have communion with the saving deity. Here the significance of the term "glossolalia," or "speaking in tongues," comes to the fore. "The gift of tongues and of their interpretation was not peculiar to the Christian Church, but was a repetition in it of a phrase common in ancient religions. The very phrase glossais lalein, ‘to speak with tongues,’ was not invented by the New Testament writers, but borrowed from ordinary speech."

David Taylor
Oct 9th 2007, 04:41 PM
Same question I'll ask you too though David... what about that early part of 1 Corinthians 14...

1 Corinthians 14:1 Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy.
2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men, but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.
3 But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation.

Paul is showing the preference of desiring the gift of prophesying over tongues within the church of Corinth.

When the Holy Spirit gives tongues they aren't given as a normal mode of conversation between men.

Distinguising that prophesying, in which edification, exhortation, and consolation on man's behalf is more desireable and worthwhile than tongues.

Perhaps the Corinthians were being prideful in their overuse or reliance on tongues to the detriment of prophesy.

Something that cannot be understood, cannot be edifying to the listener.

That's what I see as Paul's point in those verses.

Steven3
Oct 9th 2007, 04:54 PM
Hi Teke
Good, I was wondering whether I was being way too obscure :)

Thanks particularly for those references on pagan context. I've probably been over-emphasizing the Alexandrian Jewish context in the refs posted since the Therapeutae explain almost everything happening in Corinth - almost everything except for the one critical thing - why "angelic tongues" seem intelligible in Alexandria, but not when transplanted to Corinth.

It would be easy to assume that the Corinthian "tongues of angels" must be the same as the Alexandrian "tongues of angels" since these are the only two references in the whole of the literature to angels having languages. And angels themselves are a Jewish concept - yes there are 'angelos=messengers' like Mercury-Hermes in Greek religion, but not true "angels" as in the Bible concept. And Hermes doesn't have his own language, since the gods on Olympus speak Greek.

When pagan prophets and mantics prophesy it is with a "barbarian tongue" or Bacchic tongue / tongue of Dionysius. Like the prophetess Cassandra's unintelligible "barbarian voice" when prophesying that needed "interpretation" (same word Paul uses in 1Co14).

But all the same - evidence for actual glossolalia among pagans (as opposed to individual priestesses) is not much better, perhaps weaker, than among the Therapeutae. The evidence that exists is all post-NT, among Christian groups.

The reason for this may be the obvious one - that the greeks (with the exceptions of the Bacchae) didn't really have congregational worship. Just as it's unusual to find group glossolalia among non-Christian religions, only the priest or priestess is allowed this function.
God bless
Steven

ProjectPeter
Oct 9th 2007, 04:56 PM
I don't discount the Spirit's ability to do anything. But without holiness the Spirit is quenched in the lives of those who continue in their sins. The only test I see we can judge is about fruit since this is the purpose in why the gifts are given. Much speaking in tongues is not that evidence since such gifts can be abused. Multiple cards signed at crusades is not the evidence either - but changed lives is.

Here is the evidence we ought to look for:

(2 Th 1:3-5 KJV) We are bound to thank God always for you, brethren, as it is meet, because that your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity of every one of you all toward each other aboundeth; {4} So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure: {5} Which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer:Oh I wouldn't nor should anyone judge anyone on the gift. Like Paul said... I could have faith that would move mountains... without love it means nothing.

Not speaking of this as a gauge to judge a person. It is simply a way that the body whole should work together for edification.

ProjectPeter
Oct 9th 2007, 05:01 PM
Paul is showing the preference of desiring the gift of prophesying over tongues within the church of Corinth.

When the Holy Spirit gives tongues they aren't given as a normal mode of conversation between men.

Distinguising that prophesying, in which edification, exhortation, and consolation on man's behalf is more desireable and worthwhile than tongues.

Perhaps the Corinthians were being prideful in their overuse or reliance on tongues to the detriment of prophesy.

Something that cannot be understood, cannot be edifying to the listener.

That's what I see as Paul's point in those verses.I agree with that. But then there is the fact that the language isn't understood by men but by God. That it is a mystery. And as we learn later on... doesn't edify man (but only the one who speaks it spirit is edified) so therefore in a corporate setting... it is useless for edifying. Edifying is what the gathering of believers is about... edifying each other and not self. But the language... still not shown here to be a language that is a simply human language.

David Taylor
Oct 9th 2007, 05:02 PM
Well, that is how positions are made, they ignore the clear facts in favor of the position.

In both Acts 10 and Acts 19 the tongues came after the Gospel was delivered, plain and simple.

In Acts 10, it doesn't explicity reveal or discuss how Peter, the Galilean, understood and was able to talk to the Italian Cornelius. Perhaps Peter spoke in tongues and it wasn't cited, or Peter simply spoke through a translator. Maybe Cornelius himself spoke Aramaic or Latin, and once converted and the Holy Spirit fell upon him, he then shared the gospel with his Italian family who was present, in the tongues aftermath example.

Since Acts 10 doesn't focus on tongues as the subject of the meeting, but rather, it focuses on Peter being taught to go to Gentile as well as Jew, and that conversion to Judaism was not a prerequisite for salvation.

Notice specifically in verse 10:44 that the as Peter was speaking 'all of them heard the word' . It doesn't say specifically that Peter was speaking in tongues or not, but that all there heard the word...and we know that from verses 10:1 and 10:45 show us it was a mixed language group, some being Italians and some being Jews ('those of the circumcision'). Verse 10:46 then says that as a result of hearing them 'speak with tongues' that those Jews listening magnified God....so they must have understood the speaking in tongues in order to thereafter magnify God because the gift of the Holy Spirit was given to the Gentile Italians right in front of them.

Looking carefully in Acts 19 we find Paul meeting and gathering disciples in the upper coasts of Ephesus. They were saved and began to speak in tongues in verse 19:6, and then verse 19:8-10 tells us that this new group of disciples from Ephesus spoke boldly concerning the Kingdom of God, to who? --Jews in the Synagogue (v8), the multitude and the school of Tyrannus (v9), all Asia (v10). Sounds like alot of mixed language environments where the new disciples were sharing the gospel with, and the gift of tongues would have been quite useful in that endeavor.










Tongues were not employed to "share the gospel with someone of another language as was done at Pentecost" anywhere else in the New Testament except for on the day of Pentecost. We might imagine so, as you do in your statement regarding Acts 19, but that is not indicated at all in the Bible.

I suppose we could assume that all of the people in Acts 19 were same-languaged people, and that the gift of tongues was not used to share the gospel with all mentioned therein. I find it highly unlikely, however, that the upper coasts of Ephesus, and the multitude from the Synagogue, and those from the school of Tyrannus, and they that dwelt in all Asia; spoke all the same language, and the gift of tongues was not used in conveying the gospel to them.





Saying so just puts the missing pieces of the "position" into place but it doesn't make it biblical. I would say there just is something wrong with your position stating a singular purpose for tongues.
God Bless!

I don't care about positions.

Somehow the Holy Spirit was about to take the gospel as it was known in Aramaic in Judaea, and surpass and overcome language barriers from Judaea, to Samaria, to Africa, Asia, and all the parts of the world in a very short time.

I simply believe that one of the mechanisms the Holy Spirit gave as a gift to the believers imbued with this responsibility, was the gift of tongues to transcend those language barriers.

Sold Out
Oct 9th 2007, 05:22 PM
And.....?

Are you saying you never do anything to edify yourself and build up your faith?

This is how I build up my faith:


"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Romans 10:17

"And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ." II Peter 1:5-8

Whispering Grace
Oct 9th 2007, 05:37 PM
This is how I build up my faith:


"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Romans 10:17

"And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ." II Peter 1:5-8

You do build up your faith, so obviously you must not have a problem with it.

I guess what I don't understand is your issue with people building up their faith by praying in tongues.

Teke
Oct 9th 2007, 05:39 PM
Hi Teke
Good, I was wondering whether I was being way too obscure :)

Thanks particularly for those references on pagan context. I've probably been over-emphasizing the Alexandrian Jewish context in the refs posted since the Therapeutae explain almost everything happening in Corinth - almost everything except for the one critical thing - why "angelic tongues" seem intelligible in Alexandria, but not when transplanted to Corinth.

It would be easy to assume that the Corinthian "tongues of angels" must be the same as the Alexandrian "tongues of angels" since these are the only two references in the whole of the literature to angels having languages. And angels themselves are a Jewish concept - yes there are 'angelos=messengers' like Mercury-Hermes in Greek religion, but not true "angels" as in the Bible concept. And Hermes doesn't have his own language, since the gods on Olympus speak Greek.

When pagan prophets and mantics prophesy it is with a "barbarian tongue" or Bacchic tongue / tongue of Dionysius. Like the prophetess Cassandra's unintelligible "barbarian voice" when prophesying that needed "interpretation" (same word Paul uses in 1Co14).

But all the same - evidence for actual glossolalia among pagans (as opposed to individual priestesses) is not much better, perhaps weaker, than among the Therapeutae. The evidence that exists is all post-NT, among Christian groups.

The reason for this may be the obvious one - that the greeks (with the exceptions of the Bacchae) didn't really have congregational worship. Just as it's unusual to find group glossolalia among non-Christian religions, only the priest or priestess is allowed this function.
God bless
Steven


IMHO Paul’s statements, should perhaps be recognized as conciliatory rather than commendatory. Look at what Chadwick said-


The entire drift of the argument of 1 Cor. xii—xiv {1 Cor 12—1 Cor 14} is such as to pour a douche of ice-cold water over the whole practice. But Paul could hardly have denied that the gift of tongues was a genuine supernatural charisma without putting a fatal barrier between himself and the Corinthian enthusiasts…. [for] the touchstone of soundness in the eyes of those claiming to be possessed by the Spirit was whether their gift was recognized to be a genuine work of God. To deny this recognition was to prove oneself to be altogether lacking in the Spirit. That Paul was fully aware of this issue appears not only from 1 Cor ii.14—15 {1 Cor 2}, but also from 1 Cor xiv.37—8 {1 Cor 14}, a masterly sentence which has the effect of brilliantly forestalling possible counter-attack at the most dangerous point, and indeed carries the war into the enemy camp. To have refused to recognize the practice as truly supernatural would have been catastrophic. Paul must fully admit that glossolalia is indeed a divine gift; but, he urges, it is the most inferior of all gifts. But Paul does more than admit it. He asserts it: eucaristo to theo, panton humon mallon glossais lalo (xiv 18 {1 Cor 14:18}). No stronger assertion of his belief in the validity of this gift of the Spirit could be made; and in the context it is a master touch which leaves the enthusiasts completely outclassed and outmaneuvered on their own ground.

Cited from D. W. B. Robinson, "Charismata versus Pneumatika: Paul’s Method of Discussion," Reformed Theological Review 21 (May—August 1972)

Sold Out
Oct 9th 2007, 06:15 PM
You do build up your faith, so obviously you must not have a problem with it.

I guess what I don't understand is your issue with people building up their faith by praying in tongues.

Oh, I have no problem with it at all. The only thing that bothers me is when someone tries to tell me they are more 'spriitual' or have more faith than I do, simply because I don't speak in tongues.

cwb
Oct 9th 2007, 06:27 PM
Do you honestly see the church as more "firmly established" today? I actually see it much like the Corinth church truth be told.

You are being awfully kind to the church today.

ProjectPeter
Oct 9th 2007, 07:40 PM
You are being awfully kind to the church today.
Sure... but it is still the body of Christ and while there are many issues... I have two options. Be part of the problem or try and offer a solution to it. So I am careful how I chose my words when speaking of the church as a whole.

cwb
Oct 10th 2007, 12:33 AM
Sure... but it is still the body of Christ and while there are many issues... I have two options. Be part of the problem or try and offer a solution to it. So I am careful how I chose my words when speaking of the church as a whole.

It is always good to endeavor to be part of the solution.

ShirleyFord
Oct 10th 2007, 01:44 AM
I was taught in the Charasmatic Movement that Acts 2 shows clearly how publically in a Church service the correct orderly way to speak a message in tongues and then the interpretation of that message in tongues given in the native language, so that the Church will be blessed and God will be glorified. But the multitude of Jews from every nation under the sun who were then dwelling in Jerusalem were not Christians at the time they heard the speaking in tongues by all 120 and understood what was being spoken in tongues from every nation where they were born. Nor were they in the same place when Jesus poured out His Spirit on the 120 and they began to speak in tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Let's look at Acts 1.

The 120 disciples, including the 11 apostles, were in Jerusalem in an upper room, praying, evidently in their own native language, when Jesus baptized them in the Holy Ghost.

4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost

8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

12 Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.

13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.

14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty)

Sounds like an old fashion prayer service on Wednesday nights where we would pray for a couple of hours or so (in English) been to and was a member of years ago. But this prayer service lasted 10 days and nobody went home during that time to take a break and rest in between.


Now let's locate where that vast multitude of Jews were when they heard the 120 speaking in tongues and understood what they said in the language where they were born.

Surely they were at the temple to keep the Feast of Penticost which had just begun. The upper room where the 120 were could have been in the outer courtyard of the temple or just outside of the temple grounds. The Bible doesn't say. Some believe that the upper room was part of the temple complex itself. But one thing we do know. Those who heard the 120 speak in tongues that day was not in their midst when they spoke them.

Nor could Peter or the rest of the 120 have been preaching to them in their own languages. They were not in the upper room. And Peter nor the rest of the 120 were at the temple or on the outside. Peter preached the gospel to them later in his own native tongue which that multitude of Jews understood and 3000 of them repented and God saved them after Peter preached the gospel to them.

But Peter nor anyone else was preaching or giving a message in tongues.
They were all praying when the Spirit of God came on them and filled them and they began speaking in tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Acts 2

1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.

3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

All of them spoke in other tongues at one time and not as Paul told the Corinthians, that one should speak one at a time and then one should interpret. But Paul includes Isaiah's prophecy in 1 Cor. 14 and I believe that he is showing how that prophecy was fulfilled here in Acts 2. And furthermore, the tongues that he was speaking of that he said that he spoke "more than ye all" must have been these tongues that were spoken
same tongues that was spoken here.

But Acts 2 could not have been an example of the instructions that Paul was giving the Corinthians.

5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,

10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,

11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.


This was all the work of the Spirit of God. These 120 didn't decide to speak in tongues. Nor were they told by Jesus that this vast multitude would hear them and 3000 of them would come in and listen to Peter preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to them and 3000 of them would be saved all at one time.

Undoubtedly, when this multitude heard the tongues spoken and understood them they went rushing toward where the noise came from and came on into the house where Peter and the rest of the 120 were still seated. Peter rose up and stood to preach to them.

Shirley

ProjectPeter
Oct 10th 2007, 04:24 PM
Must have been some sort of house they were in that allowed for 3000 folks to be able to pile in and listen to Peter preach! ;)

Just because you were taught wrongly and tied in with a group that praticed it wrongly... don't make it wrong. That seems to be the case with many folks involved in this thread. I read often... "I used to be ______________ and they did _______________ and they did ________________ and so now I believe _________________________ and ultimately it is hogwash because they did it wrongly.

Fact is... Scripture lays out the proper use in a corporate setting. Scripture makes clear that those gifts are gifts of the Spirit to dole out as the Spirit sees fit to dole out. And yet it seems so many folks work so hard to make it non-existent now based on some experience they had! And to add... these same folks will be the first that say you can't base things on experience! A catch-22 if there ever was one! ;)

faithfulfriend
Oct 10th 2007, 04:45 PM
My few notes on Acts 2, in addition to what Shirley has already posted:

1. Tongue or tongues means languages or dialects. Webster: Tongue means a language, an intelligible language. Other dictionaries agree with Webster. Tongue also meant language at the time the Bible was written. Young's Analytical Concordance refers to tongues 98 times in the Old Testament, and 50 times in the New Testament, it refers to language. Where the bible speaks of "men of other tongues (five places) it refers to dialects, as when Paul spoke in the Hebrew tongue.

2. "Unknown" tongues is not in the original Greek text. In the King James version, unknown tongues is used 6 times, all in I Corinthians 14. The word "unknown" is always in italics, and as bible students know, all words printed in italics in the King James version o the Bible are words that have been ADDED by the translator, to try to convey the meaning desired by the interpretor. "Unknown" tongues does NOT appear in St. Paul's original writings.

3. "Heavenly language" or "Prayer language" is not in the Bible. These two popular phrases are neither found in the Bible, nor even implied when the word is rightly divided in it's proper context.

True Bible tongues are intelligent languages, Divinely given by the Holy Spirit of God that were not humanly learned, but are understandable (yes, to the speaker!) and therefore no interpreter would be needed.

Now let's look at Acts 2


****I didn't paste the whole book of Acts because it is too long. If you would like to follow along, by all means open your Bible and do so****




This 4th verse some wrongly teach to mean "unknown" tongues and different from the gift of tongues. The term "speaking in tongues" and "gift of tongues" are used interchangeably, meaning the same thing. Also this 4th verse teaches nothing about "unknown" tongues but rather that the Spirit gave me utterance of these various languages. In reading all 8 verses, surely we the readers can see that the tongues spoken were not so called "heavenly" or "unknown" language, but languages understandable by "those dwelling in Jerusalem from other nations"

In this same chapter, verse 11 in part says "we do hear them speak in OUR tongues (languages) the wonderful works of God." Besides the obvious fact that the hearers understood the language spoken, we also know the SPEAKERS understood what they were saying for they KNEW they were proclaiming the wonderful works of God. Notice that Luke, the writer, mentions nothing to the effect that these speaking did not comprehend the language they were speaking. In fact, Peter must have been able to understand the language spoken for when they said "these men are full of new wine" in verse 13, he answered them in verse 15 by saying "these men are not drunken as ye suppose." At the end of his sermon they asked "Men and brethren what shall we do?" (Verse 37). Peter answered in verse 38 (proving again he UNDERSTOOD them) "Repent and be baptized..." Notice too Luke does not mention anything about one person speaking and another interpreting what was said. The speakers (apostles) obviously understood the languages they (apostles) were speaking for they understood that apparently same language when spoken back to them. Granted I cannot say positively what language was spoken back to the apostles but we do know that for them to obey the command given in Mark 16:15 (Go ye into the world and preach the Gospel to every Creature), they would need the ability to speak and comprehend various languages. My point here is to point out that in this example of true bible tongues, that this was languages not previously or physically learned by the apostles, but were Divinely given to enable these unlearned, uneducated, humble servants of God to communicate with and preach to those who spoke languages different than what these Galileans spoke. Notice also this gift was not given for "personal edification" or to be able to pray in some so called "prayer language". The miracle was not that these brethren were speaking ecstatic utterances, but that these unlearned Galileans were speaking in the language of these unbelieving Jews.

ProjectPeter
Oct 10th 2007, 05:24 PM
My few notes on Acts 2, in addition to what Shirley has already posted:

1. Tongue or tongues means languages or dialects. Webster: Tongue means a language, an intelligible language. Other dictionaries agree with Webster. Tongue also meant language at the time the Bible was written. Young's Analytical Concordance refers to tongues 98 times in the Old Testament, and 50 times in the New Testament, it refers to language. Where the bible speaks of "men of other tongues (five places) it refers to dialects, as when Paul spoke in the Hebrew tongue.

2. "Unknown" tongues is not in the original Greek text. In the King James version, unknown tongues is used 6 times, all in I Corinthians 14. The word "unknown" is always in italics, and as bible students know, all words printed in italics in the King James version o the Bible are words that have been ADDED by the translator, to try to convey the meaning desired by the interpretor. "Unknown" tongues does NOT appear in St. Paul's original writings.

3. "Heavenly language" or "Prayer language" is not in the Bible. These two popular phrases are neither found in the Bible, nor even implied when the word is rightly divided in it's proper context.

True Bible tongues are intelligent languages, Divinely given by the Holy Spirit of God that were not humanly learned, but are understandable (yes, to the speaker!) and therefore no interpreter would be needed.

Now let's look at Acts 2


****I didn't paste the whole book of Acts because it is too long. If you would like to follow along, by all means open your Bible and do so****




This 4th verse some wrongly teach to mean "unknown" tongues and different from the gift of tongues. The term "speaking in tongues" and "gift of tongues" are used interchangeably, meaning the same thing. Also this 4th verse teaches nothing about "unknown" tongues but rather that the Spirit gave me utterance of these various languages. In reading all 8 verses, surely we the readers can see that the tongues spoken were not so called "heavenly" or "unknown" language, but languages understandable by "those dwelling in Jerusalem from other nations"

In this same chapter, verse 11 in part says "we do hear them speak in OUR tongues (languages) the wonderful works of God." Besides the obvious fact that the hearers understood the language spoken, we also know the SPEAKERS understood what they were saying for they KNEW they were proclaiming the wonderful works of God. Notice that Luke, the writer, mentions nothing to the effect that these speaking did not comprehend the language they were speaking. In fact, Peter must have been able to understand the language spoken for when they said "these men are full of new wine" in verse 13, he answered them in verse 15 by saying "these men are not drunken as ye suppose." At the end of his sermon they asked "Men and brethren what shall we do?" (Verse 37). Peter answered in verse 38 (proving again he UNDERSTOOD them) "Repent and be baptized..." Notice too Luke does not mention anything about one person speaking and another interpreting what was said. The speakers (apostles) obviously understood the languages they (apostles) were speaking for they understood that apparently same language when spoken back to them. Granted I cannot say positively what language was spoken back to the apostles but we do know that for them to obey the command given in Mark 16:15 (Go ye into the world and preach the Gospel to every Creature), they would need the ability to speak and comprehend various languages. My point here is to point out that in this example of true bible tongues, that this was languages not previously or physically learned by the apostles, but were Divinely given to enable these unlearned, uneducated, humble servants of God to communicate with and preach to those who spoke languages different than what these Galileans spoke. Notice also this gift was not given for "personal edification" or to be able to pray in some so called "prayer language". The miracle was not that these brethren were speaking ecstatic utterances, but that these unlearned Galileans were speaking in the language of these unbelieving Jews.
ANd once again I will ask you about the passage in 1 Corinthians 14.

1 Corinthians 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men, but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.
3 But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation.

Paul makes a distinction of the tongues being known only by God or prophecy which is understood by man. Naturally we know further Paul makes it clear that they should have an interpretor present if speaking a tongue in a public setting. But that passage makes it clear that the language is not understood by men... so why do you work so hard to make it fit otherwise?

faithfulfriend
Oct 10th 2007, 05:37 PM
ANd once again I will ask you about the passage in 1 Corinthians 14.

1 Corinthians 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men, but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.
3 But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation.

Paul makes a distinction of the tongues being known only by God or prophecy which is understood by man. Naturally we know further Paul makes it clear that they should have an interpretor present if speaking a tongue in a public setting. But that passage makes it clear that the language is not understood by men... so why do you work so hard to make it fit otherwise?

I have notes on I Corinthians 14 at home. I will reply hopefully this evening when I have time. I'm currently at work. Here are some notes that I just now found on my Google Group:

I Corinthians 14 - Verse by verse

Vs. 1 - "Follow after charity and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy."

My only comment on this verse is to remind you that charity means love and that prophesy in this text is not just limited to the foretelling of future events, but would mean to teach or preach in an understandable manner, that's inspired of God. A testimoney could also be called a prophesy.

Vs. 2 - "For he that speaketh in an unknown toungue speaketh not unto men, but unto God; for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries."

This verse is one of the most misunderstood of all. First, let us cover what it does not teach. It is not teaching that someone is speaking a mysterious language or that someone is speakin mysteries (in the spirit) known only to God. Jesus told the disciples in Matthew 13:11 that they were given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, and in I Cor. 4:1, we learn that ministers of Christ are stewards of the mysteries of God. In Ephesians 1:9, Paul, talking to the saints said that Christ has made known unto us the mystery of His will. Then in I Cor. 2:12-14, Paul says: "Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things to spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned."

Then in Colossians 4:3-4, Paul again says "that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds, that I may make i manifest, as I ought to speak."

This should be sufficient to show that spiritually-minded people can utter understandable mysteries and are to know and understand the mysteries of spiritual things. Therefore, the "mysteries" are not in the language or something known only to God; but means the mystery of the Gospel. Then to teach that speaking "in the spirit" or that "praying in the Holy Ghost" (Jude 20) is always speaking in tongues is incorrectly interpreting the scriptures, because when one is speaking "in the spirit" he is not necessarily exercising the gift of tongues no more than he is exercising any of the gifts when he "walks in the spirit" (Galatians 5:16) or "led of the spirit" (Vs. 18) or "live in the spirit" (Gal. 5:25) or "worship God in the spirit" (Phil. 3:3) or "bound by the spirit" (Acts 20:22) or "purposed in the spirit" (Acts 19:21). When Jesus is foretelling of the persecution of the disciples He says in Mark 13:11, "But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate; but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye; for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost." This same thought is also covered in Matthew 10:20. This "speaking" would not have been exercising the goft of tongues but would be defending themselves with intelligent speech as the Spirit gave them utterance, or speaking under the unction of the Holy Ghost.

Now this verse 2 is simply teaching that "he who speaks in a lanugage unknown to the local congregation (unknown tongue) is not speaking to men but only to God as no man (present) understand the language he is speaking. Howbeit, (nevertheless) he may be speaking the mysteries of the Gospel while under the unction of the Spirit."

In verse 1, Paul had said he would rather that they would prophesy. (Understandable teaching or preaching inspired of God). Then in verse 2 his meaning is that even though someone may be inspired of the Spirit to testify or exhort in some manner they wouldn't "truly" be prophesing if they were tos peak in a language unknown locally. This "no man" would not mean the speaker, but the audience. In I Cor. 2:11 it states: "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man, which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth "no man" but the Spirit of God." But in the verses 12-14, of I Cor. 2nd chapter that we quoted earlier, show this "no man" to mean the natural man.

Since this verse is so widely misunderstood, here again is a recap of this verse (I Cor. 14:2).

Paul is not implying that this anonymous individual in verse 2 is endowed with some ecstatic utterance nor that he is exercising any gift of the spirit. He is simply teaching that if someone were to speak in a language unfamiliar tot he group addressed, they obviously couldn't understand him, only God would; even though this individual could be uttering the mysteries of the Gospel and could be inspired by the spirit. Paul's implication is that if the church can't understand, they wouldn't be edified; only the speaker would be. He further substantiates this implication in the next 2 verses:

Vs 3 - "But he that prophesieth speaketh unto mean edification, and exhortation, and comfort."

Vs 4 - "He that speaketh in an unknown tongue (foreign language) edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church."

I realize this verse is falsely taught by some to mean that "he speaketh in an unknown tongue" is supposedly speaking ecstatic utterances and that this utterance is supposedly edifying himself. They use this false teaching to support a reason for seekin to speak ecstatic utterances. But this is all false as we are trying to prove that these ecstatic utterances were not practiced by the early church nor taught, and definitely are not of God.

This 4th verse is just tying in with the same thought of the first three verses and means that "he that speaketh in a language unknown to the local congregation (unknown tongue) is only edifying himself since the church does not understand; therefore is not edified; while he that prophesieth (understandable inspired teaching or preaching) edifies the church."

ProjectPeter
Oct 10th 2007, 06:09 PM
I have notes on I Corinthians 14 at home. I will reply hopefully this evening when I have time. I'm currently at work. Here are some notes that I just now found on my Google Group:

I Corinthians 14 - Verse by verse

Vs. 1 - "Follow after charity and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy."

My only comment on this verse is to remind you that charity means love and that prophesy in this text is not just limited to the foretelling of future events, but would mean to teach or preach in an understandable manner, that's inspired of God. A testimoney could also be called a prophesy.

Vs. 2 - "For he that speaketh in an unknown toungue speaketh not unto men, but unto God; for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries."

This verse is one of the most misunderstood of all. First, let us cover what it does not teach. It is not teaching that someone is speaking a mysterious language or that someone is speakin mysteries (in the spirit) known only to God. Jesus told the disciples in Matthew 13:11 that they were given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, and in I Cor. 4:1, we learn that ministers of Christ are stewards of the mysteries of God. In Ephesians 1:9, Paul, talking to the saints said that Christ has made known unto us the mystery of His will. Then in I Cor. 2:12-14, Paul says: "Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things to spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned."

Then in Colossians 4:3-4, Paul again says "that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds, that I may make i manifest, as I ought to speak."

This should be sufficient to show that spiritually-minded people can utter understandable mysteries and are to know and understand the mysteries of spiritual things. Therefore, the "mysteries" are not in the language or something known only to God; but means the mystery of the Gospel. Then to teach that speaking "in the spirit" or that "praying in the Holy Ghost" (Jude 20) is always speaking in tongues is incorrectly interpreting the scriptures, because when one is speaking "in the spirit" he is not necessarily exercising the gift of tongues no more than he is exercising any of the gifts when he "walks in the spirit" (Galatians 5:16) or "led of the spirit" (Vs. 18) or "live in the spirit" (Gal. 5:25) or "worship God in the spirit" (Phil. 3:3) or "bound by the spirit" (Acts 20:22) or "purposed in the spirit" (Acts 19:21). When Jesus is foretelling of the persecution of the disciples He says in Mark 13:11, "But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate; but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye; for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost." This same thought is also covered in Matthew 10:20. This "speaking" would not have been exercising the goft of tongues but would be defending themselves with intelligent speech as the Spirit gave them utterance, or speaking under the unction of the Holy Ghost.

Now this verse 2 is simply teaching that "he who speaks in a lanugage unknown to the local congregation (unknown tongue) is not speaking to men but only to God as no man (present) understand the language he is speaking. Howbeit, (nevertheless) he may be speaking the mysteries of the Gospel while under the unction of the Spirit."

In verse 1, Paul had said he would rather that they would prophesy. (Understandable teaching or preaching inspired of God). Then in verse 2 his meaning is that even though someone may be inspired of the Spirit to testify or exhort in some manner they wouldn't "truly" be prophesing if they were tos peak in a language unknown locally. This "no man" would not mean the speaker, but the audience. In I Cor. 2:11 it states: "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man, which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth "no man" but the Spirit of God." But in the verses 12-14, of I Cor. 2nd chapter that we quoted earlier, show this "no man" to mean the natural man.

Since this verse is so widely misunderstood, here again is a recap of this verse (I Cor. 14:2).

Paul is not implying that this anonymous individual in verse 2 is endowed with some ecstatic utterance nor that he is exercising any gift of the spirit. He is simply teaching that if someone were to speak in a language unfamiliar tot he group addressed, they obviously couldn't understand him, only God would; even though this individual could be uttering the mysteries of the Gospel and could be inspired by the spirit. Paul's implication is that if the church can't understand, they wouldn't be edified; only the speaker would be. He further substantiates this implication in the next 2 verses:

Vs 3 - "But he that prophesieth speaketh unto mean edification, and exhortation, and comfort."

Vs 4 - "He that speaketh in an unknown tongue (foreign language) edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church."

I realize this verse is falsely taught by some to mean that "he speaketh in an unknown tongue" is supposedly speaking ecstatic utterances and that this utterance is supposedly edifying himself. They use this false teaching to support a reason for seekin to speak ecstatic utterances. But this is all false as we are trying to prove that these ecstatic utterances were not practiced by the early church nor taught, and definitely are not of God.

This 4th verse is just tying in with the same thought of the first three verses and means that "he that speaketh in a language unknown to the local congregation (unknown tongue) is only edifying himself since the church does not understand; therefore is not edified; while he that prophesieth (understandable inspired teaching or preaching) edifies the church."
That is a fine example of taking text elsewhere and trying to force it into another text and in essence... you just rewrote what was actually said though. Here is where what you wrote began to fall apart.


. First, let us cover what it does not teach. It is not teaching that someone is speaking a mysterious language or that someone is speakin mysteries (in the spirit) known only to God.

Here is the text.

1 Corinthians 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men, but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.

Here you are saying that while the text does in fact say that it is a tongue spoken to God... no one understand... it is mystery... yet the text says that very thing. So maybe let's address the text in Corinth... then if you'd like to jump elsewhere we can.

faithfulfriend
Oct 10th 2007, 06:27 PM
That is a fine example of taking text elsewhere and trying to force it into another text and in essence... you just rewrote what was actually said though. Here is where what you wrote began to fall apart.



Here is the text.

1 Corinthians 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men, but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.

Here you are saying that while the text does in fact say that it is a tongue spoken to God... no one understand... it is mystery... yet the text says that very thing. So maybe let's address the text in Corinth... then if you'd like to jump elsewhere we can.

You aren't following what was being said. Read the post again.

Here's an example of what's being stated in verse 2.

I'm American, and speak only English. I go to China in a room full of Chinese students who do not understand English at all.

I begin to speak to them about the Gospel. They have no idea what I'm saying because they do not know my language (tongue). But God understands English, just as he does Chinese. He can understand what I'm saying although the Chinese students can't.

Make sense?

ProjectPeter
Oct 10th 2007, 07:29 PM
You aren't following what was being said. Read the post again.

Here's an example of what's being stated in verse 2.

I'm American, and speak only English. I go to China in a room full of Chinese students who do not understand English at all.

I begin to speak to them about the Gospel. They have no idea what I'm saying because they do not know my language (tongue). But God understands English, just as he does Chinese. He can understand what I'm saying although the Chinese students can't.

Make sense?
I do follow what you are saying but it doesn't fly in regard to that passage. It speaks of a language that God understands and not man. If the man speaking it (English in your example) knew the language being spoken... it is no mystery to him so etc. Man understands (the speaker). The text doesn't allow for that.

Look at it again and answer this. Who is the one speaking in a tongue speaking to... Man or God?

faithfulfriend
Oct 10th 2007, 07:46 PM
I do follow what you are saying but it doesn't fly in regard to that passage. It speaks of a language that God understands and not man. If the man speaking it (English in your example) knew the language being spoken... it is no mystery to him so etc. Man understands (the speaker). The text doesn't allow for that.

Look at it again and answer this. Who is the one speaking in a tongue speaking to... Man or God?

Man, but because nobody understands him, God is the only one who would know what he is saying. So it would be as if he is speaking to God. Make sense?

You have to study the complete chapter to understand that verse. Drop down to verses 27 - 28:

1Co 14:27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

If nobody can understand what you are saying, KEEP SILENT.

Also those who speak in tongues have power over their own spirit: 1Co 14:32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

I have some questions also:
How come those in Acts 4 and Eph. 5:18-20 had the Holy Ghost but did not speak in tongues? Do you believe that speaking in tongues is the only way to show evidence of the Holy Ghost?

Also in John 20:22, the disciples were filled with the Holy Ghost but did not speak in tongues.

Also in James 1:26 it says "If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain."

I hear alot of "tongue speakers" tell me they have no control when they start speaking in tongues. That scripture indicates that if you can't bridle your tongue, your religion is vain. And you heart is deceived.

cwb
Oct 10th 2007, 08:08 PM
I hear alot of "tongue speakers" tell me they have no control when they start speaking in tongues. That scripture indicates that if you can't bridle your tongue, your religion is vain. And you heart is deceived.



I speak in tongues and know quite a few people who speak in tongues. I have not heard any of them say they have no control over themselves. I am just curious as to where you heard all these tongue speakers tell you this.



Man, but because nobody understands him, God is the only one who would know what he is saying. So it would be as if he is speaking to God. Make sense?

You have to study the complete chapter to understand that verse. Drop down to verses 27 - 28:

1Co 14:27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

If nobody can understand what you are saying, KEEP SILENT.



Paul certainly is certainly not forbiding speaking in tongues here. Is is merely saying not to do it publicly out loud without an interpretation. In fact he encourages speaking in tongues privately since those who do it are speaking divine mysteries to God, edifying themselves, making perfect intercessions for the saints, and giving thanks well to God.

faithfulfriend
Oct 10th 2007, 08:12 PM
I speak in tongues and know quite a few people who speak in tongues. I have not heard any of them say they have no control over themselves. I am just curious as to where you heard all these tongue speakers tell you this.



Paul certainly is certainly not forbiding speaking in tongues here. Is is merely saying not to do it publicly out loud without an interpretation. In fact he encourages speaking in tongues privately since those who do it are speaking divine mysteries to God, edifying themselves, making perfect intercessions for the saints, and giving thanks well to God.

I spoke with a co-worker who is Pentecostal and she claimed that she could not stop speaking in tongues once she had started. She told me she had no control over herself.

Is that not so with all tongue speakers? I assumed that everyone spoke in tongues like she did. Are you saying some can control themselves and some can't?

godsgirl
Oct 10th 2007, 08:19 PM
I spoke with a co-worker who is Pentecostal and she claimed that she could not stop speaking in tongues once she had started. She told me she had no control over herself.

Is that not so with all tongue speakers? I assumed that everyone spoke in tongues like she did. Are you saying some can control themselves and some can't?


Everyone knows someone, somewhere, somehow, who did this wrong. Of course you can control yourself-I have been in a Pentecostal church for 20 years, and I never heard anyone say that they have no control over themselves. The Holy Spirit leads us to speak-he gives us the words and the desire-but the speaking is up to us. Your friend, probably had a very strong Spirit given desire to pray in tongues-that certianly happens.

Oh, and for those of you who were complaining because the words "prayer langauge" weren't in the Bible-I give you the words of Paul---

"IF I pray in a tongue, my sprit prays but my understanding is unfruitful-so what shall I do? I will pray with my mind and I will also pray with my sprit, I will sing with my mind and I will sing with my understanding also"--

The words "prayer language" are just used to convey this concept-praying in a language we do not know-

cwb
Oct 10th 2007, 08:22 PM
I spoke with a co-worker who is Pentecostal and she claimed that she could not stop speaking in tongues once she had started. She told me she had no control over herself.

Is that not so with all tongue speakers? I assumed that everyone spoke in tongues like she did. Are you saying some can control themselves and some can't?

That's interesting. In your other post, you said and I will quote it:



I hear alot of "tongue speakers" tell me they have no control when they start speaking in tongues.


Here in this post, you are saying you heard one person say it. So which post is truth. Did you hear one person say it or did you hear alot say they had no control over themselves.

faithfulfriend
Oct 10th 2007, 08:26 PM
That's interesting. In your other post, you said and I will quote it:



Here in this post, you are saying you heard one person say it. So which post is truth. Did you hear one person say it or did you hear alot say they had no control over themselves.

I've talked to Pentecostals myself, mainly the one I work with. I also have friends who have spoken with Pentecostals that say the same thing.

Sorry for the confusion.

faithfulfriend
Oct 10th 2007, 08:32 PM
Everyone knows someone, somewhere, somehow, who did this wrong. Of course you can control yourself-I have been in a Pentecostal church for 20 years, and I never heard anyone say that they have no control over themselves. The Holy Spirit leads us to speak-he gives us the words and the desire-but the speaking is up to us. Your friend, probably had a very strong Spirit given desire to pray in tongues-that certianly happens.

Oh, and for those of you who were complaining because the words "prayer langauge" weren't in the Bible-I give you the words of Paul---

"IF I pray in a tongue, my sprit prays but my understanding is unfruitful-so what shall I do? I will pray with my mind and I will also pray with my sprit, I will sing with my mind and I will sing with my understanding also"--

The words "prayer language" are just used to convey this concept-praying in a language we do not know-

The point I'm trying to make is that the modern-day tongues is nothing like what the Bible tongues was. Look up the word tongues in Greek, it means language. A language is something that is understood by the speaker AND hearer.

Time to go home from work. I'll be back tomorrow hopefully if time allows.

ProjectPeter
Oct 10th 2007, 08:35 PM
Man, but because nobody understands him, God is the only one who would know what he is saying. So it would be as if he is speaking to God. Make sense?

You have to study the complete chapter to understand that verse. Drop down to verses 27 - 28:

1Co 14:27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

If nobody can understand what you are saying, KEEP SILENT.

Also those who speak in tongues have power over their own spirit: 1Co 14:32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

I have some questions also:
How come those in Acts 4 and Eph. 5:18-20 had the Holy Ghost but did not speak in tongues? Do you believe that speaking in tongues is the only way to show evidence of the Holy Ghost?

Also in John 20:22, the disciples were filled with the Holy Ghost but did not speak in tongues.

Also in James 1:26 it says "If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain."

I hear alot of "tongue speakers" tell me they have no control when they start speaking in tongues. That scripture indicates that if you can't bridle your tongue, your religion is vain. And you heart is deceived.

I know what it says further down the passage. But until you know what it is saying up there in verse 2... further down is going to be skewed. Read that passage again and answer the question without your addition. Who is the tongue spoken to?

1 Corinthians 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men, but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.

Here is why your version breaks down and it is found right underneath verse 2 in verse 3.

3 But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation.

SO here we have the same person, if they speak in tongues they speak to God... yet if they prophecy... they speak to men. So here we see it is speaking something other than foreign folk talking to folk of a different language. So they prophecy in the common language but this tongue... it is different. That's why Paul goes on explaining the advantage of prophecy. I don't need an interpreter to edify the body... it is a more desirable gift in such.

godsgirl
Oct 10th 2007, 11:46 PM
The point I'm trying to make is that the modern-day tongues is nothing like what the Bible tongues was. Look up the word tongues in Greek, it means language. A language is something that is understood by the speaker AND hearer.

Time to go home from work. I'll be back tomorrow hopefully if time allows.

Not necessarily, which is why Paul said,

For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.

He also said, What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also. (http://biblebrowser.com/1_corinthians/14-15.htm) 16 Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying? (http://biblebrowser.com/1_corinthians/14-16.htm) 17 For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not edified. (http://biblebrowser.com/1_corinthians/14-17.htm)

This is why when a message in tongues is brought forth in the church-ie the gift of tongues-it is to be accompained by another gift-that of "interpretation" so that the church can be edified. Prophesy isn't better than tongues per say-but the gift of tongues needs the companion gift of interpretation to be = to prophesy.

ShirleyFord
Oct 10th 2007, 11:56 PM
What I am trying to understand is if speaking in tongues as it is understood in Pentecostal churches today was an understanding of the majority of the Christian church throughout history. From this, perhaps the questions can be answered: was this a practice that was held only by small minorities (i.e. cults) that eventually became popular, was this a practice that is quite modern, or is this a practice the majority of the church had part in throughout history up until modern times?

I don't know if this is what you are asking for but this is my testimony of when God baptized me in His Holy Spirit, six years after he saved me, and healed me instantly and I began to speak in an utterance that I didn't understand but I knew that it was from my Lord. And this happened while I was a member of a great Southern Baptist Church and before I had ever heard of tongues or heard anyone speak in tongues.

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=54766


Shirley

Steven3
Oct 11th 2007, 06:29 AM
Hi CWB :)
Mind if I ask a question?
I speak in tongues and know quite a few people who speak in tongues. How do you know they speak in tongues if you do it in private (which I agree Rom 8:26 "groanings too deep for words" allows), presumably they've discussed it with you and their experience sounds similar? Does it bother you/them (I don't see why it should) that the tongues are always shown to be broken-up English when tapes are analysed? As I said, I don't see why it should bother anyone in Rom 8:26 "groans" context, but some people still react emotionally to defend a claim of angelic tongues, but what's your view?


Second question, not for CWB, for anyone who belongs to a church which has tongues in a group, public setting. How, in practice, does tongues work with those 5 rules Paul gives for the public context. Is it actually possible to follow those rules? I only ask because an ex-Pentecostal pastor once told me that the reason his church stopped group speaking in [angelic/unknown] tongues is because when Paul's rules were applied they actually killed the tongues-speaking? I've so far only encountered churches who either do it and ignore or modify Paul's rules, or this case of having applied the rules and found that tongues died out. Can anyone give me firsthand evidence of a case where Paul's five rules were applied and didn't kill unknown tongues?

God bless
Steven

Steven3
Oct 11th 2007, 06:41 AM
Hi Teke
I agree with you - not just ch.12-14 but the whole tenor of 1Co is conciliatory rather than commendatory. Which may support the thesis that 1Co (more than 2Co) is aimed at winning the extremes of the Cephas faction and Apollos faction back towards the middle ground occupied by the Paulos faction - (even though Paul wasn't a great deal more happy with his own followers).
IMHO Paul’s statements, should perhaps be recognized as conciliatory rather than commendatory. Look at what Chadwick said-

Quote:
The entire drift of the argument of 1 Cor. xii—xiv {1 Cor 12—1 Cor 14} is such as to pour a douche of ice-cold water over the whole practice. But Paul could hardly have denied that the gift of tongues was a genuine supernatural charisma without putting a fatal barrier between himself and the Corinthian enthusiasts…. [for] the touchstone of soundness in the eyes of those claiming to be possessed by the Spirit was whether their gift was recognized to be a genuine work of God. To deny this recognition was to prove oneself to be altogether lacking in the Spirit. That Paul was fully aware of this issue appears not only from 1 Cor ii.14—15 {1 Cor 2}, but also from 1 Cor xiv.37—8 {1 Cor 14}, a masterly sentence which has the effect of brilliantly forestalling possible counter-attack at the most dangerous point, and indeed carries the war into the enemy camp. To have refused to recognize the practice as truly supernatural would have been catastrophic. Paul must fully admit that glossolalia is indeed a divine gift; but, he urges, it is the most inferior of all gifts. But Paul does more than admit it. He asserts it: eucaristo to theo, panton humon mallon glossais lalo (xiv 18 {1 Cor 14:18}). No stronger assertion of his belief in the validity of this gift of the Spirit could be made; and in the context it is a master touch which leaves the enthusiasts completely outclassed and outmaneuvered on their own ground.

Cited from D. W. B. Robinson, "Charismata versus Pneumatika: Paul’s Method of Discussion," Reformed Theological Review 21 (May—August 1972)


Do you have the complete Chadwick article? RTR isn't available on the web is it?

I found the same chunk of text cited in AJPS www.apts.edu/ajps/98-2/98-2-max.pdf (http://www.apts.edu/ajps/98-2/98-2-max.pdf)

Teke
Oct 11th 2007, 03:08 PM
Hi Teke
I agree with you - not just ch.12-14 but the whole tenor of 1Co is conciliatory rather than commendatory. Which may support the thesis that 1Co (more than 2Co) is aimed at winning the extremes of the Cephas faction and Apollos faction back towards the middle ground occupied by the Paulos faction - (even though Paul wasn't a great deal more happy with his own followers).

Do you have the complete Chadwick article? RTR isn't available on the web is it?

I found the same chunk of text cited in AJPS www.apts.edu/ajps/98-2/98-2-max.pdf (http://www.apts.edu/ajps/98-2/98-2-max.pdf)

I don't have the article, I quoted it from an EO study which contains many refs. on the subject of 1 Corinthians. The specific subject in question (of the in depth EO study), charismata and pneumatika, as the church should understand them.

I just found the quote to be a more Ricoeurian hermeneutical approach. Thought it might be more applicable to lead in further dialog.

Since we can't deny anyones experience of God, it's more a matter of hermeneutics, and Paul is quite eloquent in his conciliar approach of the matter. :saint:

Steven3
Oct 11th 2007, 03:42 PM
Hi Teke :)
I don't have the article, I quoted it from an EO study

I just found the quote to be a more Ricoeurian hermeneutical approach. Thought it might be more applicable to lead in further dialog. I've never read anything by Paul Ricoeur so don't really know what that means, but if it means a detached view of Paul's argument sensitive to his audience's context I can certainly go with that. If you have a URL for the EO study please pass it on.

Sometimes we miss the wood for the trees. No matter what the details were of what exactly the conflicting factions were doing in Corinth, the big picture is that the letter is written to reconcile themselves with each other as a precondition of reconciliation with Christ (a theme which picks up again in the 2nd letter). It would be terrible to end up fighting over the whole Corinth tongues business when it was written to end fighting.

God bless
Steven

godsgirl
Oct 11th 2007, 05:12 PM
For those of you still interested-here is some more study on the history of the Pentecostal movement....you can also learn quite a bit from the online study here...http://www.pneumafoundation.org/


Stanley M. Burgess is a professor of religious studies at Southwest Missouri State University and editor of The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements (http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?1549085?item_no=24810&p=1004924) (Zondervan, 2002). That indispensable tome displays prominently on its cover an abbreviated timeline of Pentecostal prehistory.
At the Dictionary's back, Burgess presents in an absorbing 8-page chart a much fuller timeline—a highly concentrated summary of his three-volume study, The Holy Spirit: Ancient Christian Traditions, Eastern Christian Traditions; and Medieval Roman Catholic and Reformation Traditions.
What follows is a sampling from that chart. As with the Spirit-seeking Protestants in last week's newsletter, none of these Catholic and Orthodox folks can be called "Pentecostal" or "charismatic"—this would be a misleading anachronism. But the career of each one speaks out for the claim that the Holy Spirit has empowered ordinary Christians through the centuries—with jaw-dropping results:
1st century


"Writers of the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas [two inspirational books used widely in the early church] witness so much charismatic activity they find it necessary to distinguish between true and false prophets. At about the same time, the writer of Pseudo-Barnabas suggests prophetic ministry is normative in the church."
2nd century


"[Christian apologist] Justin Martyr argues that God has withdrawn the Spirit of prophecy and miracles from the Jews and has transferred it to the church as proof of her continued divine favor.
Irenaeus of Lyon describes the gifts of prophecy, discernment of spirits, and exorcism in his Gallic church, and even mentions that individuals have been raised from the dead. He warns against certain false Gnostics who fabricate spiritual gifts to win favor with the naïve."
3rd century


"Origen of Alexandria says healings, exorcisms, and validating signs and wonders continue to be experienced in the church. Just as miracles and wonders added to the credibility of 1st-century apostles, so they continue to draw unbelievers into the Christian fold."
4th century


"Augustine [of Hippo], in The City of God, reports contemporary divine healings and other miracles. These he links directly to the conversion of pagans."
10th-11th centuries


"Symeon the New Theologian (949-1022), perhaps the most famous Eastern [Orthodox] charismatic Christian, reports his most intimate spiritual experiences, which include a 'baptism in the Holy Spirit' accompanied by gifts of copious tears, compunction, and visions of God as light. "
12th-14th centuries


"The sermons of Thomas Aquinas are frequently confirmed by miracles, and he often experiences ecstasy, especially in the last months of his life.
Bonaventure reports that Francis of Assisi, while an unskilled speaker, is empowered by the Holy Spirit while ministering. Wherever he goes, his sermons are accompanied with miracles of great power, including prophecy, casting out devils, and healing the sick. As a result, his hearers pay attention to what he says 'as if an angel of the Lord was speaking.'"
16th century


"Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits), frequently receives divine communication in visions. He also experiences a gift of tears—often in such abundance that he cannot control himself—and the gift of loquela, which a few modern scholars associate with today's charismatic phenomenon of sung glossolalia [tongues]."
17th century


"Jansenists, belonging to a radical Augustinian movement in the Roman Catholic Church from 1640 to 1801 , become known for their signs and wonders, spiritual dancing, healings, and prophetic utterances. Some reportedly speak in unknown tongues and understand foreign languages in which they are addressed."
18th century


"Seraphim of Sarov (1759-1833), the Russian Orthodox charismatic leader, asserts that the goal of the Christian life is the reception of the Holy Spirit. Seraphim's 'evidence' for a baptism of the Holy Spirit is a transfiguration experience—being transformed, while still in the flesh, into divine light. Seraphim also is remembered for a gift of healing."
When viewed in its impressive entirety, Burgess's list suggests something important: The church has rarely lacked for witnesses, from the widest variety of camps, who have proclaimed that the Holy Spirit is alive, well, and gifting believers in his church.
Again, though, this is no cadre of cookie-cutter charismatics. A rousing debate would ensue if we could work a little Steve-Allen-"Meeting-of-Minds" magic and bring these folks to the same table to discuss the [I]details of the Spirit's extraordinary works.
But despite their theological diversity, these witnesses of past centuries join in claiming for the church the same "promise of the Father" Jesus held out to his Apostles:
"Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 1:4-5).
[B]Chris Armstrong is managing editor of Christian History magazine

Steven3
Oct 11th 2007, 05:25 PM
Hi Godsgirl :)
"Seraphim of Sarov (1759-1833), the Russian Orthodox charismatic leader, asserts that the goal of the Christian life is the reception of the Holy Spirit. Yes, but again the disciples already received the Holy Spirit 47 days before Pentecost and couldn't do any miracles during those 47 days :)
God bless
Steven

godsgirl
Oct 11th 2007, 05:33 PM
Hi Godsgirl :)Yes, but again the disciples already received the Holy Spirit 47 days before Pentecost and couldn't do any miracles during those 47 days :)
God bless
Steven

Exactly-they received the Holy Spirit at salvation-but there was more-same as today. Sometimes the Bible refers to this baptism (filling) with the Spirit as "receiving" the Spirit-that doesn't mean that those same people the scripture is referring to, did not receive the indwelling Spirit at salvation.

Teke
Oct 11th 2007, 06:29 PM
Hi Godsgirl :)Yes, but again the disciples already received the Holy Spirit 47 days before Pentecost and couldn't do any miracles during those 47 days :)
God bless
Steven

I commented to godsgirl previously about her use of such quotes. Like this one you captioned.
"Seraphim of Sarov (1759-1833), the Russian Orthodox charismatic leader, asserts that the goal of the Christian life is the reception of the Holy Spirit."

I can assure all that Seraphim of Sarov is not speaking of tongues, but the eastern concept of theosis.
Eastern Christians pursue understanding in the mystical and miraculous, but they do so cautiously. IOW they do not consider tongues a doctrine, and are not dogmatic about it.

cwb
Oct 11th 2007, 06:35 PM
Hi CWB :)
Mind if I ask a question?How do you know they speak in tongues if you do it in private (which I agree Rom 8:26 "groanings too deep for words" allows), presumably they've discussed it with you and their experience sounds similar? Does it bother you/them (I don't see why it should) that the tongues are always shown to be broken-up English when tapes are analysed? As I said, I don't see why it should bother anyone in Rom 8:26 "groans" context, but some people still react emotionally to defend a claim of angelic tongues, but what's your view?



It doesn't bother me at all that some people have suposeldy made some tape recording to supposedley prove something. When I speak in tongues, I know that I am speaking a language other than English. I know that it is inspired of God and I am praying in the Spirit and making perfect intercession for the saints according to the will of God as the scriptures say.



Second question, not for CWB, for anyone who belongs to a church which has tongues in a group, public setting. How, in practice, does tongues work with those 5 rules Paul gives for the public context. Is it actually possible to follow those rules? I only ask because an ex-Pentecostal pastor once told me that the reason his church stopped group speaking in [angelic/unknown] tongues is because when Paul's rules were applied they actually killed the tongues-speaking? I've so far only encountered churches who either do it and ignore or modify Paul's rules, or this case of having applied the rules and found that tongues died out. Can anyone give me firsthand evidence of a case where Paul's five rules were applied and didn't kill unknown tongues?




There is absolutely no rule Paul gave that "kills" tongues. Paul did not "kill" tongues in I cor 14. In fact he admonished it. He only said that it had to be interpreted when done in a public setting.

David Taylor
Oct 11th 2007, 07:00 PM
1st century
"Writers of the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas [two inspirational books used widely in the early church] witness so much charismatic activity they find it necessary to distinguish between true and false prophets. At about the same time, the writer of Pseudo-Barnabas suggests prophetic ministry is normative in the church."


"Charasmatic activity" (as a synonym for the gift of tongues), is something that I would doubt many if any modern Christian denies occurring, and denies occurring in a historical setting.

From my reading of the OPs original post, and the followup clarification posts on the first page of this thread, he seems to be looking for historical examples not of 'just the gift of tongues'; but rather, the useage of tongues in history as they are done in today's era; in unintelligible languages in public settings in same-languaged people. (as opposed to the gift of tongues to transcend known languages)

Does the Didache and Shepherd of Hermas teach the gift of tongues was an unintelligible language offered in a public setting by same-languaged people?

The above citation doesn't reveal that.




2nd century
"[Christian apologist] Justin Martyr argues that God has withdrawn the Spirit of prophecy and miracles from the Jews and has transferred it to the church as proof of her continued divine favor.
Irenaeus of Lyon describes the gifts of prophecy, discernment of spirits, and exorcism in his Gallic church, and even mentions that individuals have been raised from the dead. He warns against certain false Gnostics who fabricate spiritual gifts to win favor with the naïve."


That Spiritual gifts of the Holy Spirit were given, is not in question. Does Justin Martyr or Irenaeus however, teach the gift of tongues was an unintelligible language offered in a public setting by same-languaged people?

The above citation doesn't reveal that.



3rd century
"Origen of Alexandria says healings, exorcisms, and validating signs and wonders continue to be experienced in the church. Just as miracles and wonders added to the credibility of 1st-century apostles, so they continue to draw unbelievers into the Christian fold."


Healings, exocisms, validating signs and wonders given by the Holy Spirit were given, is not in question. Does Origen however, teach the gift of tongues was an unintelligible language offered in a public setting by same-languaged people?

The above citation doesn't reveal that.




4th century
"Augustine [of Hippo], in The City of God, reports contemporary divine healings and other miracles. These he links directly to the conversion of pagans."


That divine healings and other miracles of the Holy Spirit were given, is not in question. Does Augustine however, teach the gift of tongues was an unintelligible language offered in a public setting by same-languaged people?

The above citation doesn't reveal that.




10th-11th centuries
"Symeon the New Theologian (949-1022), perhaps the most famous Eastern [Orthodox] charismatic Christian, reports his most intimate spiritual experiences, which include a 'baptism in the Holy Spirit' accompanied by gifts of copious tears, compunction, and visions of God as light. [Burgess provides a resume of this influential leader's life and teachings on p. 1112 of the Dictionary.]"


That spiritual experiences and gifts and visions of the Holy Spirit were given, is not in question. Does Symeon however, teach the gift of tongues was an unintelligible language offered in a public setting by same-languaged people?

The above citation doesn't reveal that.




12th-14th centuries
"The sermons of Thomas Aquinas are frequently confirmed by miracles, and he often experiences ecstasy, especially in the last months of his life.
Bonaventure reports that Francis of Assisi, while an unskilled speaker, is empowered by the Holy Spirit while ministering. Wherever he goes, his sermons are accompanied with miracles of great power, including prophecy, casting out devils, and healing the sick. As a result, his hearers pay attention to what he says 'as if an angel of the Lord was speaking.'"


That confirmed miracles of the Holy Spirit were given, is not in question. Does Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, or Francis of Assisi however, teach the gift of tongues was an unintelligible language offered in a public setting by same-languaged people?

The above citation doesn't reveal that.





16th century
"Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits), frequently receives divine communication in visions. He also experiences a gift of tears—often in such abundance that he cannot control himself—and the gift of loquela, which a few modern scholars associate with today's charismatic phenomenon of sung glossolalia [tongues]."


That divine communication in visions by the Holy Spirit were given, is not in question. Does Ignatius Loyola however, teach the gift of tongues was an unintelligible language offered in a public setting by same-languaged people?

The above citation doesn't reveal that.



17th century
"Jansenists, belonging to a radical Augustinian movement in the Roman Catholic Church from 1640 to 1801 [its most famed adherent was the French scientist and apologist Blaise Pascal], become known for their signs and wonders, spiritual dancing, healings, and prophetic utterances. Some reportedly speak in unknown tongues and understand foreign languages in which they are addressed."



That speaking in unknown tongues understanding foreign languages in which they were addressed by the Holy Spirit were given, is not in question. Does Jansenists, and Blaise Pascal, however, teach the gift of tongues was an unintelligible language offered in a public setting by same-languaged people?

The above citation doesn't reveal that.



18th century
"Seraphim of Sarov (1759-1833), the Russian Orthodox charismatic leader, asserts that the goal of the Christian life is the reception of the Holy Spirit. Seraphim's 'evidence' for a baptism of the Holy Spirit is a transfiguration experience—being transformed, while still in the flesh, into divine light. Seraphim also is remembered for a gift of healing."


That baptism of the Holy Spiritoccurs, is not in question. Does Seraphim of Sarov however, teach the gift of tongues was an unintelligible language offered in a public setting by same-languaged people?

The above citation doesn't reveal that.

While all of the citations above are surely true, and hold much very valuable Christian historical merit; none of them seem to show historical examples of the gift of tongues being an unintelligible language offered in a public setting by same-languaged people.

Where are these types of historical references prior to Azusa Street?

ShirleyFord
Oct 11th 2007, 07:10 PM
Exactly-they received the Holy Spirit at salvation-but there was more-same as today. Sometimes the Bible refers to this baptism (filling) with the Spirit as "receiving" the Spirit-that doesn't mean that those same people the scripture is referring to, did not receive the indwelling Spirit at salvation.

And they were filled again with the Spirit again after Penticost:

Acts 4

23 And being let go, they (Peter and John) went to their own company, and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said unto them.

24 And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:

25 Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?

26 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.

27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,

28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

29 And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word,

30 By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus.

31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.


Shirley

Teke
Oct 11th 2007, 10:18 PM
Hi Teke :)I've never read anything by Paul Ricoeur so don't really know what that means, but if it means a detached view of Paul's argument sensitive to his audience's context I can certainly go with that.

Close enough. ;) It's a way to analyze the proposal of a text.

If you want to read more about Paul Ricoeur, here (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ricoeur/) is a link to the Stanford Encyclopedia. (see "Discourse and Action" in article, "Through the conflict of interpretations one can find criteria, such as comprehensiveness, for determining which interpretation is more likely." )


If you have a URL for the EO study please pass it on.

It's not on the web. Likely there are some online.:)


Sometimes we miss the wood for the trees. No matter what the details were of what exactly the conflicting factions were doing in Corinth, the big picture is that the letter is written to reconcile themselves with each other as a precondition of reconciliation with Christ (a theme which picks up again in the 2nd letter). It would be terrible to end up fighting over the whole Corinth tongues business when it was written to end fighting.

God bless
Steven

Completely agree with you on this.
Now how to do that in this thread. :hmm: :spin:

Mograce2U
Oct 12th 2007, 02:13 AM
Shirley, #181 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1407784&postcount=181)
Pentecost would seem to bring something that the disciples did not have even though Jesus had breathed the Holy Spirit upon them prior to the cross.

(John 14:20 KJV) At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

(John 14:25-26 KJV) These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. {26} But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

While they were given peace by the Lord pre-cross, this opening of their understanding and ability to remember all that Jesus had said, was yet to come at this point.

(John 14:29 KJV) And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe.

Jesus speaks words which are not understood when He said them, but it is clear that Peter did "get it" once Pentecost arrived.

What I am not certain about is what the breathing of the Holy Spirit upon the disciples prior to the cross was intended to accomplish. Was it perhaps to empower them to remain in the faith during this severe challenge to their faith?

Steven3
Oct 12th 2007, 04:19 AM
Hi CWB :)
It doesn't bother me at all that some people have suposeldy made some tape recording to supposedley prove something. When I speak in tongues, I know that I am speaking a language other than English. I don't think Drs Samarin, Kildahl and the various other anthropologists and linguists have the motive to "supposedly prove something", any more than I as a translator do. It's, I'm sorry to say :), not really particularly fair nor nice of you to assume they have an agenda. Unless you're an exception to every documented case in the last 100 years, then what you speak when you speak in tongues is a language other than English - it is resequenced English that means something to you and God knows what you mean. But it is not a human or angelic tongue with human or angelic grammar that a human or angel would normally speak. Now this shouldn't necessarily matter to you. But if it does matter and you are concerned or shaken by the knowledge that you are speaking resequenced English, then tape yourself and send it to an impartial linguist. Please don't blame me - I'm not the one speaking in tongues (that's you), and I'm not the one making tapes (that's Dr Samarin and so on) :)


I know that it is inspired of God and I am praying in the Spirit and making perfect intercession for the saints according to the will of God as the scriptures say. Good, great, fantastic :). But then God is inspiring you to speak in resequenced English, and if God is so doing then there shouldn't be a problem in recognising this. Resequenced English wouldn't be any less inspired or holy to God than say Tibetan or Aztec or Cherubimese would it??


There is absolutely no rule Paul gave that "kills" tongues. Paul did not "kill" tongues in I cor 14. In fact he admonished it. He only said that it had to be interpreted when done in a public setting.Maybe I did not express my question clearly. What I said was the ex-Pentecostal pastor said that when his congregation implemented the 5 rules of Paul in 1Co14:25-35 the 5 rules "killed" (his word) the tongues, not he, not me, not Paul, simply putting those 5 rules into practice, while not forbidding, did in fact "kill" the practice - over a period of several weeks, not immediately. My question was, has anyone on this forum (Godsgirl?) attended a congregation which applies all 5 of those rules, and tongues still thrive?

God bless
Steven

ShirleyFord
Oct 12th 2007, 04:47 AM
Robin,

I believe that the 11 of the 12 disciples and the 70 were saved by grace through faith when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ that He was who He claimed to be, the Promised Messiah, the Son of the living God, and left everthing to follow Him.

He opened their spiritual eyes after His resurrection to understand Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms which all prophecied of His Coming and what He would do for Israel and all the world in His Coming the First time and dying on the cross for our sins and raising from the dead for our justification.

During those 40 days that Jesus was on the earth after His resurrection He appeared to 500, Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 15. But only 120 of those 500 gathered in the upper room after His ascension and waited until they received the promise of the Father which was the baptism of Jesus with the Holy Spirit which would empower them to be witnesses unto Jesus as they preached the gospel throughout Jerusalem and Judea then Samaria then the entire Gentile world.

I believe that this is what we see happening in Acts 2.

The Bible doesn't say that Jesus breathed on any of the rest of the 120 besides the 11 disciples before His ascension back into heaven. The Bible doesn't really give the purpose that I can find why Jesus did this. It could be as you say. The 120 did stay put for the 10 days between the ascension of Jesus and the day of Penticost and waited in prayer until they were endued with power from on high, as Jesus commanded them.

And then we see them again in Acts 4 being filled with the Holy Spirit again. By this time the Church had increased from 120 on the day of Penticost by the 3000 saved by the end of the day on the day of Penticost. And then the 5000 saved from the gospel that was fully preached by Peter in Acts 3. So the number of the Church at the time of the filling with the Holy Spirit in Acts 4 were at least 8120. A fairly good size congregation. They all were filled with the Spirit. But the Bible doesn't say that any of them spoke in tongues or that the 12 apostles or any of the other 120 spoke messages in tongues and one of them interpreted so that the entire congregation could be blessed.

The prayer of the congregation was that "they", Peter and John (and could have been the rest of the original disciples of Jesus) would speak the word with boldness in the name of Jesus. And God answered their prayer immediately. And they all were filled with the Spirit and they all, all who were gathered together there were given boldness to speak God's word.


Shirley

godsgirl
Oct 12th 2007, 11:35 AM
And they were filled again with the Spirit again after Penticost:

Acts 4

23 And being let go, they (Peter and John) went to their own company, and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said unto them.

24 And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:

25 Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?

26 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.

27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,

28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

29 And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word,

30 By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus.

31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.


Shirley

Sorry, I don't understand your point here-like you said, these were already filled-so had already received the initial evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit-which is speaking in tongues as the Spirit enabled them to speak.

godsgirl
Oct 12th 2007, 11:39 AM
Hi CWB :)I don't think Drs Samarin, Kildahl and the various other anthropologists and linguists have the motive to "supposedly prove something", any more than I as a translator do. It's, I'm sorry to say :), not really particularly fair nor nice of you to assume they have an agenda. Unless you're an exception to every documented case in the last 100 years, then what you speak when you speak in tongues is a language other than English - it is resequenced English that means something to you and God knows what you mean. But it is not a human or angelic tongue with human or angelic grammar that a human or angel would normally speak. Now this shouldn't necessarily matter to you. But if it does matter and you are concerned or shaken by the knowledge that you are speaking resequenced English, then tape yourself and send it to an impartial linguist. Please don't blame me - I'm not the one speaking in tongues (that's you), and I'm not the one making tapes (that's Dr Samarin and so on) :)

Good, great, fantastic :). But then God is inspiring you to speak in resequenced English, and if God is so doing then there shouldn't be a problem in recognising this. Resequenced English wouldn't be any less inspired or holy to God than say Tibetan or Aztec or Cherubimese would it??

Maybe I did not express my question clearly. What I said was the ex-Pentecostal pastor said that when his congregation implemented the 5 rules of Paul in 1Co14:25-35 the 5 rules "killed" (his word) the tongues, not he, not me, not Paul, simply putting those 5 rules into practice, while not forbidding, did in fact "kill" the practice - over a period of several weeks, not immediately. My question was, has anyone on this forum (Godsgirl?) attended a congregation which applies all 5 of those rules, and tongues still thrive?

God bless
Steven


Yes, all of Paul's rules are put into practice in my church. Yes, we have been a Pentecostal gathering since 1914 and are thriving.

ShirleyFord
Oct 12th 2007, 11:56 AM
Sorry, I don't understand your point here-like you said, these were already filled-so had already received the initial evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit-which is speaking in tongues as the Spirit enabled them to speak.

But the Bible doesn't say that any of them spoke in tongues or that the 12 apostles or any of the other 120 spoke messages in tongues and one of them interpreted so that the entire congregation could be blessed. And the Church by that time had grown to 8120.

Even with the 120 gathered corporately and publically together in the upper room on the day of Penticost, when they spoke in other tongues, they all 120 of them spoke in tongues at the same time. And none of them within the congregation gave an interpretation of the tongues they spoke. A multitude of unsaved Jews outside the upper room heard them speak in the language of the nation where each of them were born. But Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12 that the interpretation of tongues is one of the 9 gifts of the Spirit given to those in Christ, not to those not in Christ.

Steven3
Oct 12th 2007, 12:05 PM
Hi Godsgirl :)
Yes, all of Paul's rules are put into practice in my church. Yes, we have been a Pentecostal gathering since 1914 and are thriving.


Orderly Worship

26 What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. 27 (1) If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. 28 (2) But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. 29 (3) Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. 30 (4) If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. 33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, 34 (5) the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. 36 Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? 37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. 38 If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. 39 So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But all things should be done decently and in order.

You'd agree that the above means 2 or 3 men only (no women), in turn, and each of the 2 or 3 men's tongues translated into English?

That's highly commendable and I'm delighted to hear it. Do you mind if I ask what sub-denomination of Pentecostal it is, because it sounds as if it should be made an example for others.

God bless :)
Steven

godsgirl
Oct 12th 2007, 12:08 PM
But the Bible doesn't say that any of them spoke in tongues or that the 12 apostles or any of the other 120 spoke messages in tongues and one of them interpreted so that the entire congregation could be blessed. And the Church by that time had grown to 8120.

Even with the 120 gathered corporately and publically together in the upper room on the day of Penticost, when they spoke in other tongues, they all 120 of them spoke in tongues at the same time. And none of them within the congregation gave an interpretation of the tongues they spoke. A multitude of unsaved Jews outside the upper room heard them speak in the language of the nation where each of them were born. But Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12 that the interpretation of tongues is one of the 9 gifts of the Spirit given to those in Christ, not to those not in Christ.



Exactly-when we are initially baptised in the Holy Spirit we speak in tongues as the Spirit enables us....this is NOT the "gift of tongues" which is what Paul was speaking of...there are at least 2 different manifestations or uses of tongues ....they are different in purpose and use...here are some scriptures that point out those difference...





Public Gift of Tongues
Spiken with interpretation to the church (equal to prophecy-1 Corinthians 14L5)
To be interpreted (1 Corinthians 14:5)
Edifies the church (when intepreted-1 Corinthians 14:4)
A sign to unbelievers (1 Corinthians 14:22)
Not given to all believers (1 Corinthians 14:4)

Personal Prayer tongue
Spoken privately to God (1 Corinthians 14:2)
No interpretation necessary (1 Corinthians 14:28)
Edifies the individual believer (1 Corinthians 14:4)
Can be manifested when no unbelievers are present (Acts 10:46; 19:6)
Should be desired and practiced by all Christians (Mark 16:17; 1 Corinthians 14:5; Ephesians 6:18; Jude 20 ).

godsgirl
Oct 12th 2007, 12:17 PM
Hi Godsgirl :)



You'd agree that the above means 2 or 3 men only (no women), in turn, and each of the 2 or 3 men's tongues translated into English?

That's highly commendable and I'm delighted to hear it. Do you mind if I ask what sub-denomination of Pentecostal it is, because it sounds as if it should be made an example for others.

God bless :)
Steven


Ha Ha-women speaking in the church??? That's an old "red herring" that deserves it's own thread.

For sake of argument, I believe Paul was speaking of women asking questions in the service----"if there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home". Paul also said that he did not want women to pray or prophesy with their head uncovered--and "you may all prophesy"-now they must have been permitted to speak if they could pray or prophesy.

The key to Paul’s meaning in 1 Corinthians 14:34 in enjoining silence upon women in the churches is found in the immediate context. It refers to women benefiting or learning from what is taking place in the church and not to a public ministry for women, which the Scriptures elsewhere affirm.

Steven3
Oct 12th 2007, 12:21 PM
Hi Godsgirl :)
Ha Ha-women speaking in the church??? That's an old "red herring" that deserves it's own thread. Okay, actually I don't agree with Paul either, I just pasted it because it was in the Bible. Okay, scratch that one, let's reduce it to 4 rules ;). I take it then that your church have 2 or 3 men or women, each in turn, and always translated into English?
God bless
Steven

godsgirl
Oct 12th 2007, 01:14 PM
Hi Godsgirl :)Okay, actually I don't agree with Paul either, I just pasted it because it was in the Bible. Okay, scratch that one, let's reduce it to 4 rules ;). I take it then that your church have 2 or 3 men or women, each in turn, and always translated into English?
God bless
Steven


Yes, when a public manifestation of tongues-"the gift of tongues"-is manifested-one person speaks at a time-and one is given the gift of interpretation-personally, I have never been in a church that had more than 1 or 2 messages in tongues followed by the gift of interpretation, in any one service. And most services do not have any. We don't all stand around speaking in tongues at once-if that's what you mean, and I believe doing so is unbiblical.

Oh, I forgot--I attend an Assembly of God church--you did ask me that in an earlier post.

Steven3
Oct 13th 2007, 04:46 AM
Hiya GG :)
Yes, when a public manifestation of tongues-"the gift of tongues"-is manifested-one person speaks at a time-and one is given the gift of interpretation-personally, I have never been in a church that had more than 1 or 2 messages in tongues followed by the gift of interpretation, in any one service. And most services do not have any. We don't all stand around speaking in tongues at once-if that's what you mean, and I believe doing so is unbiblical.

Oh, I forgot--I attend an Assembly of God church--you did ask me that in an earlier post.

Good for you, good for your church :). Sorry I missed that you said AOG in earlier post. I don't have any further questions :). Though at some point, if you have time to share, I'd be interested to see posted a written interpretation of a good tongues message. Since these tongues (when translated) are for building up, it'd be worth sharing - if for nothing else then to get away from the stereotype of the simultaneous model, which you rightly say above is unscriptural.

God bless you
Steven

Mograce2U
Oct 13th 2007, 04:51 PM
Hiya GG :)

Good for you, good for your church :). Sorry I missed that you said AOG in earlier post. I don't have any further questions :). Though at some point, if you have time to share, I'd be interested to see posted a written interpretation of a good tongues message. Since these tongues (when translated) are for building up, it'd be worth sharing - if for nothing else then to get away from the stereotype of the simultaneous model, which you rightly say above is unscriptural.

God bless you
StevenMe too! I would love to be convinced otherwise.

godsgirl
Oct 13th 2007, 08:38 PM
Hiya GG :)

Good for you, good for your church :). Sorry I missed that you said AOG in earlier post. I don't have any further questions :). Though at some point, if you have time to share, I'd be interested to see posted a written interpretation of a good tongues message. Since these tongues (when translated) are for building up, it'd be worth sharing - if for nothing else then to get away from the stereotype of the simultaneous model, which you rightly say above is unscriptural.

God bless you
Steven

No, LOL ;) I meant, you asked me-and I forgot to answer-about the church I mean.
Blessings,