Benefits of Speaking, Praying, and Singing in Tongues
- Thread starter 88
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Hi Stones.
Jesus spoke Aramaic. "talitha cumi" is Aramaic, while "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani" from Matt 27:46 is Hebrew.
Jesus knew the languages. Therefore, neither were speaking in tongues.
Speaking in tongues was not possible before the day of Pentecost.
And if you would like another opinion:
Talitha Cumi--A Heavenly Language?
Jesus spoke Aramaic. "talitha cumi" is Aramaic, while "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani" from Matt 27:46 is Hebrew.
Jesus knew the languages. Therefore, neither were speaking in tongues.
Speaking in tongues was not possible before the day of Pentecost.
And if you would like another opinion:
Talitha Cumi--A Heavenly Language?
Last edited:
I can not handle good with cope it but here is a Web adress:.www.iamforshure.com >huskins ICCC but you can also google His Name and catholic church. Then you will find different sources.
When Paul says: I would... then this expresses his desire for that. So how you come to the conclusion that this is more then a desire?J
Jesus spoke the same language of Peter the one he was born under. Its not speaking in tongues but speaking prophecy the word of God not the word of men ..God’s interpretation to us . Tongues are a sign to those who believe not, prophecy (the word of God)
1Co 14:22 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.
Like all two fold gifts of God that he works in men (not a gift coming from men) God worked in Peter to give him the words to say, God interpreted it as prophecy in the ears of another. Some who understood the words of Peter believed not (no faith) it was a sign against them
It takes two to have a conversation . If when Paul spoke he spoke into the air the person he would be trying to brining the gospel to would be a barbarian to Paul and when he spoke to Paul words into the air without meaning Paul would be a barbarian to him .Its the hearing of faith not the speaking . Christ does all the speaking. None of scripture is of any private interpretation.
There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he (not Paul) that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me. (Paul) 1Co 14:10
1Co 14:22 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.
Like all two fold gifts of God that he works in men (not a gift coming from men) God worked in Peter to give him the words to say, God interpreted it as prophecy in the ears of another. Some who understood the words of Peter believed not (no faith) it was a sign against them
It takes two to have a conversation . If when Paul spoke he spoke into the air the person he would be trying to brining the gospel to would be a barbarian to Paul and when he spoke to Paul words into the air without meaning Paul would be a barbarian to him .Its the hearing of faith not the speaking . Christ does all the speaking. None of scripture is of any private interpretation.
There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he (not Paul) that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me. (Paul) 1Co 14:10
A few comments in no particular order...
I don’t get what the issue is over Paul’s comment that he speaks languages more than anyone ((presumably) anyone he knows of anyway).
Paul was a ‘world traveler’, such as it was in his day – he would have likely spoken, or at least have been marginally familiar with, several languages. That said, in the Mediterranean basin, for the most part he’d really only need one: Greek.
It certainly was possible to “speak in tongues” before Pentecost – glossolalia has been done for thousands of years before anyone ever heard of Christianity. Obviously it wasn’t done in the Christian tradition. Pentecost however, was real language – the Apostles use of use of Greek and Aramaic (the language of the local Jews present as well as those from the Diaspora) rather than the more proper and expected Hebrew in this situation. Real, known, identifiable languages.
Jesus did not speak in tongues – It seems some people (not you personally, I'm not implying anything here) assume passages such as “talitha kumi”) are ‘tongues’; the words he uses are Aramaic, but his “tongue” had to be properly “interpreted” for a Greek audience; hence the Greek translations for the Aramaic utterances in those passages. Perhaps an example of the proper use of 'tongues' and 'interpretation'.
Are tongues languages or ecstatic utterances?
They are languages.
If they are, what languages are they??
In interviews, the answers given.
What's the use of speaking in tongues? The only way I can answer that is to say, What's the us of a bluebird? What is the use of a sunset? Just sheer, unmitigated uplift, just joy unspeakable and with it health, peace and rest and release from burdens and tensions. Pa. housewife
"Oftentimes, very often in fact, I have to get my night's sleep sitting up in a Greyhound bus or on a jet plane. I don't recommend it as a substitute for a good mattress. But, I have a secret: the minute I close my eyes I begin to pray in the Spirit. I pray all night that way, waking up and drifting back to sleep, always praying. I don't get much sleep, but I get a lot of rest. The next morning I'm fresh and strong and ready for a full days work." David du Plessis, Pentecostal minister.
The second part of the first quote - The feeling of joy, peace, rest, release of burdens/tension when speaking tongues is natural. The human body produces adrenaline and endorphin when it experiences something new, exciting, emotional, and/or disconnected from rational thought. The same may be said of meditation or chanting. One of the many benefits of any one of these practices.
Second quote – the same effect could just as easily be achieved by listening to music, reciting a chant, humming to one self, etc., etc.
Neither effect/result can specifically be derived from, or is unique to, the practice of T-speech.
God would like all Christians to speak in tongues.
Where does that come from? Or is it just an understanding/assumption based on Paul's comment in Corinthians 14:5? Paul is just wishing people spoke more foreign languages; what better way to spread the message of Christianity to non-Greek/Aramaic speaking people than for it to be in their native languages instead of them having to learn Greek.
I don’t get what the issue is over Paul’s comment that he speaks languages more than anyone ((presumably) anyone he knows of anyway).
Paul was a ‘world traveler’, such as it was in his day – he would have likely spoken, or at least have been marginally familiar with, several languages. That said, in the Mediterranean basin, for the most part he’d really only need one: Greek.
It certainly was possible to “speak in tongues” before Pentecost – glossolalia has been done for thousands of years before anyone ever heard of Christianity. Obviously it wasn’t done in the Christian tradition. Pentecost however, was real language – the Apostles use of use of Greek and Aramaic (the language of the local Jews present as well as those from the Diaspora) rather than the more proper and expected Hebrew in this situation. Real, known, identifiable languages.
Jesus did not speak in tongues – It seems some people (not you personally, I'm not implying anything here) assume passages such as “talitha kumi”) are ‘tongues’; the words he uses are Aramaic, but his “tongue” had to be properly “interpreted” for a Greek audience; hence the Greek translations for the Aramaic utterances in those passages. Perhaps an example of the proper use of 'tongues' and 'interpretation'.
Are tongues languages or ecstatic utterances?
They are languages.
If they are, what languages are they??
In interviews, the answers given.
What's the use of speaking in tongues? The only way I can answer that is to say, What's the us of a bluebird? What is the use of a sunset? Just sheer, unmitigated uplift, just joy unspeakable and with it health, peace and rest and release from burdens and tensions. Pa. housewife
"Oftentimes, very often in fact, I have to get my night's sleep sitting up in a Greyhound bus or on a jet plane. I don't recommend it as a substitute for a good mattress. But, I have a secret: the minute I close my eyes I begin to pray in the Spirit. I pray all night that way, waking up and drifting back to sleep, always praying. I don't get much sleep, but I get a lot of rest. The next morning I'm fresh and strong and ready for a full days work." David du Plessis, Pentecostal minister.
The second part of the first quote - The feeling of joy, peace, rest, release of burdens/tension when speaking tongues is natural. The human body produces adrenaline and endorphin when it experiences something new, exciting, emotional, and/or disconnected from rational thought. The same may be said of meditation or chanting. One of the many benefits of any one of these practices.
Second quote – the same effect could just as easily be achieved by listening to music, reciting a chant, humming to one self, etc., etc.
Neither effect/result can specifically be derived from, or is unique to, the practice of T-speech.
God would like all Christians to speak in tongues.
Where does that come from? Or is it just an understanding/assumption based on Paul's comment in Corinthians 14:5? Paul is just wishing people spoke more foreign languages; what better way to spread the message of Christianity to non-Greek/Aramaic speaking people than for it to be in their native languages instead of them having to learn Greek.
It has been possible to speak in divers tongues since Babel.
Paul was likely well versed in three tongues. Latin being born a Roman citizen. Hebrew being a Jew and sitting at the feet of Gamaliel. Aramaic as it was the most common language in use at the time.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Paul was likely well versed in three tongues. Latin being born a Roman citizen. Hebrew being a Jew and sitting at the feet of Gamaliel. Aramaic as it was the most common language in use at the time.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Paul was likely well versed in three tongues. Latin being born a Roman citizen. Hebrew being a Jew and sitting at the feet of Gamaliel. Aramaic as it was the most common language in use at the time.
I would tend to agree, at least Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic, and of course (I think you left this one out) Greek; the 'English' of it's day.
So, at least four. With these, he could have traveled just about anywhere in the Mediterranean basin and have no problem getting by.
I would tend to agree, at least Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic, and of course (I think you left this one out) Greek; the 'English' of it's day.
So, at least four. With these, he could have traveled just about anywhere in the Mediterranean basin and have no problem getting by.
Should have added to post 43 that the phrase “Eli, Eli…..” is Aramaic, not Hebrew.
As Steve Caruso, one of the foremost scholars of Galilean Aramaic, explains it:
"In truth, this phrase has been subject to a game of telephone, which started in Aramaic and twisted its way through Greek, and some German spelling conventions, before landing in English.
This phrase is an Aramaic translation of the beginning of Psalm 22, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Why art thou so far from helping me, from the words of my groaning?”
As we can see from extant translations in other Aramaic dialects, in Jesus’ native Galilean Aramaic, it was most likely rendered:
/əlahí əlahí ləmáh šəvaqtáni/
(The upside-down ‘e’ is the ‘schwa sound’, rest of vowels are as in Italian, accents show the stress, the š is as ‘sh’, the ‘q’ is a more guttural ‘k’ sound. - my edit)
When the Gospel writers were compiling their work in Greek, they ran into some interesting problems. Mainly that the Greek writing system had no way to express some of these sounds. It ended up with this (or something like it, as there is some variation from manuscript to manuscript):
ελοι ελοι λαμα σαβαχθανι - elü elü lama saḇaḥṯani
1. In Greek, there was not a sufficient 1 to 1 relationship with Aramaic vowels. Galilean’s ə (shewa) and its open vowel a (patah) were under many circumstances differentiated solely by emphasis and were slightly colored depending upon what sounds fell nearby. In trying to approximate them, the Greek scribe chose what sounded the closest based upon Greek vocalization.
2. There is no way to indicate an “h” sound in the middle of a word. So the “h” sounds in əlahi disappeared, and there was an unintended consequence: The two letters ο (omicron) and ι (iota) when placed together formed a diphthong, similar to the nasalized eu in French. In truth, if the diphthong were broken and the two vowels spoken separately with an “h” in the middle, they are very good approximations to the original.
3. There is also no way to express an sh sound (above š) so it was replaced with what was closest: σ (sigma, an “s” sound).
4. There was no “q” sound, which in Aramaic is a guttural “k” in the very back of the throat. It was replaced with χ (chi, a sound like clearing your throat).
5. And finally, the particular quality of the t was closer to their θ (theta) than to their τ (tau), so it was replaced with the former, softer sound.
Now when the Bible was translated into English, it went through yet another transliteration… but this time from the Greek. It looked (for the most part) like this:
Eloi, Eloi! Lama sabachthani?
How did we arrive at this from the Greek? Greek transliteration conventions were influenced by German transliteration conventions:
1. Again, Greek vowels aren’t at all 1:1 with English vowels — they represented different sounds — but their cognates in transliteration were very well established.
1. ε and η → e,
2. ο and ω→o,
3. ι→i,
4. α→a,
5. υ→y or u,
6. etc.
2. The use of these transliterations actually broke up the οι diphthong in reading — so that was a step back in the right direction.
3. The letter χ (ḥ, chi) is, through German transliteration, rendered as “ch,” as the digraph ch in German makes a similar sound.
4. The letter θ (theta) is transliterated as “th” as that’s the closest sound in English, although the quality of it is not nearly as breathy.
So there you have it."
As Steve Caruso, one of the foremost scholars of Galilean Aramaic, explains it:
"In truth, this phrase has been subject to a game of telephone, which started in Aramaic and twisted its way through Greek, and some German spelling conventions, before landing in English.
This phrase is an Aramaic translation of the beginning of Psalm 22, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Why art thou so far from helping me, from the words of my groaning?”
As we can see from extant translations in other Aramaic dialects, in Jesus’ native Galilean Aramaic, it was most likely rendered:
/əlahí əlahí ləmáh šəvaqtáni/
(The upside-down ‘e’ is the ‘schwa sound’, rest of vowels are as in Italian, accents show the stress, the š is as ‘sh’, the ‘q’ is a more guttural ‘k’ sound. - my edit)
When the Gospel writers were compiling their work in Greek, they ran into some interesting problems. Mainly that the Greek writing system had no way to express some of these sounds. It ended up with this (or something like it, as there is some variation from manuscript to manuscript):
ελοι ελοι λαμα σαβαχθανι - elü elü lama saḇaḥṯani
1. In Greek, there was not a sufficient 1 to 1 relationship with Aramaic vowels. Galilean’s ə (shewa) and its open vowel a (patah) were under many circumstances differentiated solely by emphasis and were slightly colored depending upon what sounds fell nearby. In trying to approximate them, the Greek scribe chose what sounded the closest based upon Greek vocalization.
2. There is no way to indicate an “h” sound in the middle of a word. So the “h” sounds in əlahi disappeared, and there was an unintended consequence: The two letters ο (omicron) and ι (iota) when placed together formed a diphthong, similar to the nasalized eu in French. In truth, if the diphthong were broken and the two vowels spoken separately with an “h” in the middle, they are very good approximations to the original.
3. There is also no way to express an sh sound (above š) so it was replaced with what was closest: σ (sigma, an “s” sound).
4. There was no “q” sound, which in Aramaic is a guttural “k” in the very back of the throat. It was replaced with χ (chi, a sound like clearing your throat).
5. And finally, the particular quality of the t was closer to their θ (theta) than to their τ (tau), so it was replaced with the former, softer sound.
Now when the Bible was translated into English, it went through yet another transliteration… but this time from the Greek. It looked (for the most part) like this:
Eloi, Eloi! Lama sabachthani?
How did we arrive at this from the Greek? Greek transliteration conventions were influenced by German transliteration conventions:
1. Again, Greek vowels aren’t at all 1:1 with English vowels — they represented different sounds — but their cognates in transliteration were very well established.
1. ε and η → e,
2. ο and ω→o,
3. ι→i,
4. α→a,
5. υ→y or u,
6. etc.
2. The use of these transliterations actually broke up the οι diphthong in reading — so that was a step back in the right direction.
3. The letter χ (ḥ, chi) is, through German transliteration, rendered as “ch,” as the digraph ch in German makes a similar sound.
4. The letter θ (theta) is transliterated as “th” as that’s the closest sound in English, although the quality of it is not nearly as breathy.
So there you have it."
That's not true. Peter and the others spoke in tongues, and the tongues they were speaking were the languages of those present. That is not guaranteed to happen, in fact it rarely happens. This is why when tongues is spoken in public it must always be interpreted.
Speaking in tongues is not a conversation.
When a person speaks in tongues the person is speaking.
Very true!
Paul was simply explaining why when tongues is spoken in public it must be interpreted.
Speaking in tongues is not a conversation.
When a person speaks in tongues the person is speaking.
Very true!
Paul was simply explaining why when tongues is spoken in public it must be interpreted.
John Sherrill:
None of us wants to be part of a passing fad, any more than we want to stand aside while a great move of God is taking place. (I question this). I suppose with Gamaliel, that an ideal attitude would be something like this: "if this plan or this undertaking is of men, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!" Acts 5:38
Well, it hasn't stopped since the first birth of the church...and it won't until God deems it done.
None of us wants to be part of a passing fad, any more than we want to stand aside while a great move of God is taking place. (I question this). I suppose with Gamaliel, that an ideal attitude would be something like this: "if this plan or this undertaking is of men, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!" Acts 5:38
Well, it hasn't stopped since the first birth of the church...and it won't until God deems it done.