Praying in Tongues

  • 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.

Lanolin

Well-known member
Dec 15, 2018
9,974
3,624
113
Praying in tongues whether in unknown tongue either mans or angelic...is beneficial. Not so much since we in our minds dont understand but for God.

See 1 corinthians 14:2

What is gobbldeygook or mumbo jumbo or mystery to man is completely understandable to God.
 
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,357
113
Praying in tongues whether in unknown tongue either mans or angelic...is beneficial. Not so much since we in our minds dont understand but for God.

See 1 corinthians 14:2

What is gobbldeygook or mumbo jumbo or mystery to man is completely understandable to God.
Sorry...I do not buy it.....God understands my English just fine there is NO practical application of a man needing to pray in some unknown language when God understands every language known to man, creation and or angels......
 
7

7seasrekeyed

Guest
Until you can be honest, which I have noticed with you is a quality you seem to lack.......all I see you saying is blah, blah, blah......get some honesty....it goes a long way......Nothing I said was wrong or false.........here let me help you....

hon·es·ty
/ˈänəstē/
noun

  1. 1.
    the quality of being honest.
    "they spoke with convincing honesty about their fears"
    synonyms:moral correctness, uprightness, honorableness, honor, integrity, morals, morality, ethics, principle, (high) principles, nobility, righteousness, rectitude, right-mindedness, upstandingness;
did you miss where I pointed out that you deliberately leave out the scripture that shows how you twist what it says?

you cannot respond to the following because it shows which one here is not being truthful


your post 554

The tragic truth......the only church in the N.T. that had an issue with the gifts and like today BOASTED of the ability to speak tongues, was the spiritually immature Corinthian assembly that had some 15 errors.........and it took over three chapters to correct their error.........many of the same errors are found within churches today that make a big deal of speaking in tongues and I am not saying this based upon bias and or a lack of info as I have many family and friends that attend these types of churches. Paul was clear and so is the verbiage found in the Corinthian letter.....if ONE is going to covet a GIFT Paul said to covet the BEST gift and tongues was not it........

I fully expect those that push tongues to argue against the truth..........

Fail, cease and vanish away are clear, so is the word perfect as applied to a 1st Century Greek speaking believer.

Super natural knowledge is no longer needed due to the completed bible
Prophecy is no longer needed due to the completed bible and the last BOOK of Prophecy
And tongues has devolved into some mumbo jumbo that does nothing for the hearer......


When one can stand and speak fluent Mandarin with zero training in an open assembly with another to translate for the sake of a Chinese visitor that does not speak ENGLISH then the true meaning of tongues as applied in the 1st Century will be evident.

Why is it so hard for the truth to be accepted.

another ad hominum attack

you deliver words that are derogatory concerning a gift God gives and then get upset when people disagree with you

it's not your version of the truth that is truth. it's God's word that is truth

I called you on the way you mock tongues and since then, you have called me a liar

you dish it out but you cannot take it

again, you post ad hominum attacks...personal attacks...such as calling me a liar...no scripture...just your own desire to argue and make problems here for people who do not agree with you.

it's really childish
 
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,357
113
did you miss where I pointed out that you deliberately leave out the scripture that shows how you twist what it says?

you cannot respond to the following because it shows which one here is not being truthful


your post 554

The tragic truth......the only church in the N.T. that had an issue with the gifts and like today BOASTED of the ability to speak tongues, was the spiritually immature Corinthian assembly that had some 15 errors.........and it took over three chapters to correct their error.........many of the same errors are found within churches today that make a big deal of speaking in tongues and I am not saying this based upon bias and or a lack of info as I have many family and friends that attend these types of churches. Paul was clear and so is the verbiage found in the Corinthian letter.....if ONE is going to covet a GIFT Paul said to covet the BEST gift and tongues was not it........

I fully expect those that push tongues to argue against the truth..........

Fail, cease and vanish away are clear, so is the word perfect as applied to a 1st Century Greek speaking believer.

Super natural knowledge is no longer needed due to the completed bible
Prophecy is no longer needed due to the completed bible and the last BOOK of Prophecy
And tongues has devolved into some mumbo jumbo that does nothing for the hearer......


When one can stand and speak fluent Mandarin with zero training in an open assembly with another to translate for the sake of a Chinese visitor that does not speak ENGLISH then the true meaning of tongues as applied in the 1st Century will be evident.

Why is it so hard for the truth to be accepted.

another ad hominum attack

you deliver words that are derogatory concerning a gift God gives and then get upset when people disagree with you

it's not your version of the truth that is truth. it's God's word that is truth

I called you on the way you mock tongues and since then, you have called me a liar

you dish it out but you cannot take it

again, you post ad hominum attacks...personal attacks...such as calling me a liar...no scripture...just your own desire to argue and make problems here for people who do not agree with you.

it's really childish
I left out nothing and the bolded above is factual and the word cease does not mean continue.........get some honesty or do not address me.......end of story.

What takes place is many so called churches is not biblical, nor from God.......this ecstatic jibberish that takes place is NOT even comparable to the biblical definition of LANGUAGES <---let us use the proper word.....and or how they were employed in the 1st century churches.....
 
7

7seasrekeyed

Guest
I left out nothing and the bolded above is factual and the word cease does not mean continue.........get some honesty or do not address me.......end of story.

What takes place is many so called churches is not biblical, nor from God.......this ecstatic jibberish that takes place is NOT even comparable to the biblical definition of LANGUAGES <---let us use the proper word.....and or how they were employed in the 1st century churches.....
you still cannot explain why you choose to leave out what Paul actually had to say regarding tongues

he did not say do not ask to speak in tongues, in fact he said do not forbid speaking in tongues and he also said he thanked God that he spoke in tongues more than anyone

I have every confidence you will continue on as you are, but it is anything but truthful. you cannot address scripture but continue on with silly personal comments that anyone who can read, knows you have misquoted and been devious about

here is what Paul said about tongues for instance...what you call mumbo jumbo...Paul says those people are speaking to God


eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit,especially prophecy. 2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit.

it's really pretty devious to keep saying the opposite of what Paul writes and call it the truth
 
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,357
113
you still cannot explain why you choose to leave out what Paul actually had to say regarding tongues

he did not say do not ask to speak in tongues, in fact he said do not forbid speaking in tongues and he also said he thanked God that he spoke in tongues more than anyone

I have every confidence you will continue on as you are, but it is anything but truthful. you cannot address scripture but continue on with silly personal comments that anyone who can read, knows you have misquoted and been devious about

here is what Paul said about tongues for instance...what you call mumbo jumbo...Paul says those people are speaking to God


eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit,especially prophecy. 2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit.

it's really pretty devious to keep saying the opposite of what Paul writes and call it the truth
He also said tongues would cease and he would rather speak 5 words of understanding than 10000 in an unknown tongue.......and again you fail to acknowledge that WHAT I am hammering is the modern day ecstatic mumbo jumbo played as LANGUAGES.........
 
7

7seasrekeyed

Guest
He also said tongues would cease and he would rather speak 5 words of understanding than 10000 in an unknown tongue.......and again you fail to acknowledge that WHAT I am hammering is the modern day ecstatic mumbo jumbo played as LANGUAGES.........

he also said knowledge would cease in the same sentence...obviously he was speaking of a future time when we would know even as we are now known

that is a well known and dismissed argument for those who desire tongues would cease because they do not wish to accept tongues

as has been said multiple times and even several in this thread alone, when knowledge ceases, then tongues will also

as it is, Paul says that the one who speaks in tongues and does not interpret, prays to God and it is a mystery

Paul was correcting the Corinthian use of speaking in tongues without interpretation which is why he says he would rather speak in the understanding ... when tongues is used in proper context, people are following Paul's instructions

I know what you are saying...I don't agree. so if by acknowledge you mean I acknowledge what you say, I have many times...however I do not agree
 

stonesoffire

Poetic Member
Nov 24, 2013
10,639
1,808
113
Just a little add here. The understanding that Paul spoke of that he would rather move out of was prophecy. Not preaching though one can give a message entirely in the Spirit. That is how Smith Wigglesworth moved. He would not speak a word until the anointing came on him.
 
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,357
113
he also said knowledge would cease in the same sentence...obviously he was speaking of a future time when we would know even as we are now known

that is a well known and dismissed argument for those who desire tongues would cease because they do not wish to accept tongues

as has been said multiple times and even several in this thread alone, when knowledge ceases, then tongues will also

as it is, Paul says that the one who speaks in tongues and does not interpret, prays to God and it is a mystery

Paul was correcting the Corinthian use of speaking in tongues without interpretation which is why he says he would rather speak in the understanding ... when tongues is used in proper context, people are following Paul's instructions

I know what you are saying...I don't agree. so if by acknowledge you mean I acknowledge what you say, I have many times...however I do not agree
Supernaturally given knowledge would VANISH AWAY....it has with the completed word of GOD...there is no new revelation....and when Corinthians was written, there was some 35 to 40 years left to complete the N.T........all three ended with the COMPLETED word of God......there is NO need for the signs anymore.....faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God....NOT signs......
 

Noose

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2016
5,096
932
113
all can apply depending on how the context is used yet it is not the word "father" the wrong was not calling them father but how they were wanting to be seen and given honor.
Wrong.
We are having one Father, He who is in heaven; the people on earth, whether they want honor or not are never to be called 'spiritual fathers' for that reason- the reason being, we have one Father in heaven. But why do you have 'church fathers', is it because they (church fathers) did not want honor but you have decided to give them honor? or is it because the church originated from them?
 

Noose

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2016
5,096
932
113
the context of who we call father and the context of the systematic range of the word Father, father, and elder, and teacher have to be taken in context to the title meaning.

Matthew 23:9

"And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
the context what Jesus is saying you do not give and earthly men ( Pharisees) the kind of Reverence that God Alone is entitled to.

Father =God: God is called the Father the originator and transmitter of anything The " Creator".
father=man generator or male ancestor what the Pharisees were doing
"one who has infused his own spirit into others, who actuates and governs their minds "

Jesus was saying you do not allow any man to do that BUT GOD

That is why Jesus was teaching this to the disciples and the people. The Pharisees were control freaks as were the scribes.
read what Jesus said and see the context in the meaning:
:3 "All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that to observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.


Matthew 23:4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
:13 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
the title of father here was the Pharisees wanted to be seen as god yet they were not even worthy to be called father in the lower sense of the word.
You cannot teach me what the term 'father' means, with reference to what Jesus taught in Matt 23, it is either a spiritual father which He said there's one in heaven. There's also the biological father or ancestors; the Israelites would call their elders father because they believed they came from the same ancestry line so had a biological connection.

The Pharisees did not mean to be called biological fathers but spiritual fathers and what Jesus was talking about was not biological connection but spiritual connection. And Jesus never meant that after the Pharisees or after the 1st century then you can have other spiritual fathers other than God.

Satan is also a spiritual father to many. Any spiritual father apart from God is questionable.
Now, on what basis do you have 'church fathers', do you have any biological connection with them?
 

wolfwint

Senior Member
Feb 15, 2014
2,895
670
113
well if that were the case, the gospel would not have got very far

child baptism does not make one a member of anything but may require a towel...as you appear to state

as an infant I was also baptized as was the want of the Lutheran church...German...but then my parents were saved and when I was 5 I also accepted Jesus as my Savior who died for the remission of my sins

the churches are packed to the rafters with nominal Christians who are no better off than the Catholics they look down on

a Christian is one who follows Christ. living in church life are many hiding the fact they have no personal relationship with the One they say they believe in
zv
well if that were the case, the gospel would not have got very far

child baptism does not make one a member of anything but may require a towel...as you appear to state


as an infant I was also baptized as was the want of the Lutheran church...German...but then my parents were saved and when I was 5 I also accepted Jesus as my Savior who died for the remission of my sins

the churches are packed to the rafters with nominal Christians who are no better off than the Catholics they look down on

a Christian is one who follows Christ. living in church life are many hiding the fact they have no personal relationship with the One they say they believe in
Well, i a living today. Of couse missionaries brought the Gospel into the world, also to Germany and USA.
But the churches today are not full of missionaries, but of members which following a job and family life. They build the base of a church. This I meant with "normal" believer.

I would not have such much difficulties to accept tonguespeaking for today, if I could see this in a christian life without connection to a charismatic ore pentecostal teaching.
But what i find today is a mixing from acts and the letter to the corithians for to build such a teaching.
And as I said before, no one taught this after the apostolic time till the pentecostal movement starts in 1900.
 

obedienttogod

Well-known member
Jan 3, 2019
1,012
342
83
For this reason the one who speaks in a tongue should pray that they may interpret what they say. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15 So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my understanding. 16 Otherwise when you are praising God in the Spirit, how can someone else, who is now put in the position of an enquirer,[d] say ‘Amen’ to your thanksgiving, since they do not know what you are saying? 17 You are giving thanks well enough, but no one else is edified. 1cor14:14-17

It seems you can pray in tongues without speaking in anyones native language


Most true Pentecostal churches have known this phenomena for the past century. It's why we laugh when other denominations confront us concerning if the Tongues we speak is authentic or not. From our point of view, it's comical to see pastors and preachers condemn us, when it's obviously clear they don't even understand the word of God!!
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
30,043
9,687
113
can't answer my question?

what do you think about praying in tongues?

don't believe tongues are still active?

no problem. just say so
i'm not sure what we're talking about.

the woman singing in this post is the closest thing i can think of to a glossolalia that may actually be genuine. she's pentecostal, though the musical group itself is some kind of broad new-age spiritualist. the song is a prayer. she sings in an unknown language.

is this tongues? who can interpret?

Acts Ch 2 is one of the least controversial chapters in all the Bible. Crisp, ordered, well defined.
Crystal clear IMO.
Acts 2 is very clearly natural, identifiable, authentic & well-known languages, not glossolalia

we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!
(Acts 2:11)

this doesn't seem to me to be the same thing as what modern charismatic churches call tongues. am i being asked about someone fluently speaking Mandarin who has absolutely no natural knowledge of it, or about uttering a kind of structured, ecstatic gibberish which, like an abstract painting, is open to any number of possible private interpretations, all equally valid in meaning?

the former, being genuinely miraculous, if what is said praises Him, is from God. i will not presume to limit Him.
the latter is so easy to fake and so undefined, so indistinguishable from pagan babble, that i find it very difficult to flatly accept. i know of zero documented instances of the former in the last thousand years, which is a strange bit of data in this era where nearly everyone in the western world has a recording device & translator in their pocket. i'd love to see evidence.
the latter is prolific but indefinite and i am suspicious of it for obvious reasons.


if someone can legitimately interpret this song then it would greatly help me to be able to legitimately answer your question, 7seas..


if this is tongues.
& tbh, i'd probably want to hear it being interpreted by more than one person without the two having any communication with each other, to test whether the claim of a gift of interpretation is equally genuine. there are many wolves in the church; many clever, clever wolves, and on this subject, we sheep are profoundly easy to fool. i want to distinguish between emotionalism and truth.
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
7,466
4,478
113
i'm not sure what we're talking about.

the woman singing in this post is the closest thing i can think of to a glossolalia that may actually be genuine. she's pentecostal, though the musical group itself is some kind of broad new-age spiritualist. the song is a prayer. she sings in an unknown language.

is this tongues? who can interpret?



Acts 2 is very clearly natural, identifiable, authentic & well-known languages, not glossolalia

we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!
(Acts 2:11)

this doesn't seem to me to be the same thing as what modern charismatic churches call tongues. am i being asked about someone fluently speaking Mandarin who has absolutely no natural knowledge of it, or about uttering a kind of structured, ecstatic gibberish which, like an abstract painting, is open to any number of possible private interpretations, all equally valid in meaning?

the former, being genuinely miraculous, if what is said praises Him, is from God. i will not presume to limit Him.
the latter is so easy to fake and so undefined, so indistinguishable from pagan babble, that i find it very difficult to flatly accept. i know of zero documented instances of the former in the last thousand years, which is a strange bit of data in this era where nearly everyone in the western world has a recording device & translator in their pocket. i'd love to see evidence.
the latter is prolific but indefinite and i am suspicious of it for obvious reasons.


if someone can legitimately interpret this song then it would greatly help me to be able to legitimately answer your question, 7seas..


if this is tongues.
& tbh, i'd probably want to hear it being interpreted by more than one person without the two having any communication with each other, to test whether the claim of a gift of interpretation is equally genuine. there are many wolves in the church; many clever, clever wolves, and on this subject, we sheep are profoundly easy to fool. i want to distinguish between emotionalism and truth.
Any nonsensical gibberish is either a deception or infantile acting. Both are bogus, both are useless, both are non-biblical. I really do not see the problem here other than extreme tolerance and a lack of intellectual rigor and outright abandonment of discernment on the part of the observers.
 

Kavik

Senior Member
Mar 25, 2017
620
133
43
@ Stonesoffire –
“It reminds me of a song. Like a repeating chorus.”

Yes, what your referring to is a feature of glossolalia; namely, the repetition of syllables. The result of this is that much of the glossic string is extremely repetitive (which, by the way, can lend itself to be said to almost have the quality of a ‘song text/lyric’).

“It's source is right in the description Kavik for it is soulish. Nothing of Holy Spirit mentioned nor would it be. It's not from heaven.”

Light Language is one of many non-Christian forms of glossolalia. One of the characteristics of LL is that its speakers believe in the concept of the healing power of musical certain musical tones and as such, it’s common to hear a string of speech ‘interrupted’ or followed by an intonation of a particular note. LL is produced the same way Christian “tongues” are; it draws from the speaker’s native language (or any other language they may have had contact with).

@ CS1 –
nope, not at all. You add words to the context of tongues to fit your understanding modern tongues is not a Theological term it is secular human. FYI God is never confused.

I would have to say that it’s certain Christian groups who are trying to take something which is very tangible, easily explained, self-created, and very much worldly/physical and turn it into something spiritual based on the modern tongues experience which itself is based on a compete redefinition/understanding of the Biblical narratives (again, to fit the modern experience). It’s these groups that are twisting reality and turning modern “tongues” into something it simply is not and never was.

@posthuman

The singer in the videos is using an idiogloss influenced by the language of various ethnic communities in Melbourne where she lived. An idiogloss is similar to glossolalia. Where glossolalia is random and typically can’t be repeated by the person speaking it, an idiogloss is not random; it’s purposefully ‘constructed’ (for lack of a better way of putting it). An idiogloss can be repeated and even written down; though it doesn’t appear anyone has ever transcribed her song. The fact she can perform the same song with the same ‘lyrics’ each time she sings it is a strong indicator of an idiogloss. So, it’s not glossolalia (“tongues”), but something akin to it.

As Brendan Perry (the other half of “Dead Can Dance”), states: “The lyrics are all influenced by various languages but have no syntactical meaning in any given language”.

She’s a perfect example of how a gifted singer can use the human voice to convey meaning and emotion while the lyrics themselves are completely devoid of meaning. The listener has no clue what she’s saying, but in this case, that’s exactly the point; the lyrics are irrelevant. It’s the singer’s use of her voice that carries the ‘meaning’ and emotion of the song.
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
6,467
1,804
113
You are expecting me to believe this when it is 100% contrary to the way it happened in Acts?

And on top of this....Paul....who was taught by direct revelation from Jesus, the same Paul who was inspired by God and which writes almost HALF of the New Testament said that he would rather speak 5 words of understanding then 10,000 in an UNKNOWN language.

And yet we are expected to believe that what took place is biblical even though it

a. Is not similar to what took place in Acts
b. Flies in the face of what Paul said concerning "UNKNOWN" tongues

Were you there to witness it?

And sorry......I cannot accept something as biblical when it is not even similar to what actually took place in Acts 2........Peter and company spoke in their own tongue and the people heard in their own language.....


I am not mouthing, arguing or being flippant in my remarks.........I can only go with biblical examples CS......
I don't expect you to believe anything I and guess what
You cannot teach me what the term 'father' means, with reference to what Jesus taught in Matt 23, it is either a spiritual father which He said there's one in heaven. There's also the biological father or ancestors; the Israelites would call their elders father because they believed they came from the same ancestry line so had a biological connection.

The Pharisees did not mean to be called biological fathers but spiritual fathers and what Jesus was talking about was not biological connection but spiritual connection. And Jesus never meant that after the Pharisees or after the 1st century then you can have other spiritual fathers other than God.

Satan is also a spiritual father to many. Any spiritual father apart from God is questionable.
Now, on what basis do you have 'church fathers', do you have any biological connection with them?
OK