Speaking 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.

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,082
1,749
113
saying there was a revival of sign gifts is like saying there was a revival of the the great flood
sign gifts were a sign to the Jews given to the apostles only, gifts of the spirit were given to the church for edifying and serving, such as gift of teaching, hospitality, knowledge, helps etc etc.
Can you show me where the Bible ever mentions 'sign gifts'? I can't find it. I can find certain sections of the Bible that list spiritual gifts. I Corinthians 12 mentions gifts given to edify the church-- the word of wisdom, the word of knowledge, prophecy, faith, discernment of spirituals, healing, miracles, speaking in tongues and interpretation of tongues. These are given to profit the body of Christ. Romans 12 lists prophecy, exhortation teaching, serving, and leading. But I cannot find a passage that calls hospitality a gift, but it is commanded.

You have only to look at the religions that claim some sort of sign gift, some are far from sound doctrine and go so far as to deny the Trinity (Oneness Pentecostals and mormons for instance)
Look at those churches that deny the gifts of the Spirit. Some of them are Jehovah's Witnesses congregations that deny the deity of Christ, and that follow an organization that has denied the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Yeah, those Jehovah's Witnesses are cessationists.

That's the same sort of argument you made.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,082
1,749
113
except I hold that a tongue is not unknowable babble, but an acutal language as in Acts 2 and as it has been defined by scripture itself in first mention of tongues ergo"

Paul spoke in many languages.......well of course he did, look at all the nations he went to from Israel to Italy. Early chrisitan writers did not know what tongues were as they had ceased by end of apostolic era.
Ireneaus wrote 'Against Heresies.' He lived around 200 AD. He wrote of brethren who spoke in tongues, prophesied, and had foreknowledge. He wrote about his church having raised the dead and believed all churches should. He also considered rejecting prophecy as being a characteristic of the heresies.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,082
1,749
113
Signs are what binds those who walk by sight called "sign gifts". There goal as it seem is to make the Son of man Jesus into a circus seal. Jesus informed them its a evil generation that walks by sight as if the kingdom of God did come by observation.
No, Jesus did not say that. Jesus had performed a miracle of multiplying food. The verse about walking by faith and not by sight is in Paul's writings.

John 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

A sign of God mocking those who mock Him against those who will not hear prophecy.
What does that have to do with the verse you quoted?

No outward sign of believers prophecy.
These are words strung together. This is not a complete sentence of a complete thought.

God looks upon the hearts with those who do mix faith in what they hear coming from prophecy. According to Hebrew 4 their hearts remain hard as they continue not to hear as God gives ears to hear prophecy.

Its easy to see who the sign is against and what it points to or confirms. Just go to the foundation Isaiah 28

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. 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.1 Corinthians 14:21-22
The people in John 6 asked for bread from heaven, not speaking in tongues.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,082
1,749
113
Also modern tongues to do correspond to biblical tongues, and that is readily admitted by modern Charismatics and Pentecostals.
Hmmm. Name one who has said that. Find one church that teaches that.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
24,339
12,870
113
Hmmm. Name one who has said that. Find one church that teaches that.
*The Bible tells us in several places that we should make use of this ability as often as possible (1 Cor 14:14-15, Eph 6:18, Jude 1:20, etc). It also tells us of many ways that it benefits the person that is doing it. We are specifically told that no one will understand this language. It is meant for communication between you and the Lord.

1 Corinthians 14:2 – 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.
This is a faith activity between you and God. If other don’t people understand what you are saying, it is not an issue because what you are saying is not intended for them. When you are using your “prayer language,” no interpretation is required or expected. If someone complains, just say “I wasn’t talking to you.”*

https://bornofspirit.net/tongues-the-spiritual-gift-vs-tongues-the-prayer-language/
 

GraceAndTruth

Well-known member
Sep 28, 2015
2,031
637
113
Ireneaus wrote 'Against Heresies.' He lived around 200 AD. He wrote of brethren who spoke in tongues, prophesied, and had foreknowledge. He wrote about his church having raised the dead and believed all churches should. He also considered rejecting prophecy as being a characteristic of the heresies.
I would like the specific reference if you know it. For my own education. I am aware of who Ireneaus is.

I do know that in the homilies of Chrysostum, (died circa 407AD) the verses in 1 Corinthians referring to tongues, he said they did not exist in his time and nobone knew what they were because they had ceased so long before.
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
No, Jesus did not say that. Jesus had performed a miracle of multiplying food. The verse about walking by faith and not by sight is in Paul's writings.
God performs miracles every day .He brings rain or healing for the just as well as those not justified. Every day we rely on the miracles of God. He holds all things together by the power of His eternal will

Many that were there in the multiplying food as those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, fell away because they did not mix faith in what they did hear or see. Seeing a miracle does not save a person . The verse about walking by faith and not by sight is in Paul's writings.

Jesus said its an evil generation (natural man who does seek after the things seen (no faith)

What does that have to do with the verse you quoted?
The verse I did offer below reveals that they must see before they would believe God .This mocks God in regard to His holy place not seen.

John 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, "that we may see, and believe thee"? what dost thou work?
These are words strung together. This is not a complete sentence of a complete thought.
I was trying to say there is no outward sign for believers, none just prophecy, as it is written.

The people in John 6 asked for bread from heaven, not speaking in tongues.
Bread throughout scripture is used to represent the word of God "prophecy". Tongues as one of the many manners is prophecy spoken in many languages giving the hearer the gospel. Three thousand souls were given the hearing of faith When Peter spoke one. message. .

If a person wants to look at the tongues teaching they must begin at the foundation of the law (Isiah28) That law in 1 Corinthian 14: 21-22. it clearly confirm those who mock the word of God. Not a sign for those who hear and believe . No outward sign for that .

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.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.1 Corinthians 14:21-22

It would seem someone turned where God's word prophecy comes from upside down as another oral tradition of men therefore making the word of god to no effect as if God who framed His word had no understanding to offer.

The unbelieving Jew performed that over and over. Again the reason he mocked them by speaking to all the nations of the world.

The sign of mocking the Jews (Isaiah 28) still confirm they have no faith .

Isaiah 29:16 Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
I would like the specific reference if you know it. For my own education. I am aware of who Ireneaus is.

I do know that in the homilies of Chrysostum, (died circa 407AD) the verses in 1 Corinthians referring to tongues, he said they did not exist in his time and nobone knew what they were because they had ceased so long before.
Yes the last new revelation before God sealed up His book of prophecy to include the manner of tongues warns us not to add or sub tract from the whole or perfect law . Formally having it in part. The Catholics paid no mind to the warning. This can be seen by looking at the private revelations from what they call Mystics or Patrons Saints (disembodied workers with familiar spirit gods ) its easy to see they desire to widen the authority of God's word so they can lord it over men.
 

GraceAndTruth

Well-known member
Sep 28, 2015
2,031
637
113
No. The Last Twelve Verses of Mark are GENUINE SCRIPTURE. Read and stuy the book by the same title written by Dean John W. Burgon, an outstanding textual scholar in his own right, and one of the few who did not get duped by Westcott & Hort (as did Metzger).
For shame to villify a great scholar like Metzger.

1990--The Testimony of Bruce Metzger.
In 1990, Dr. Kirk D. DiVietro, a Baptist Pastor, wrote to Dr. Bruce Metzger about how he and the other members of the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies Committee began their work on their New Testament Greek Texts. Dr. Metzger replied to him as follows:
"We took as our base at the beginning the text of Westcott and Hort (1881) and introduced changes as seemed necessary on the basis of MSS evidence."
So the MSS was used to correct W & H where necessary.

W & H it is generally agreed to not be very good, bible students would not use it.
 

GraceAndTruth

Well-known member
Sep 28, 2015
2,031
637
113
Yes the last new revelation before God sealed up His book of prophecy to include the manner of tongues warns us not to add or sub tract from the whole or perfect law . Formally having it in part. The Catholics paid no mind to the warning. This can be seen by looking at the private revelations from what they call Mystics or Patrons Saints (disembodied workers with familiar spirit gods ) its easy to see they desire to widen the authority of God's word so they can lord it over men.
I'd like to point out that the Roman CAtholic religion was not organized into such, until around 600AD, after the conquest by Constantine. Chrysostum wrote in late 300AD. However you are right about their other "sources" for teaching.
 

GraceAndTruth

Well-known member
Sep 28, 2015
2,031
637
113
Yes the last new revelation before God sealed up His book of prophecy to include the manner of tongues warns us not to add or sub tract from the whole or perfect law . Formally having it in part. The Catholics paid no mind to the warning. This can be seen by looking at the private revelations from what they call Mystics or Patrons Saints (disembodied workers with familiar spirit gods ) its easy to see they desire to widen the authority of God's word so they can lord it over men.
I must have not made myself clear, I want the reference you cited from Iranaeus. :)
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
I must have not made myself clear, I want the reference you cited from Iranaeus. :)

I don't know much about Irenaeus. He was not part of my offering. But I do have a good understanding of Catholisicim.

How would his reference affect what I did offer seeing he is of the counterfeit.... that makes all things written in the law and the prophets (sola scriptura) without effect.?
 

GraceAndTruth

Well-known member
Sep 28, 2015
2,031
637
113
I don't know much about Irenaeus. He was not part of my offering. But I do have a good understanding of Catholisicim.

How would his reference affect what I did offer seeing he is of the counterfeit.... that makes all things written in the law and the prophets (sola scriptura) without effect.?
Iranaeus position on tongues, the Hersies I read of his in book 3, was a defense of the APOSTLES speaking in LANGUAGES., so I wanted to know where you founded your position on his works. Unless I misunderstand your position. Mine is the same as Iranaeus, they were to the apostles only, therefor ceased with the last apostle.

I think the initial misunderstanding happened so far back I no longer know what it was!!! :rolleyes:
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
24,676
13,364
113
Iranaeus position on tongues, the Hersies I read of his in book 3, was a defense of the APOSTLES speaking in LANGUAGES., so I wanted to know where you founded your position on his works. Unless I misunderstand your position. Mine is the same as Iranaeus, they were to the apostles only, therefor ceased with the last apostle.

I think the initial misunderstanding happened so far back I no longer know what it was!!! :rolleyes:
Why would tongues be for apostles only, when Paul clearly encouraged the Corinthian believers to "eagerly desire" the gifts? That simply doesn't make sense.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
24,339
12,870
113
For shame to villify a great scholar like Metzger.
To say that someone was duped is not to vilify them. By the same token, Metzger has not been honest, since the Nestle-Aland critical text is identical to W & H. The fact remains that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are the basis of all the critical texts, and they are some of the most corrupt manuscripts.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
24,676
13,364
113
The fact remains that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are the basis of all the critical texts, and they are some of the most corrupt manuscripts.
You have made this charge repeatedly without providing any support. How about some evidence to back up your assertion that V and S are corrupt? And for that matter, how about a definition of "corrupt" as you are using it?
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
Iranaeus position on tongues, the Hersies I read of his in book 3, was a defense of the APOSTLES speaking in LANGUAGES., so I wanted to know where you founded your position on his works. Unless I misunderstand your position. Mine is the same as , they were to the apostles only, therefor ceased with the last apostle.
. I think the initial misunderstanding happened so far back I no longer know what it was!!! :rolleyes:
Last Apostle?

I have spent considerable time talking with Catholics but did not study their what they call fathers...... as that in which we are commanded not to call any man on earth to begin with.

I have not looked what he had to say before. If Irenaeus was Catholic he would reason after the wrong manner of spirit... walking by sight in a hope the kingdom of God comes by observation. That can be seen in defense of his book of taking a word "apostle" that simply with no other meaning added means "sent ones". God sends all His children to declare his good news as prophecy He sent Abel with it and his brother Cain who walked by sight murdered His brother after hearing what Abel said...... as in out of sight out of mind .The walking by sight principle. .

limiting the word of God, prophecy to the authority of those who spoke it only proves men are trying to puff up or lift up one man above another man As the word of God informs us it is he who makes one differ from another. Just what do we have that we have not freely received and if we have received it why boast as if we did not.

One of the not to think doctrines that does make the idea of apostolical succession to no effect. Again the word apostle has one meaning "sent one" . Moses was a sent one(apostle) as was any prophet . The word has all been but destroyed taking away some beautiful parables

1 Corinthians 4:5- King James Version (KJV)And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that "which is written", that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
24,676
13,364
113
I have not looked what he had to say before. If Irenaeus was Catholic he would reason after the wrong manner of spirit... walking by sight in a hope the kingdom of God comes by observation.
You are committing a genetic fallacy by claiming that because Irenaeus was a Catholic that his ability to reason is suspect. In other words, that's a bad and invalid argument. If you don't understand what a "genetic fallacy" is, then check it out here....

https://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/genetic/


One of the not to think doctrines that does make the idea of apostolical succession to no effect.
This is not a sentence, and it is essentially meaningless. Once again your inability to compose coherent sentences inhibits your message. Please take a basic writing class, or at least study the sentence structure in the KJV and try to emulate it.


Again the word apostle has one meaning "sent one" . Moses was a sent one(apostle) as was any prophet . The word has all been but destroyed taking away some beautiful parables

1 Corinthians 4:5- King James Version (KJV)And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that "which is written", that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?
This is not a parable. It is a direct clear teaching with no metaphorical language.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
24,339
12,870
113
You have made this charge repeatedly without providing any support. How about some evidence to back up your assertion that V and S are corrupt? And for that matter, how about a definition of "corrupt" as you are using it?
While this is off-topic, I will respond in detail, since detail is required, and I have generally kept my remarks brief.

PART 1

Modern naturalistic textual critics and scholars since the 18th century have been promoting the myth that the oldest Bible manuscripts are the best, presumably because they are the closest to the original autographs. Nestle, Nestle-Aland, the United Bible Societies, Bruce Metzger, etc. are all committed to this fallacy.

But this fallacy also produced a deliberate deceptiona hoax – which asserted (without a scintilla of proof) that it was the Byzantine Text which was corrupt, and the corrupt text which was pure! This was the primary contribution of Westcott & Hort, and today almost the entire Christian world believes this lie. And we know who is the Father of Lies.

Under normal circumstances it would be reasonable to conclude that the oldest manuscripts were the best, but the Bible has always been under attack, so in the case of the Bible, the opposite is true. The Word of God was being corrupted even while the apostle Paul was alive: For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ. (2 Cor 2:17). While the Greek word καπηλεύοντες (kapeleuontes) literally means “peddle” (and the modern versions have resorted to this meaning), it has a deeper meaning, which is to corrupt or adulterate.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 2585: καπηλεύω ... καπηλεύειν τί was also used as synonymous with to corrupt, to adulterate (Themistius, or. 21, p. 247, Hard. edition says that the false philosophers τόθειοτατον τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων ἀγαθῶν κιβδηλεύειντέ καί αἰσχύνειν καί καπηλεύειν); and most interpreters rightly decide in favor of this meaning (on account of the context) in 2 Corinthians 2:17, cf. δολουντόν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, 2 Corinthians 4:2. (Cf. Trench, § lxii.)

Dean John W. Burgon was one of the few leading conservative textual scholars of the 19th century, who actually examined the Greek manuscripts personally, collated them, and wrote extensively about the corruption of the Greek text by Westcott & Hort, and their naturalistic predecessors (Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmanm, Tishendorf, Tregelles, etc., primarily German scholars influenced by Higher Criticism). He thoroughly reviewed the corruption of manuscripts which occurred at a very early date, and F.H. A. Scrivener, the primary 19th century textual scholar, who also wrote extensively on this subject (and indeed produced the first textbook of textual criticism – A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament ) agreed with him totally. Burgon summed up the corruption of the New Testament in his book -- The Revision Revised -- as follows:

‘We know that Origen in Palestine, Lucian at Antioch, Hesychius in Egypt, “revised” the text of the N. T. Unfortunately, they did their work in an age when such fatal misapprehension prevailed on the subject, that each in turn will have inevitably imported a fresh assortment of monstra into the sacred writings.

Add, the baneful influence of such spirits as Theophilus (sixth Bishop of Antioch, A.D. 168), Tatian, Ammonius, &c., of whom we know there were very many in the primitive age,—some of whose productions, we further know, were freely multiplied in every quarter of ancient Christendom:—add, the fabricated Gospels which anciently abounded; notably the Gospel of the Hebrews, about which Jerome is so communicative, and which (he says) he had translated into Greek and Latin:—lastly, freely grant that here and there, with well-meant assiduity, the orthodox themselves may have sought to prop up truths which the early heretics (Basilides, A.D. 134, Valentinus, A.D. 140, with his disciple Heracleon, Marcion, A.D. 150, and the rest,) most perseveringly assailed;—and we have sufficiently explained how it comes to pass that not a few of the codices of primitive Christendom must have exhibited Texts which were even scandalously corrupt.

“It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound,” writes the most learned of the Revisionist body, [Scrivener] “that the worst corruptions, to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed: that Irenæus [A.D. 150] and the African Fathers, and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus Receptus.” And what else are codices Aleph B C D but specimensin vastly different degreesof the class thus characterized by Prebendary Scrivener? Nay, who will venture to deny that those codices are indebted for their preservation solely to the circumstance, that they were long since recognized as the depositories of Readings which rendered them utterly untrustworthy?’ (Revision Revised, pp 55,56).

[Please note: Aleph is Codex Sinaiticus, B is Codex Vaticanus, both of which are related to each other. Then we have A (Codex Alexandrinus), C (Codex Epharaemi Rescriptus), and D (Codex Bezae). This group of manuscripts (along with a few others) is called the Alexandrian text-type or the Minority Text vs the Received Text (Textus Receptus), which is also called the Byzantine text-type, and found in the MAJORITY of manuscripts. The so-called Majority Text edited recently is not a true Majority Text, since the vast number of manuscripts (including Lectionaries, have not even been touched].
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
24,339
12,870
113
PART II

What was the nature of this corruption? It consisted of omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications. Burgon detailed these corruptions in The Revision Revised, as well as several other books (all of which are not available as reprints):

‘It matters nothing that all four [Aleph B C D] are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially, not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the whole body of extant MSS. besides, but even from one another. This last circumstance, obviously fatal to their corporate pretensions, is unaccountably overlooked. And yet it admits of only one satisfactory explanation: viz. that in different degrees they all five exhibit a fabricated text.

Between the first two (B and Aleph) there subsists an amount of sinister resemblance, which proves that they must have been derived at no very remote period from the same corrupt original. Tischendorf insists that they were partly written by the same scribe. Yet do they stand asunder in every page; as well as differ widely from the commonly received Text, with which they have been carefully collated.

On being referred to this standard, in the Gospels alone, B is found to omit at least 2877 words: to add, 536: to substitute, 935: to transpose, 2098: to modify, 1132 (in all 7578):—the corresponding figures for Aleph being severally 3455, 839, 1114, 2299, 1265 (in all 8972). And be it remembered that the omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications, are by no means the same in both. It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two MSS. differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree...

[Note: This only in the Gospels. The same applies to the rest of the New Testament, which has an estimated total of over 13,000 corruptions, as compared to the Received Text.]

'...But by far the most depraved text is that exhibited by codex D. “No known manuscript contains so many bold and extensive interpolations. Its variations from the sacred Text are beyond all other example.” This, however, is not the result of its being the most recent of the five, but (singular to relate) is due to quite an opposite cause. It is thought (not without reason) to exhibit a IInd-century text...

What we are just now insisting upon is only the depraved text of codices Aleph A B C D,— especially of Aleph B D. And because this is a matter which lies at the root of the whole controversy, and because we cannot afford that there shall exist in our reader's mind the slightest doubt on this part of the subject, we shall be constrained once and again to trouble him with detailed specimens of the contents of Aleph B, &c., in proof of the justice of what we have been alleging. We venture to assure him, without a particle of hesitation, that Aleph B D are three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant:—exhibit the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with:—have become, by whatever process (for their history is wholly unknown), the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional perversions of Truth,—which are discoverable in any known copies of the Word of GOD...

We shall perhaps be told that, scandalously corrupt as the text of Aleph B C D hereabouts may be, no reason has been shown as yet for suspecting that heretical depravation ever had anything to do with such phenomena. That (we answer) is only because the writings of the early depravers and fabricators of Gospels have universally perished... An instructive specimen of depravation follows, which can be traced to Marcion's mutilated recension of S. Luke's Gospel. We venture to entreat the favour of the reader's sustained attention to the license with which the LORD'S Prayer as given in S. Luke's Gospel (xi. 2-4), is exhibited by codices Aleph A B C D... (Revision Revised, pp. 37,28,41,58,59)

Those supporting the critical texts and modern versions have claimed that the changes in these newer versions have no impact on doctrine. That again is a lie. Anyone who takes the time to carefully examine how the doctrines of Christ and the triune Godhead have been attacked will see that the Gnostic heretics who tampered with the New Testament were attempting to change Bible truth and promote their heresies.