TONGUES false teaching.

  • 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.

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
14,847
2,436
113
Apparently, you haven't done your homework on this passage. The word "man" is not there; the Greek says, "anyone". In fact, "husband" and "wife" in verse 2 are the only gender-specific words in the entire passage, and given other relevant passages, it is clear that the verse is forbidding polygamists, not females or unmarried men.

There isn't a single passage of Scripture that forbids women from being pastors.
God does not intend for women to be pastors. Gods order of things from Adam to this day is to have the man in the position of leadership. Women in leadership is a sign of Gods judgment. The church is in rebellion against God and women claiming to be pastors is a clear evidence of the rebellion.

Judgment starts at the house of God. Gods children must be corrected before they can be a witness for Christ.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 
Dec 21, 2020
61
18
8
Therefore a believer who is speaking to themselves and to God in tongues which requires speaking (you can't speak in tongues in your head without using your tongue)
That's not true. A person can speak in tongues in their head just you can speak English to yourself in your head.
 
Mar 21, 2009
3,860
1,497
113
New York
That's not true. A person can speak in tongues in their head just you can speak English to yourself in your head.
Never heard of such a thing. I will leave it between you and God. I don't call it tongues if your not using your tongue.
 
Dec 21, 2020
61
18
8
Yes.

"Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" (Mark 15:34).
No. Jesus knew Aramaic, so when he said that he was not speaking in tongues.

Also, nobody spoke in tongues before the day of Pentecost. (I'm talking about the spiritual manifestation of speaking in tongues, not about speaking languages people know.)
 
Dec 21, 2020
61
18
8
Never heard of such a thing. I will leave it between you and God. I don't call it tongues if your not using your tongue.
The word "tongues" means languages, it is not referring to the thing in your mouth :)
 
Mar 21, 2009
3,860
1,497
113
New York
The word "tongues" means languages, it is not referring to the thing in your mouth :)
I do not agree that tongues means known languages. I believe one can speak in tongues that is not a known language. Paul spoke in tongues more than all the Corinthians for over 20 years and he said that his understanding was still unfruitful when he prayed in tongues but that he would do it anyway because his spirit prayed. I believe that if it had been a known language someone would have identified it after 20 years.

I would not feel comfortable at all with the idea of trying to think tongues. I will not go there. It is not the gift as I understand it. I won't argue about. If someone feels differently but I will not attempt to think in tongues.

I don't formulate words in my mind when I speak in tongues. It is something the Spirit gives utterance to as I yield to the Spirit. This is not done in my mind first and then articulated as English or another language.

My faith will not allow me to think in tongues, my conscious would tell me I am making it up. I must speak it or I don't believe it is the gift of tongues. That is my understanding and I don't bear witness with the idea of thinking in tongues. My faith and my spirit rejects it as not the gift. And I think the majority of Pentecostals and Charismatics would agree with me that one must speak it or it is not tongues.

Now it is ok with me if you don't agree. I am just letting you know that I and hundreds of millions of others in my denomination alone do not believe in the idea of thinking in tongues. I am just letting you know why you will see them speaking in tongues audibly without an interpreter, because in their understanding of that verse they are not addressing the church and they believe they are speaking to themselves and to God.
It is their reason, whether you agree with it or not. You can call them wrong, but they don't agree that they are wrong and they think you don't understand what Paul meant.
And so it must be left between them and God. And we must simply let God sort it out. We each are responsible to walk in the illumination of the scriptures and proper interpretation as we believe we possess.
 
Mar 21, 2009
3,860
1,497
113
New York
I do not agree that tongues means known languages. I believe one can speak in tongues that is not a known language. Paul spoke in tongues more than all the Corinthians for over 20 years and he said that his understanding was still unfruitful when he prayed in tongues but that he would do it anyway because his spirit prayed. I believe that if it had been a known language someone would have identified it after 20 years.

I would not feel comfortable at all with the idea of trying to think tongues. I will not go there. It is not the gift as I understand it. I won't argue about. If someone feels differently but I will not attempt to think in tongues.

I don't formulate words in my mind when I speak in tongues. It is something the Spirit gives utterance to as I yield to the Spirit. This is not done in my mind first and then articulated as English or another language.

My faith will not allow me to think in tongues, my conscious would tell me I am making it up. I must speak it or I don't believe it is the gift of tongues. That is my understanding and I don't bear witness with the idea of thinking in tongues. My faith and my spirit rejects it as not the gift. And I think the majority of Pentecostals and Charismatics would agree with me that one must speak it or it is not tongues.

Now it is ok with me if you don't agree. I am just letting you know that I and hundreds of millions of others in my denomination alone do not believe in the idea of thinking in tongues. I am just letting you know why you will see them speaking in tongues audibly without an interpreter, because in their understanding of that verse they are not addressing the church and they believe they are speaking to themselves and to God.
It is their reason, whether you agree with it or not. You can call them wrong, but they don't agree that they are wrong and they think you don't understand what Paul meant.
And so it must be left between them and God. And we must simply let God sort it out. We each are responsible to walk in the illumination of the scriptures and proper interpretation as we believe we possess.
In addition I do not believe one can write in tongues. I do not believe that interpretation of tongues is translating a foreign language but it is a gift of the Holy Spirit manifested at the time a public utterance of Tongues is given in the assembly and the interpretation can be given by one of several people who have the gift and all of them will have a similar interpretation but not word for word as it is not a translation but a prophetic utterance. You will not be able to record someone speaking in tongues and send it to someone with "the gift of interpretation" and get a response from them. They will tell you that it does not work that way. The interpretation was to be given for the people present at the time the tongue was given and the Holy Spirit is not at your beck and call to interpret it out of context of the moment.
 
Mar 23, 2016
4,027
1,181
113
The majority of Greek Scholars will tell you that it does not mean "without any sound" but rather to himself and to God. As in "not addressing the assembly but subdued in a quiet manner to himself and to God"
I believe a person can speak in tongues in a manner that is not disruptive to the church service and I believe that is the point of 1 Cor 14:28.

1 Cor 14:28 states that the believer is to speak in tongues in the church congregation in such a manner that there is no distraction in the church service.


1 Cor 14:40 tells us Let all things be done decently and in order. I believe speaking in tongues in the church assembly can occur so that all things are done decently and in order.

And, as you point out later in your post, the emphasis is the believers speaking in tongues to themselves and to God.


I also believe what is written in 1 Cor 14:39 ... forbid not to speak with tongues.



 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
16,620
9,063
113
God does not intend for women to be pastors. Gods order of things from Adam to this day is to have the man in the position of leadership. Women in leadership is a sign of Gods judgment. The church is in rebellion against God and women claiming to be pastors is a clear evidence of the rebellion.

Judgment starts at the house of God. Gods children must be corrected before they can be a witness for Christ.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
Assertions without evidence are indistinguishable from opinions.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
16,620
9,063
113
No. Jesus knew Aramaic, so when he said that he was not speaking in tongues.

Also, nobody spoke in tongues before the day of Pentecost. (I'm talking about the spiritual manifestation of speaking in tongues, not about speaking languages people know.)
I'm aware of that. However, in the minds of cessationists, "tongues" simply means "other languages". They can either accept that Jesus spoke in tongues (other languages) as Scripture clearly shows, or they can accept that "tongues" actually means something other than merely other learned languages.
 

Lisamn

Active member
Dec 29, 2020
795
220
43
Most Greeks spoke Greek. There is no indication in I Corinthians 14 that speaking in tongues had anything to do with diversity of language speakers in the assembly.
Yet..when people spoke in tongues..the person next to them says..he’s speaking my language.
 

Lisamn

Active member
Dec 29, 2020
795
220
43
1 Corinthians 14:28 tells us But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

She was not following the instruction given in God's Word. She should just speak in tongues silently to God.
That’s what I’ve come to think...if she was really speaking in tongues..but like I said..I think it had something to do with having something special about herself as her husband was the church and got all the attention.
 
Dec 21, 2020
61
18
8
I do not agree that tongues means known languages. I believe one can speak in tongues that is not a known language. Paul spoke in tongues more than all the Corinthians for over 20 years and he said that his understanding was still unfruitful when he prayed in tongues but that he would do it anyway because his spirit prayed. I believe that if it had been a known language someone would have identified it after 20 years.
I did not say tongues means known languages. Paul specifically says that when a person speaks in tongues he does not understand what he is saying. IOW, tongues is NOT a known language.

I would not feel comfortable at all with the idea of trying to think tongues. I will not go there. It is not the gift as I understand it. I won't argue about. If someone feels differently but I will not attempt to think in tongues.
Nobody can think in tongues. But you can speak in tongues to yourself without making a sound.

I don't formulate words in my mind when I speak in tongues. It is something the Spirit gives utterance to as I yield to the Spirit. This is not done in my mind first and then articulated as English or another language.

My faith will not allow me to think in tongues, my conscious would tell me I am making it up. I must speak it or I don't believe it is the gift of tongues. That is my understanding and I don't bear witness with the idea of thinking in tongues. My faith and my spirit rejects it as not the gift. And I think the majority of Pentecostals and Charismatics would agree with me that one must speak it or it is not tongues.
If a person is going to speak in tongues aloud in public, he had better be prepared to interpret.

Now it is ok with me if you don't agree.
Whew! :)
I am just letting you know that I and hundreds of millions of others in my denomination alone do not believe in the idea of thinking in tongues. I am just letting you know why you will see them speaking in tongues audibly without an interpreter, because in their understanding of that verse they are not addressing the church and they believe they are speaking to themselves and to God.
It is their reason, whether you agree with it or not. You can call them wrong, but they don't agree that they are wrong and they think you don't understand what Paul meant.
And so it must be left between them and God. And we must simply let God sort it out. We each are responsible to walk in the illumination of the scriptures and proper interpretation as we believe we possess.
People are going to believe what they want.

I’m glad you’re at least doing it.
 
Dec 21, 2020
61
18
8
I do not agree that tongues means known languages. I believe one can speak in tongues that is not a known language. Paul spoke in tongues more than all the Corinthians for over 20 years and he said that his understanding was still unfruitful when he prayed in tongues but that he would do it anyway because his spirit prayed. I believe that if it had been a known language someone would have identified it after 20 years.
I did not say tongues means known languages. Paul specifically says that when a person speaks in tongues he does not understand what he is saying. IOW, tongues is NOT a known language.

I would not feel comfortable at all with the idea of trying to think tongues. I will not go there. It is not the gift as I understand it. I won't argue about. If someone feels differently but I will not attempt to think in tongues.
Nobody can think in tongues. But you can speak in tongues to yourself without making a sound.

I don't formulate words in my mind when I speak in tongues. It is something the Spirit gives utterance to as I yield to the Spirit. This is not done in my mind first and then articulated as English or another language.

My faith will not allow me to think in tongues, my conscious would tell me I am making it up. I must speak it or I don't believe it is the gift of tongues. That is my understanding and I don't bear witness with the idea of thinking in tongues. My faith and my spirit rejects it as not the gift. And I think the majority of Pentecostals and Charismatics would agree with me that one must speak it or it is not tongues.
If a person is going to speak in tongues aloud in public, he had better be prepared to interpret.

Now it is ok with me if you don't agree.
Whew! :)
I am just letting you know that I and hundreds of millions of others in my denomination alone do not believe in the idea of thinking in tongues. I am just letting you know why you will see them speaking in tongues audibly without an interpreter, because in their understanding of that verse they are not addressing the church and they believe they are speaking to themselves and to God.
It is their reason, whether you agree with it or not. You can call them wrong, but they don't agree that they are wrong and they think you don't understand what Paul meant.
And so it must be left between them and God. And we must simply let God sort it out. We each are responsible to walk in the illumination of the scriptures and proper interpretation as we believe we possess.
People are going to believe what they want.
That is determined by context.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
What is the context of this thread, Roger?
That is determined by context.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
What is the context of this thread, Roger?

Sorry, I was trying to post from my phone. Things got screwed up
 
Mar 21, 2009
3,860
1,497
113
New York
God does not intend for women to be pastors. Gods order of things from Adam to this day is to have the man in the position of leadership. Women in leadership is a sign of Gods judgment. The church is in rebellion against God and women claiming to be pastors is a clear evidence of the rebellion.

Judgment starts at the house of God. Gods children must be corrected before they can be a witness for Christ.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
I do not get this idea from reading the New Testament. I have heard it from men who have misunderstood the scriptures but the overwhelming tenor of the New Testament is that women are included in the call to ministry in the power of the Holy Spirit.

We can agree to disagree on it but if we are going to go into a full fledged debate on hermeneutics of the scriptures in question we probably want to start another thread with the appropriate title. (for the 7000 time. LOL ) Something like. "Why I believe the Scriptures do not allow Women to be Leaders in the Church" if that is your premise. The more specific the more focused will be the replies.
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
6,464
1,803
113
You are judging and will be so judged as you judge others. Judge righteous judgements and judge according to the word of God.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
Trying to use the ole Judgement card to shut down a proper response from one you disagree with. Trying to use the Lord to Strike DOWN Judgement on a person who dares to disagree with the ole great one " Nutuptome". shame on you.
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
14,847
2,436
113
What is the context of this thread, Roger?

What is the context of this thread, Roger?

Sorry, I was trying to post from my phone. Things got screwed up
Context of this thread does not determine how the Greek text is to be interpreted. The context of the passage determines whether the tongues is language or the physical organ of speech. Baptism is another Greek word that has different meanings that are determined by the text in which it is found. Perfect is another that comes to mind in 1 Cor 13.

There is little defined context in any tongues thread.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 
Dec 21, 2020
61
18
8
Context of this thread does not determine how the Greek text is to be interpreted. The context of the passage determines whether the tongues is language or the physical organ of speech.
The context of this thread is speaking in tongues. The context of the scripture passages brought up in discussion in this thread are about the gift or manifestation of speaking in tongues. It was pointless of you to state that "That [the meaning of tongues] is determined by context."

Baptism is another Greek word that has different meanings that are determined by the text in which it is found.
Agreed.

Perfect is another that comes to mind in 1 Cor 13.
While I agree, your cessationism is rearing its head again.

There is little defined context in any tongues thread.
Frequently there is. You speak derogatorially against anything having to do with tongues because you are a cessationist.
 

Major

Active member
Dec 12, 2020
287
63
28
Apparently, you haven't done your homework on this passage. The word "man" is not there; the Greek says, "anyone". In fact, "husband" and "wife" in verse 2 are the only gender-specific words in the entire passage, and given other relevant passages, it is clear that the verse is forbidding polygamists, not females or unmarried men.

There isn't a single passage of Scripture that forbids women from being pastors.
You are hilarious!!!! YOU reject the Greek original grammer when shown to you concerning the "PERFECT" and also the "THEM" in Mark 16, but now you all of a sudden pull the Greek out of a hat when it suits you.

Just asking.....not argueing.

Timothy 3:1-3 KJV .........
"This is a true saying, If a MAN desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the HUSBAND of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach."

When you propose "anyone". you should also be aware that it does not mean "any person."

Though this particular word in the original Greek is in a neuter (genderless) form, the following verses CONTEXTUALLY specify that only men could serve as Bishops. All of the following pronouns in this section are specifically male, with qualifications including the husband of one wife (1 Timothy 3:2) and managing his own household (1 Timothy 3:4).

“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” (1 Timothy 2:11–12)

Verse 11 says, “Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.”
The Greek adversative “de” (“but” in English) links verse 12 back to 11. Paul wants women to learn in the entire submissiveness.

Some even say that the Greek words “gyne” (woman) and “andros” (man) mean wife and husband. This would render the verse as, “But I do not allow a wife to teach or exercise authority over a husband, but to remain quiet.” (1 Tim. 2:12). Supporters of this argument then conclude that this would not prevent a woman from being a pastor since this is not speaking of women in general but only wives in relation to their husbands. Is this argument sound? No, it isn’t.

WHY????

If a wife were a pastor and her husband were in the congregation, then when she taught, she’d be teaching her husband. This can’t work–unless the husband has to leave the church each time his wife teaches. Ridiculous? You bet!

In all of the 17 English translations of the Bible I have (Darby, ASV, ESV, HCSB, ISV, KJV, NASB95, NASB, NCV, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, WUESTNT, RSV, GNB, WorrelNT, YLT), none translate the verse as wife and husband, so why do people assert that it is about a husband and wife?

Thank you for the post and as w=always I hope that I have been able to help your understanding.