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.

Major

Active member
Dec 12, 2020
885
183
43
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.
OK. I understand.

As long as we follow the accepted denominational line then we can pretty much say whatever we want to say to those who do not agree.

So then the people who are wanting to speak in tongues can say whatever they choose to those of us who do not believe that tongues is a Biblical exercise.

That is WHAT you are saying!!!!!!
 

Major

Active member
Dec 12, 2020
885
183
43
Yes.

"Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" (Mark 15:34).
See........you do not even know what tongues are.

How can you condemn those who say that tongues are gibberish when you can not even grasp that what Jesus said was in a KNOWN LANGUAGE!!!!!

It's Aramaic (or Hebrew in Matthew) transliterated into the Greek script

You beat all my friend, you really do and you are embarrassing yourself.
 

Major

Active member
Dec 12, 2020
885
183
43
We know that slaves were under laws during the first century that our culture no longer deals with. Paul had to deal with the culture as it was and sent Philemon back to his owner. Today you would not take Paul's words about this and apply it to a runaway slave anywhere in the world today. Today it would be your christian duty to help them escape.

Women were under laws of the culture even from the Roman's not just Jews. These laws and cultures have changed through history given women more rights and equality in society that was unheard of in the 1st century. Today no one makes an issue of working for a woman business owner or voting for a woman governor. However due to centuries of bad hermeneutics women are not properly respected in religious culture. This results in few women pastors and will continue to be the norm until that day when people get Gods heart on the issue instead of legalism based on bad hermeneutics. Probably not in my lifetime.
So then....."Culture" has replaced the Word of God.

Isn't that exactly what the Roman Catholic Church did with their TRADITIONS????
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,538
113
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.
It is curious that you get all kinds of ideas from reading the NT that are not biblical and cannot get from the NT those ideas that were already in God's people for thousands of years.

Women do have a ministry in the NT just not pastoring a church. Women as pastors is an evidence of judgment in the church. The church is in open rebellion against Gods word. In addition to women the church is appointing sodomites into the pastorate. This should alarm any believer that loves the Risen Lord.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 
Dec 21, 2020
1,825
474
83
It is curious that you get all kinds of ideas from reading the NT that are not biblical and cannot get from the NT those ideas that were already in God's people for thousands of years.

Women do have a ministry in the NT just not pastoring a church. Women as pastors is an evidence of judgment in the church. The church is in open rebellion against Gods word. In addition to women the church is appointing sodomites into the pastorate. This should alarm any believer that loves the Risen Lord.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
Apparently Chloe never got the memo (1 Cor 1:11). And don't forget Junia the apostle (Rom 16:7).
 
S

Scribe

Guest
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.
The act of teaching from scriptures such as exegesis or expository teaching to edify those that are hearing is not exercising authority over a person and this is part of the error that has created this unbiblical ban on a women teaching scriptures.

The meaning of 1 Tim 2:12 in context of the wife toward the husband is that of respect. It could very well mean Not Teaching/Correcting as in Usurping authority over him. Teaching him like she does one of the kids that needs correction.

This is not a forced hermeneutic in an effort to free women to be allowed to be bible teachers. It is a more natural hermeneutic considering the theological context of other passages that say the same things.

Look at 1 Peter 3 and 1 Tim 2 Compare the colored verses in each passage...

1Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2when they see your respectful and pure conduct. 3Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— 4but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. 5For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, 6as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.

Now Look at 1 Tim 2
9likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. 11Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

It is impossible not to notice that the topic is the same.
Peter sounds like he is quoting Paul (and I am of the opinion that he was) and yet by reason of Peter being a bit more verbose the authorial intent of Peter is never discussed as applying to instructions on how women can teach or not teach the bible while men are present. Everyone understands the subject matter of Peter as it relates to the attitude of the wife toward the husband.

Paul is most likely talking about the same thing and uses the world woman and man instead of husband and wife but it is the same subject matter as made obvious by the reference of Adam and Eve.

We have a much stronger reason to believe that if Paul was here right now and we could ask him "what did you mean by a woman cannot teach a man" that he might say "did you understand what Peter said?" and he might say "I was talking about the exact same thing?" A woman's attitude toward her husband.

There is no scriptural reason to say that if a female is exegeting a passage of scripture that she is usurping authority over you whether you be male or female. That does not even make sense.

I understand that many are convinced that "suffer not a woman to teach a man" means something else such as Pulpit preaching, and the hermeneutic I just presented does not make them change their minds, but frankly I don't know why.

Often someone will ask me "What about when Paul said A woman should not teach or she is usurping authority over a man" I will simply ask them to read 1 Peter 3: 1-6 Slowly. Then go read 1 Tim 2:9-14 and pay attention to 1 Peter 3:4 and 1 Tim 2:9 in particular. Then we will talk about it at a later time.
It is not uncommon for me to hear them say .... "Oh,... wow... I never saw that before. Thanks Now I think I understand it." And we have not even discussed it yet. When I ask them what they discovered they often say that "Paul was talking about the attitude of the wife toward the husband not about bible teaching or preaching."

We can disagree with the interpretation of 1 Tim 2:12 but I hope you can see that people who interpret it in the light of 1 Pet 3 are not just "ignoring the plain meaning of the word" on this subject but do have good reasons why they think it is about a wife toward her husband and not about teaching the bible.
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
13,112
4,374
113
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
The context of this threat has properly addressed how you and those like you have not provided no Biblical account of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit not being for today in Greek or Hebrew nor in English translations. The Words in Hebrew and Greek have systemic range of means just like the word Love does. there are only two words for Tongues 1. in Hebrew lashown 2. in Greek glōssa

The Hebrew word can also mean Lashown 1. the organ in you mouth 2. languages 3. the specific languages of a people or nation

The context determines the meaning In Gen 10:20 " These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in their countries, and in their nations."

This is not speaking of the organ in the mouth it is speaking of the language the sons of Ham spoke in the country and nation they lived in.
To apply the Organ in the mouth would not have any meaning. Ham's sons licked their country ? That is foolish.
You are really off the deep end.
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
13,112
4,374
113
OK. I understand.

As long as we follow the accepted denominational line then we can pretty much say whatever we want to say to those who do not agree.

So then the people who are wanting to speak in tongues can say whatever they choose to those of us who do not believe that tongues is a Biblical exercise.

That is WHAT you are saying!!!!!!
first off I was not speaking to you. the person I responded to and the context in which I gave it clear. NOW if you want to peopvded where in the Bible it says the gifts of the holy Spirit are for today , do so. Don't beat around the bush and try to say Gen 1): 20 is speaking of the organ in your mouth ok. Bring the word and show me where . very simple . I will be very much happy to response wit a Amen or I disagree and proved a biblical response why.
 
Dec 21, 2020
1,825
474
83
The act of teaching from scriptures such as exegesis or expository teaching to edify those that are hearing is not exercising authority over a person and this is part of the error that has created this unbiblical ban on a women teaching scriptures.

The meaning of 1 Tim 2:12 in context of the wife toward the husband is that of respect. It could very well mean Not Teaching/Correcting as in Usurping authority over him. Teaching him like she does one of the kids that needs correction.

This is not a forced hermeneutic in an effort to free women to be allowed to be bible teachers. It is a more natural hermeneutic considering the theological context of other passages that say the same things.

Look at 1 Peter 3 and 1 Tim 2 Compare the colored verses in each passage...

1Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2when they see your respectful and pure conduct. 3Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— 4but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. 5For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, 6as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.

Now Look at 1 Tim 2
9likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. 11Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

It is impossible not to notice that the topic is the same.
Peter sounds like he is quoting Paul (and I am of the opinion that he was) and yet by reason of Peter being a bit more verbose the authorial intent of Peter is never discussed as applying to instructions on how women can teach or not teach the bible while men are present. Everyone understands the subject matter of Peter as it relates to the attitude of the wife toward the husband.

Paul is most likely talking about the same thing and uses the world woman and man instead of husband and wife but it is the same subject matter as made obvious by the reference of Adam and Eve.

We have a much stronger reason to believe that if Paul was here right now and we could ask him "what did you mean by a woman cannot teach a man" that he might say "did you understand what Peter said?" and he might say "I was talking about the exact same thing?" A woman's attitude toward her husband.

There is no scriptural reason to say that if a female is exegeting a passage of scripture that she is usurping authority over you whether you be male or female. That does not even make sense.

I understand that many are convinced that "suffer not a woman to teach a man" means something else such as Pulpit preaching, and the hermeneutic I just presented does not make them change their minds, but frankly I don't know why.

Often someone will ask me "What about when Paul said A woman should not teach or she is usurping authority over a man" I will simply ask them to read 1 Peter 3: 1-6 Slowly. Then go read 1 Tim 2:9-14 and pay attention to 1 Peter 3:4 and 1 Tim 2:9 in particular. Then we will talk about it at a later time.
It is not uncommon for me to hear them say .... "Oh,... wow... I never saw that before. Thanks Now I think I understand it." And we have not even discussed it yet. When I ask them what they discovered they often say that "Paul was talking about the attitude of the wife toward the husband not about bible teaching or preaching."

We can disagree with the interpretation of 1 Tim 2:12 but I hope you can see that people who interpret it in the light of 1 Pet 3 are not just "ignoring the plain meaning of the word" on this subject but do have good reasons why they think it is about a wife toward her husband and not about teaching the bible.
You might enjoy this book: "I Suffer Not a Woman" by Richard and Catherine Clark Kroeger
 
S

Scribe

Guest
It is curious that you get all kinds of ideas from reading the NT that are not biblical and cannot get from the NT those ideas that were already in God's people for thousands of years.

Women do have a ministry in the NT just not pastoring a church. Women as pastors is an evidence of judgment in the church. The church is in open rebellion against Gods word. In addition to women the church is appointing sodomites into the pastorate. This should alarm any believer that loves the Risen Lord.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
One of the things that most Church historians will point out is the freedom and respect and participation women were given in the New Testament church from the beginning. It was quite different than the Old Testament. That is what you will notice by reading. Just as it was always God's plan to offer salvation and total inclusion of the covenant blessings of God to the gentiles but not understood by most nor revealed until the New Testament, it was also always God's intention to include women in a more participatory mode of priesthood. Remember that the women speaking in tongues and prophesying on the day of Pentecost was one of the things pointed out by Peter to let them know that the new age of Joel's prophecy had started and it included women.
This is the kind of thing you see in the New Testament over and over. A woman teaches Apollos in the scriptures the way of Jesus more perfectly and it results in one of the greatest preachers the early church would ever see. Taught by a WOMAN. It is there to open your eyes to the use of women in the church. It is a new day. Get with the program of GOD.

That is why in the kingdom of God there is neither male nor female, Jew or Greek and we are all called to be KINGS AND PRIESTS in this eternal kingdom. Not just men. Women are also KINGS AND PRIESTS and shall reign on the earth. WOMEN in the church will also be part of the overcomers who will rule with him on his throne and dash the nations with a rod of iron. Women will sit with him on his throne. WOMEN in the church have been given authority over the kingdom of darkness and women can proclaim this gospel to the ends of the earth along with men.

Woe to the man who in his Pharisee spirit tells a woman who is filled with the Holy Spirit and preaching the Gospel that she is an apostate because she is preaching and she is female. To think that they cannot see how much like the Pharisee finding fault for preaching on the sabbath that is. The Pharisee said "I have the scripture to back me up. You are not of God for doing it on this particular day" And when someone says. "You can't preach the bible, or teach the bible when there are men in the audience because you are a woman" Does he really think that is who God is? Does he not realize he might have misunderstood the intention of the scriptures he is claiming to use?
 
S

Scribe

Guest
So then....."Culture" has replaced the Word of God.

Isn't that exactly what the Roman Catholic Church did with their TRADITIONS????
That is not what my example suggests. Today, not in the 1st century, but Today, If a run away slave came to you, would you use Paul's words in Philemon to send him back to his owner with a letter? Or would you do what ever you could to make sure he was freed from his oppressor? I will see how you answer that. And we can see how that applies to the cultural question.
 
S

Scribe

Guest
You might enjoy this book: "I Suffer Not a Woman" by Richard and Catherine Clark Kroeger
Thanks! It sounds very interesting. Good scriptural hermeneutics on the subject are always welcome to me. I looked at the contents and it looks interesting.
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,538
113
Apparently Chloe never got the memo (1 Cor 1:11). And don't forget Junia the apostle (Rom 16:7).
Wow you really do not understand your bible. You make great leaps of assumption that are not in the texts.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,538
113
One of the things that most Church historians will point out is the freedom and respect and participation women were given in the New Testament church from the beginning. It was quite different than the Old Testament. That is what you will notice by reading. Just as it was always God's plan to offer salvation and total inclusion of the covenant blessings of God to the gentiles but not understood by most nor revealed until the New Testament, it was also always God's intention to include women in a more participatory mode of priesthood. Remember that the women speaking in tongues and prophesying on the day of Pentecost was one of the things pointed out by Peter to let them know that the new age of Joel's prophecy had started and it included women.
This is the kind of thing you see in the New Testament over and over. A woman teaches Apollos in the scriptures the way of Jesus more perfectly and it results in one of the greatest preachers the early church would ever see. Taught by a WOMAN. It is there to open your eyes to the use of women in the church. It is a new day. Get with the program of GOD.

That is why in the kingdom of God there is neither male nor female, Jew or Greek and we are all called to be KINGS AND PRIESTS in this eternal kingdom. Not just men. Women are also KINGS AND PRIESTS and shall reign on the earth. WOMEN in the church will also be part of the overcomers who will rule with him on his throne and dash the nations with a rod of iron. Women will sit with him on his throne. WOMEN in the church have been given authority over the kingdom of darkness and women can proclaim this gospel to the ends of the earth along with men.

Woe to the man who in his Pharisee spirit tells a woman who is filled with the Holy Spirit and preaching the Gospel that she is an apostate because she is preaching and she is female. To think that they cannot see how much like the Pharisee finding fault for preaching on the sabbath that is. The Pharisee said "I have the scripture to back me up. You are not of God for doing it on this particular day" And when someone says. "You can't preach the bible, or teach the bible when there are men in the audience because you are a woman" Does he really think that is who God is? Does he not realize he might have misunderstood the intention of the scriptures he is claiming to use?
Dude you are sad. You really do not understand your bible. You can make up all kinds of things but scripture and Gods sovereign will stand in opposition to what you ardently defend.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 
Dec 21, 2020
1,825
474
83
Wow you really do not understand your bible. You make great leaps of assumption that are not in the texts.
Dude you are sad. You really do not understand your bible. You can make up all kinds of things but scripture and Gods sovereign will stand in opposition to what you ardently defend.
Hmm... This seems to be your typical response. People who disagree with you do not understand the Bible and make things up.

Have you considered that just maybe it's you who does not understand, Roger?
 

Major

Active member
Dec 12, 2020
885
183
43
first off I was not speaking to you. the person I responded to and the context in which I gave it clear. NOW if you want to peopvded where in the Bible it says the gifts of the holy Spirit are for today , do so. Don't beat around the bush and try to say Gen 1): 20 is speaking of the organ in your mouth ok. Bring the word and show me where . very simple . I will be very much happy to response wit a Amen or I disagree and proved a biblical response why.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I did not say anything about Genesis 1:20 as far I remember.

Please post the post # you are accusing me of for my memory.

I don;t know what Gen. 1:20 has to do with the Sign gifts at all.
 

Major

Active member
Dec 12, 2020
885
183
43
That is not what my example suggests. Today, not in the 1st century, but Today, If a run away slave came to you, would you use Paul's words in Philemon to send him back to his owner with a letter? Or would you do what ever you could to make sure he was freed from his oppressor? I will see how you answer that. And we can see how that applies to the cultural question.
That is "exactly" what it said to a lot of people!
 

Major

Active member
Dec 12, 2020
885
183
43
That is not what my example suggests. Today, not in the 1st century, but Today, If a run away slave came to you, would you use Paul's words in Philemon to send him back to his owner with a letter? Or would you do what ever you could to make sure he was freed from his oppressor? I will see how you answer that. And we can see how that applies to the cultural question.
I do not respond to "Philosophical propositions".

Philosophical questions only pose more questions and never give an answer.

However......how can anyone free a "Slave" whom he does not have the ability to do anything with, keep, free or put to work.

Then of course there are no salves here in Orlando Fl. to deal with so once again as you can see....just more questions.

Now lets speak to reality shall we. If a "Person" ran to my house today, right now this very second, I would open the door, get him something to drink if he was thirty and something to eat if he was hungry. Then I would call the police and seek their advice and help in order to give this "Person" the best opportunity to survive and improve his life.
 

Major

Active member
Dec 12, 2020
885
183
43
Apparently Chloe never got the memo (1 Cor 1:11). And don't forget Junia the apostle (Rom 16:7).
Again, you missed the point that was given.

WOMEN do have a ministry in the church.

The point posed in your ppost was .........."Women do have a ministry in the NT just not pastoring a church. "