Tongues Again???

[stonesoffire]

The other aspect to this is that Jesus as the Son of Man - if He did speak in tongues to His Father from His spirit - He would have just been using it as a devotional tongue and no one would have heard Him as it is just between the Father and our spirit. ( There would be no need for it's use as a tongue and interpretation as there was no church then )

In saying that - it is all conjecture as it no where says that Jesus spoke with other tongues to His Father - but I would not be surprised to find out that it was true - when we get to heaven...

I wouldn't be surprised either. There are those who believe that when the disciples asked Him to teach them how to pray, they were asking about tongues. It wasn't yet the time.

Checking the video.

 

[PeterJens]

Using tongues to worship God raises and blesses our spirits in ways that we cannot
comprehend, rather we just experience it.

A tongue is so insane and non-intellectual but so real in a loving relationship with
our Father. I live in the tug of war, knowing my Spirit is uplifted but never quite
knowing what I am saying. But then this is walking in faith, often we do not know
why or how we need to share, we just share and God blesses, Amen, and Praise
the Lord.

 

[Grace777x70]

I wouldn't be surprised either. There are those who believe that when the disciples asked Him to teach them how to pray, they were asking about tongues. It wasn't yet the time.

Checking the video.

I have never heard that before and don't know how they would come to that idea...they would need to have their spirit joined as one spirit with the Lord by the Holy Spirit in order to pray in tongues with their spirit.

 

[stonesoffire]

I don't think the clicking and whistling language would be accepted anywhere. lol

 

[stonesoffire]

I have never heard that before and don't know how they would come to that idea...they would need to have their spirit joined as one spirit with the Lord by the Holy Spirit in order to pray in tongues with their spirit.

Not sure myself, but if Jesus prayed in the Spirit which I believe He did, wouldn't you think the disciples would want to too? It just wasn't the time.

 

[RickyZ]

I don't think the clicking and whistling language would be accepted anywhere. lol

Actually, there are human languages that rely solely on clicks and whistles

 

[hornetguy]

Not sure myself, but if Jesus prayed in the Spirit which I believe He did, wouldn't you think the disciples would want to too? It just wasn't the time.

That is nothing but pure, hopeful speculation... which really makes no sense, because when they asked Jesus to teach them how to pray, he did just that...

It happened that while [SUP][a][/SUP]Jesus was praying in a certain place, after He had finished, one of His disciples said to Him, “Lord, teach us to pray just as John also taught his disciples.” [SUP]2 [/SUP]And He said to them, “When you pray, say:‘[SUP][b][/SUP]Father, hallowed be Your name.
Your kingdom come.
[SUP]3 [/SUP]‘Give us each day our [SUP][c][/SUP]daily bread.
[SUP]4 [/SUP]‘And forgive us our sins,
For we ourselves also forgive everyone who is indebted to us.
And lead us not into temptation.’”

To try to twist that into "it wasn't time to teach them about tongues" is pretty much making something up out of whole cloth...

 

[hornetguy]

That depends on what you mean by 'known languages.' The 'tongues' are known by someone. In Acts 2, they were known by some of those present.

Yes. That is exactly what I was saying. The point of publicly speaking in a tongue is so that it is easily recognized by the unbelievers present that it is, genuinely, a real language NOT previously known by the speaker. In order for that to happen, someone has to recognize the language, or someone has to legitimately interpret the language.

If no one is there to interpret, the speaker should not speak out loud in the assembly... it is nothing but a disruption.

 

[RickyZ]

Yes. That is exactly what I was saying. The point of publicly speaking in a tongue is so that it is easily recognized by the unbelievers present that it is, genuinely, a real language NOT previously known by the speaker. In order for that to happen, someone has to recognize the language, or someone has to legitimately interpret the language.

If no one is there to interpret, the speaker should not speak out loud in the assembly... it is nothing but a disruption.

What also raises a red flag for me is when the prophecy is only 2 minutes but the interpretation goes on for 20...

 

[Grace777x70]

What also raises a red flag for me is when the prophecy is only 2 minutes but the interpretation goes on for 20...

I have wondered that too. I also wonder that the "interpretation" has to be word for word from the tongue as far as duration goes?

I do agree though that sometimes our spirits may "interpret" things on their own or "add" things unto it as the interpretation goes on. I suppose that's why we are to judge all things.

 

[HisHolly]

Its interpretation not translation.. not even all languages translate word for word..

I have wondered that too. I also wonder that the "interpretation" has to be word for word from the tongue as far as duration goes?

I do agree though that sometimes our spirits may "interpret" things on their own or "add" things unto it as the interpretation goes on. I suppose that's why we are to judge all things.

Loljust picking

 

[Grace777x70]

Its interpretation not translation.. not even all languages translate word for word..
Loljust picking

I agree.....That is a great point - interpretation is not the same as translation.

 

[wolfwint]

There are lot's of sources on the net but I'm not about to track them all down as I have been speaking in tongues since the time I believed it was for us today and it will just be a useless endeavor anyway.

The natural mind of man will not understand these spiritual truths until they are revealed by the Holy Spirit to us. This applies to all of us in every area of truth. To go looking for every source is a complete waste of time as they would still not give us understanding in this or any other area. That is the Holy Spirit's job - to reveal the things of God to us.

Unfortunately there are many mis-uses of tongues which causes our natural minds to be against them but mis-use does not mean non-use. That is the danger of trying to get understanding from our natural minds and also the danger of not being taught how to use the gift in a manner that doesn't cause others to stumble.

Anyway, I was just giving out what others have said about the past in church history. Whether people believe in speaking in tongues is between them and their Lord. To me, someone saying that speaking in tongues is not real is on par with an atheist telling me Jesus is not real. Too late..I know Him.

Hallo Grace777x70, around in 160 ad came up a movement in Minor asia. The montanism, a sect which taught also prophecie and speaking in tongues. Movement disappiered offical at the end of the 5th century.
Speaking in tongues began in ad 1900 with foundation of the pentecostal movement in USA. In the last 300-400 years speaking in tongues was found in sects/heretic groups, but not in the official church.
My question now! From what is it depend to speak in tongues? From the baptising with the Holy Spirit as second expierience?
Or is it given as all other in the NT mentioned gifts for the Church?

 

[garee]

What also raises a red flag for me is when the prophecy is only 2 minutes but the interpretation goes on for 20...

Prophecy as God's revelation is His interpretation. It does not come from our will as a private interpretation . Tongues was one manner of prophecy.New prophecy has ceased therefore tongues follow.

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.2Pe 1:20

 

[stonesoffire]

That is nothing but pure, hopeful speculation... which really makes no sense, because when they asked Jesus to teach them how to pray, he did just that...


To try to twist that into "it wasn't time to teach them about tongues" is pretty much making something up out of whole cloth...

Not really...Pentecost hadn't yet happened. Nor were they born again. The Cross and resurrection hadn't happened yet either.

They were given authority like OT anointing that came upon them but the Spirit hadn't yet been given inwardly.

 

[hornetguy]

Not really...Pentecost hadn't yet happened. Nor were they born again. The Cross and resurrection hadn't happened yet either.

They were given authority like OT anointing that came upon them but the Spirit hadn't yet been given inwardly.

Which still does not indicate Jesus was praying in an unknown tongue... that is purely speculation. If he WAS, and they asked him to teach them how to do that, he would have said something like "now is not the time for you to learn this" .... instead, he taught them how to pray to the Father... they wanted to know what to say... HOW to pray... what were the proper things to pray for, etc...

 

[Grace777x70]

Hallo Grace777x70, around in 160 ad came up a movement in Minor asia. The montanism, a sect which taught also prophecie and speaking in tongues. Movement disappiered offical at the end of the 5th century.
Speaking in tongues began in ad 1900 with foundation of the pentecostal movement in USA. In the last 300-400 years speaking in tongues was found in sects/heretic groups, but not in the official church.
My question now! From what is it depend to speak in tongues? From the baptising with the Holy Spirit as second expierience?
Or is it given as all other in the NT mentioned gifts for the Church?

The emphasis of speaking in tongues became more prevalent in the 1900's for sure. As far as things not being in the "official church" - that is a matter of opinion. When Martin Luther said that "the just shall live by faith". The "official church" of the day said the complete opposite of that truth for 1,100 years.

My view is that there are many fillings of the Holy Spirit as seen in Acts. One does not need to speak in tongues in order to be saved or to be a better Christian of some elite status. It is a gift from the Father to those that want it as far as the devotional aspect of praying in tongues. If people do not want to pray with their spirit and speak mysteries to the Father - that is their choice.

Everything in the kingdom of God comes by grace through faith.

As I have said before and I will keep on saying it - for people to try to convince me that tongues is not for today is on the same level as an atheist trying to tell me that Jesus does not exist. Too late - I know Him.

Spiritual truths do not make any sense to our natural minds and we are all in that same boat concerning every truth - no matter what it is. Without the revelation of the Holy Spirit - we will be blind to the things of God.

We all need to ask for the revelation of Christ and all that He has done for us from our Father - then spiritual understanding will come and our minds will be renewed as the Holy Spirit reveals truth to all of us.

It is as natural for me to speak in tongues to my Father as it is to breathe now because my mind is established in that truth. The enemy cannot deceive me in that area any longer. This is part of the "being transformed by the renewing of our mind".

I encourage you to ask the Father about all of this....

 

[notuptome]

I agree.....That is a great point - interpretation is not the same as translation.

Its interpretation not translation.. not even all languages translate word for word..
Loljust picking

How do you know? If it is a language then translation is interpretation.

Seems the idea that translation is not interpretation is more speculation than linguistic merit.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[presidente]

Hallo Grace777x70, around in 160 ad came up a movement in Minor asia. The montanism, a sect which taught also prophecie and speaking in tongues. Movement disappiered offical at the end of the 5th century.

If you actually read Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, which is a 4th century compliation and commentary on history using many sources from prior centuries, you will see that Eusebius' quotes many people about the Montanist movement. You see that the Christians who opposed Montanism affirmed the genuine gift of prophecy as a gift in the church. One named a prophet in a particular city. They weren't cessationists, but they did not believe Montanus had the genuine gift. So it was not that Montanus revived a belief in gifts of the Spirit. It was that those who rejected him did not believe he had the real gifts.

Also, after Montanus died, Eusebius records a debate between a Christian and a Montanist. The Christian argued that Priscilla and Maximilla, Montanus' associates, were prophetesses like Philip's daughters, but believed the gift of prophecy had died out with them. The Christian who debated them said that the church still had the gift of prophecy, because the apostle taught that prophecy would continue until the Lord returned. Maybe he was referring to I Corinthians 1:7 "So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:" or I Corinthians 13. Some of the Montanists were the first I Corinthians 13 cessationists we know of in history, believing the perfect came with Montanus.

Eusebius also records the writings of Irenaeus who lived around 200 AD, from 'Against Heresies'. Some of the commentators think part of his writings address Montanism. Irenaeus wrote of brethren raising the dead, healing the sick, speaking in tongues, prophesying, having foreknowledge, casting out demons, etc. In another of his works, he describes the error of rejecting the gift of prophecy as one of the characteristics of the heresies.

 

[presidente]

I've done some translation for preachers, and the interpretation can be longer than what you are translating. It depends on what it is and how you approach it.