Tongues Again???

[fredoheaven]

The plural makes it nonconclusive, but our praying buildings ourselves up, collectively does say something about this.

Words have meaning, and it just does not make sense to interpret the New Testament to put a ban on all self-edifying activities. We'd have to forbid individual singing of psalms, prayer, and Bible study if that were the case. Just like we shouldn't interpret Paul's statement for each to seek another's profit to mean that one should not work to support himself. I can find scripture that says that we should work to support ourselves. I can also find where Paul says that he will pray with the Spirit, a self-edifying activity.



That seems to be a reasonable interpretation of the text. I wonder if posters on both sides of the issue will agree.

What I find odd in these discussions is that you'll have someone quote a scripture or point out some fact that both sides agree on, as if that proves their point. I am not saying you do that. But you'll see posters point out that 'unknown' is an italicized addition by the translators of the KJV. I think "So what?" It doesn't really effect most well-read interpreters on either side of the issue.

In some cases, a poster will post something that runs contrary to what the text of scripture actually says. The John MacArthur commentary quote that VCO referred to would be a good example of this. Asserting that the tongues in I Corinthians 14 are pagan tongues makes no sense in context.

I have cited scriptures to demonstrate on how it used that “building yourselves up” of Jude 1:20 has nothing to do with the “speaking of unknown tongue”. By context and even using the whole counsel of God, speaking in tongues helps no Christian in the church except he interprets. There is no exhortation and comfort to others, only that ”He prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.” 1 Cor. 14:3-4

I am not thinking it that way to ban self-edifying activities like singing pslams, prayer and Bible study, actually that has nothing to do with the subject in mind or under our discussion. What Paul is saying that “speaking in tongue” is not done somewhere at home or outside the Church, for in fact what Paul wrote was not to a certain individual believer but rather the church that is at Corinth. Paul in context is concern with the church edification and not merely pointing out self.
v.4 edifieth the church
v.5 church may become edified
v.17 seek the edification of others
v.19 in the church
v. 23 the whole church
v. 26 come together ie the church

Speaking in tongues or “unknown tongue” is not forbidden in the early church but came with the most strictest rule and in fact Corinth Christians were going beyond the natural used of this gift. Unanimous speaking of tongue was actually forbidden and in used to be in limited number. 1 Cor. 14:23, 27. However, this gift phased out with the completion of the New Testament. This “childish things” were put away.


I have just fairly demonstrated, how the word "mystery" is used in the Bible and that “unknown” is correct although it is to be interpreted as language “not really known by the hearers of the Corinth” and is with “signification” 1 Cor. 14:10 not by any Pentecostal/Charismatic experience. Other meanings of “mystery” which was used in the Bible are:

1. Hidden. 1 Cor. 2:7 Ephesians 3:9, Col. 1:26
2. Ignorance. Romans 11:25
3. Secret. Romans 11:25

God bless

 

[fredoheaven]

What is confusing you is your misunderstanding of comparing English meanings to Greek meanings. Greek can have more specific meanings than English, plus the fact that Greek has FOUR Primary Verb Tenses, whereas English only has THREE Primary Verb Tenses; which makes English a poor language at best to translate the Bible into.

1 Corinthians 14:4 (NASB)
[SUP]4 [/SUP] One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church.

In English the phrase "building yourselves up" and the phrase "edifies himself" have a slightly different meaning in the Greek, whereas in English they seem identical. "Building yourselves up" in Jude 1:20 is the learning process that leads spiritual growth or maturing. The "edifies himself" is building himself up in his own estimation, which almost always spawns out of pride.

There are no contradictions in my Bible, maybe you think there are all kinds of contradictions in the Bible, but not me. Since I was born again in late 1977, one of the most important things that I have learned about studying the Bible is any time we think we found a contradiction, we have certainly made an error in interpretation.

1 Corinthians 10:23-24 (KJV)
[SUP]23 [/SUP] All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
[SUP]24 [/SUP] Let no man seek his own, but every man another's {and the KJV translators added the following word that is not in the original language Bible} wealth.

Clearly Paul is saying let no man seek his own edification. Can we prove that with other verses?

Romans 14:19 (ASV)
[SUP]19 [/SUP] So then let us follow after things which make for peace, and things whereby we may edify one another.

So does this insistence that GOD wants us to edify SELF generate peace or strife?

1 Thessalonians 5:11 (KJV)
[SUP]11 [/SUP] Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do.

Does your understanding of 1 Cor. 14:4 generate comfort or bickering?

Now is the expression in Jude 1:20 "praying in the Spirit" a reference to the ecstatic utterances called tongues, or only a reference to strive to pray in your own language, while being led by the Spirit.

Matthew 6:7-9 (NIV)
[SUP]7 [/SUP] And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.
[SUP]8 [/SUP] Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
[SUP]9 [/SUP] "This, then, is how you should pray: "'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name,

Our Lord God does not contradict Himself. In verse 9. is He telling us to Pray in Charismatic tongues, or in our own language"

Some will say, oh it is just the Holy Spirit in us offering up His groanings.

Okay, let's look at that verse too.

Romans 8:26 (KJV)
[SUP]26 [/SUP] Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

So what do you think cannot be uttered means?

Like I said, my Bible has no contradictions, and I am totally at peace with GOD over the understandings HE HAS GIVEN ME.

Are you totally at peace with GOD over your understandings, and do they create Contradictions in HIS WORD?



Jude 1:20 (GWT)
[SUP]20 [/SUP] Dear friends, use your most holy faith to grow. Pray with the Holy Spirit's help.

Hi VCO,

Thanks for pointing out Jude 1:20 has nothing to do with self-edification or speaking in tongues as that is my point of view. You may be misunderstood me, though the difference we have here is that I found only an English Bible suited for me since I am not familiar with that Greek syntax or meaning or whatever you call it. If I did some study of my own but on rarely basis about the Greek, I have it consulted from other Greek authorities but it does not mean, I have all to believe Greek authorities more than the words of God. Howbeit, it seems, I speak tongues more than you.
God bless

 

[jaybird88]

If what they were doing was talking in a demonized state, why would they have to get it from different cultures, and not directly from demons. This is clearly not the same thing as speaking in tongues, which is a gift of the Spirit.

because thats what demons do. the source of the darkness was canaan, the ones that were cursed, and the corruption spread to other cultures even acros the sea to the aztecs.

If someone repeats something in a foreign language I don't know, it is repetitive and not meaningful to me. Speaking in tongues is not necessarily repetitive. Some languages do have some repetition to them, though, including morphemes and grammatical features that come up over and over again.

Biblical glossolalia is not the same thing as 'secular academic' glossolalia. I know one PhD grad who writes about the issue and uses 'xenoglossaic glossolalia' to indicate that he is referring to Biblical tongues so that those who know the academic terminology will know what he means.

You mentioned religious fervor. Other posters say 'ecstasy'. 'Ecstatic utterances' is not an accurate description of Christian speaking in tongues. This is something that can be done when someone is calm. Certain groups of Pentecostals in particular have a very exuberant culture and encourage it. They encouraging shouting and other things found in the Psalms. Some of the Pentecostals from Holiness backgrounds from the Appalachian region are like this. The Assemblies of God had founders from Baptist, CMA, and various independent groups that joined together. My experience with them is that they are a bit more 'tame' emotionally, or can be, but it depends on what part of the country you are in. A lot of times, those who speak in tongues really loud also pray in English loud in the churches that promote emotional 'fervor.'

But that is not the same thing as ecstasy. If falling into a trance and having a vision counts as 'ecstasy' then both Peter and Paul experienced it, and it would not be wrong to speak in tongues or prophesy in such a state. If it is not an appropriate term for the trances in which they had visions, then we should be careful with the term.

Montanus was criticized and accused of falling into a frenzy that was contrary to church tradition. If you read Eusebius, critics rejected his prophesying, but not the prophesying of the church. After he and his two female coworkers died died, the argument the church have against the Montanists was that the church still had prophesying, but Montanus did not.



If you go back through the thread, I've posted sources on the difficulty of translating battalogeo. I discussed this with VCO, who blocked me after I repeatedly pointed out how his stances contradicted scripture and asked for support for his assertions for such things as his definition of battalogeo. His contention was that it was a kind of pagan gibberish. But that would be odd to think that the ecstatic speech of the priests was the norm for pagan prayer. Why would people go to the Oracle at Delphi, someone certain of those who argue for this stance associate this type of speech with, if every single run-of-the-mill pagan fell into an ecstasy when he prayed?

Another belief is that pagans prayed long incantations or long prayers to invoke whatever false deities they were praying to to try to persuade them to hear and answer. The verse connects the idea with 'much speaking.'

if tongues really are what you say they are, why do we not have one single example of them in the Hebrew bible? one example by Jesus, nor do we have them in the theology writings of the early Jews of Jerusalem, essenes of qumran or the Christian writing of nag hammidi.
the only examples we have are those associated with the Canaanites.

 

[presidente]

because thats what demons do. the source of the darkness was canaan, the ones that were cursed, and the corruption spread to other cultures even acros the sea to the aztecs.

If idolatry started with Babel, than a traditional view would make that the source for all cultures. Men were given over to all kinds of wickedness for idolatry. If idolatry arose independently in different cultures, why shouldn't we expect the same outcome. Why would their have to be late cultural influence for demons to influence idolaters in the same way?

if tongues really are what you say they are, why do we not have one single example of them in the Hebrew bible? one example by Jesus, nor do we have them in the theology writings of the early Jews of Jerusalem, essenes of qumran or the Christian writing of nag hammidi.

Speaking in tongues is what the Bible says it is. It's speaking in a language. In Acts 2, there were people gathered present who understood and some who did not. In church meetings, when someone spoke in tongues no one understood. There was a gift of interpretation to interpret it. All of this can be clearly seen in Acts 2 and in I Corinthians 14. It should not be controversial.

In I Corinthians, if Paul prayed in a tongue, his understanding was 'unfruitful'. He contrasts this with praying with 'the understanding.' This is good evidence that the speaker in tongues did not understand what he was saying. Similarities to pagan practices are superficial. The secular critic of Biblical Judaism and Christianity can point to similarities to try to discredit the truth. There are those who point out that Canaanites also used altars of uncut stone. Does that make it wrong that God desired such a practice? Mankind originally knew of the true God. Animism and polytheism are later corruptions.

Why would you expect references to speaking in tongues in the Old Testament? If a sign of those who follow Jesus is that they will speak with new tongues, why did that have to be an Old Testament thing. You can't find Jesus actually dying on the cross in the New Testament. There are prophecies of it, but He didn't actually do it back then. That doesn't mean it isn't true in the Gospels.

I did come across a reference to a Jewish midrash which proposed that the Israelites spoke in the 70 nations of the world at Sinai. The interpretation of the text took qol in Hebrew to refer to voices rather than lightening. (I seem to recall both in the gloss for the word in my Introduction to Hebrew class.) Anyway, this Jewish story said that when the law was given, the Hebrews spoke in those languages.

Pentecost was a feast commemorating the giving of the law. So if this midrash was much older and some of those present at Pentecost were familiar with it, they could have associated speaking in tongues with the giving of the law. In the account of the giving of the law (though probably not on the same day as Pentecost), 3000 died, but on the day of Pentecost, 3000 were saved.

 

[presidente]

GLOSSOLALIA IS WRONG

Do you think the apostles were wrong in Acts 2?

We should not blame the Holy Spirit, since they spoke in tongue 'as the Spirit gave them utterance.'

Look up the relevant passages in an interlinear that transliterates Greek words.

 

[VCO]

Hi VCO,

Thanks for pointing out Jude 1:20 has nothing to do with self-edification or speaking in tongues as that is my point of view. You may be misunderstood me, though the difference we have here is that I found only an English Bible suited for me since I am not familiar with that Greek syntax or meaning or whatever you call it. If I did some study of my own but on rarely basis about the Greek, I have it consulted from other Greek authorities but it does not mean, I have all to believe Greek authorities more than the words of God. Howbeit, it seems, I speak tongues more than you.

God bless

I am not a Greek Scholar either, but enjoy and rely on hearing the Greek differences explained by great Greek Scholars and Theologians. Many of the over 500 sermons I used to have on tape, I listened to at least 4 tiimes each. After awhile some of it actually stuck in my head.

 

[VCO]

Some times, you gotta love that Ignore List feature.

 

[presidente]

Certain Biblical truths have been on the ignore list for some people for a long time.

 

[jaybird88]

If idolatry started with Babel, than a traditional view would make that the source for all cultures. Men were given over to all kinds of wickedness for idolatry. If idolatry arose independently in different cultures, why shouldn't we expect the same outcome. Why would their have to be late cultural influence for demons to influence idolaters in the same way?

i dont get your point. what defference does it make. darkness and evil will always be darkness and evil no matter what the source is.

Speaking in tongues is what the Bible says it is. It's speaking in a language. In Acts 2, there were people gathered present who understood and some who did not. In church meetings, when someone spoke in tongues no one understood. There was a gift of interpretation to interpret it. All of this can be clearly seen in Acts 2 and in I Corinthians 14. It should not be controversial.

i have no problem with tongues of this world, only the angle language tongues.

Why would you expect references to speaking in tongues in the Old Testament? If a sign of those who follow Jesus is that they will speak with new tongues, why did that have to be an Old Testament thing. You can't find Jesus actually dying on the cross in the New Testament. There are prophecies of it, but He didn't actually do it back then. That doesn't mean it isn't true in the Gospels.

because you guys are making tongues into a private prayer angel language that neither Jesus not His Father ever taught.

I did come across a reference to a Jewish midrash which proposed that the Israelites spoke in the 70 nations of the world at Sinai. The interpretation of the text took qol in Hebrew to refer to voices rather than lightening. (I seem to recall both in the gloss for the word in my Introduction to Hebrew class.) Anyway, this Jewish story said that when the law was given, the Hebrews spoke in those languages.

again this would be an example of a language of this world, not the heavens.

i have spent many years researching early Christianity, pre domanantly the DSS and nag hammidi libraries, they dont mention tongues, not as an ecstatic language.

 

[VCO]

Hi VCO,

Thanks for pointing out Jude 1:20 has nothing to do with self-edification or speaking in tongues as that is my point of view. You may be misunderstood me, though the difference we have here is that I found only an English Bible suited for me since I am not familiar with that Greek syntax or meaning or whatever you call it. If I did some study of my own but on rarely basis about the Greek, I have it consulted from other Greek authorities but it does not mean, I have all to believe Greek authorities more than the words of God. Howbeit, it seems, I speak tongues more than you.

God bless

Something that I learned over the years about the Greek and Hebrew, is quite a few times they carry a slightly different or stronger and deeper meaning than the equivalent English word. For example. The word BELIEVE to the Jews carries a MUCH STRONGER meaning than our English word BELIEVE. To the JEWS Believe is not just intellectual acknowledgement that something is True. It requires and action to back up and demonstrate that Belief.

For Example:

If two Jews walked up to a frozen over lake in early winter, and Jew #1 said to Jew#2,

"Do you believe the ice is thick enough to walk on already?"

If Jew #2 then said, "Yes, I believe it is thick enough to walk on."; and then gently reached out will one foot to test the ice.

Jew #1 would yell, "LIAR! If you really believed it, you would have stepped out there boldly with both feet and put your whole weight on the ice."

HENCE, to a JEWISH CHRISTIAN, Believing in Christ is NOT JUST intellectually claiming the name and acknowledging the stories about JESUS are True. To them it MEANS you are willing to put your whole weight and TRUST on HIM as LORD and MASTER.

 

[VCO]

i don;t get your point. what difference does it make. Darkness and evil will always be darkness and evil no matter what the source is...

That makes two of us.

 

[presidente]

i dont get your point. what defference does it make. darkness and evil will always be darkness and evil no matter what the source is.

I was responding your point about ecstasy coming from cultural influence from one culture to another, but it is a tangent and a minor issue.

i have no problem with tongues of this world, only the angle language tongues.

Unless you can identify a tongue as angelic, you wouldn't have a problem, then. Historically, the 'emphasis' or expectation among Pentecostals was more focused on human languages. I've come across four testimonies of people understanding their own 'human tongues' at the Azusa Street Revival.

because you guys are making tongues into a private prayer angel language that neither Jesus not His Father ever taught.

There are a number of issues that Jesus did not directly address in the Gospels that are taught on by the apostles the Lord sent in the epistles, which are also scripture. Acts and I Corinthians tell us about speaking in tongues. Both books are part of the Bible.

Paul says if there be no interpreter, let him keep silent in the church and let him speak to himself and to God. If the one who speaks in tongues without an interpreter is supposed to keep silent in the church, but is allowed to speak to himself and to God, where may he do so?

i have spent many years researching early Christianity, pre domanantly the DSS and nag hammidi libraries, they dont mention tongues, not as an ecstatic language.

Again, why would you call modern Christian speaking in tongues 'ecstatic language.' How do you define ecstasy?

Midrash Tanhuma 26c and some other references to the idea of 'tongues' at Sinai are mentioned at this link: https://books.google.co.id/books?id...KHQUcA5wQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=midrash&f=false

I'm not saying that's what happened, but it was a belief at some point in Judaism at the least.

 

[jaybird88]

Again, why would you call modern Christian speaking in tongues 'ecstatic language.' How do you define ecstasy?

i dont know what else to call it, angel language, babel language, you can pick a name if you like and we can use it, just dont refer to it as tongues as tongues could mean a language of this world. i am only concerned in language not of this world.

Midrash Tanhuma 26c and some other references to the idea of 'tongues' at Sinai are mentioned at this link: https://books.google.co.id/books?id...KHQUcA5wQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=midrash&f=false

I'm not saying that's what happened, but it was a belief at some point in Judaism at the least.

Tongues - Abraham's Descendants International

here is a better link, the Jews hold the same position as i do, tongues are languages of this world, the Father, Jesus, the angels, the patriarchs, the prophets, etc all speak to us in our own language and we can pray in our own language as the Most High is more than fully capable of understanding us in our own language.

 

[presidente]

here is a better link, the Jews hold the same position as i do, tongues are languages of this world, the Father, Jesus, the angels, the patriarchs, the prophets, etc all speak to us in our own language and we can pray in our own language as the Most High is more than fully capable of understanding us in our own language.

A common saying among Jews is that if you ask four Jews, you'll get five opinions.

 

[jaybird88]

A common saying among Jews is that if you ask four Jews, you'll get five opinions.

they have less denominations than we do.

 

[presidente]

they have less denominations than we do.

That appeared to be some kind of Hebrew roots or Messianic Jewish site. Some people in those movements are ethnically Jewish, and others aren't.

 

[fredoheaven]

EASY, there is NO SUCH THING AS AN ANGEL LANGUAGE. Every time an angel spoke in the Bible they spoke in the language of the people they were talking to. The only difference is that angels were known to speak in a louder voice, more eloquent, and their voice was noticably one speaking from Authority.

Yea, I need to cope up this...

The language of the angel was understood by Lot. Gen. 19:1,15. The angels keep saying “Glory to God in the highest, and in earth, peace and goodwill toward men” Luke 2:10-14 and were understood by the Shepherd. Biblically speaking, the angel’s languages are known by men for it it also the language of men. What Paul speaking is “as if” there’s such angel’s language that is in a way that seems to show something but it’s not. Paul says:

“Though I speak…”

God bless

 

[Cee]

I will respect your right to believe as you wish. I write to those who heap fear to try to enslave others to their way of thinking. You do not do this, I respect your freedom in Christ.

What you are not understanding, is we DO NOT consider the Charismatic tongues to be anything more than a counterfeit or imitation of the genuine GIFT OF TONGUES, which is what that verse you quoted is referring to. SO WE ARE OBEDIENT TO THAT VERSE because our SPIRIT led understanding is ONLY the TONGUES used by the Apostles, where unbelieving JEWS heard ever word in their own dialect, complete with their native accent, IS THE REAL McCOY.

OUR BELIEFS AND UNDERSTANDINGS are that JESUS Himself FORBID the ecstatic utterance style of tongues, when HE SAID:

Matthew 6:7-10 (HCSB)
[SUP]7 [/SUP] When you pray, don’t babble like the idolaters, since they imagine they’ll be heard for their many words.
[SUP]8 [/SUP] Don’t be like them, because your Father knows the things you need before you ask Him.
[SUP]9 [/SUP] “Therefore, you should pray like this: Our Father in heaven, Your name be honored as holy.
[SUP]10 [/SUP] Your kingdom come. Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

1 Timothy 6:20-21 (ESV)
20 O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge,”
21 for by professing it some have swerved from the faith. Grace be with you.


I respect your right to believe differently, and it does not bother me that in this most minor of all the gifts, our understandings are the opposite. PLEASE RESPECT OUR RIGHT TO HONOR THE HOLY SCRIPTURES THE WAY THE HOLY SPIRIT HAS LED US TO UNDERSTAND THEM, EVEN THO IT IS OPPOSITE OF YOURS ON THIS MOST MINOR SUBJECT.

 

[fredoheaven]

Something that I learned over the years about the Greek and Hebrew, is quite a few times they carry a slightly different or stronger and deeper meaning than the equivalent English word. For example. The word BELIEVE to the Jews carries a MUCH STRONGER meaning than our English word BELIEVE. To the JEWS Believe is not just intellectual acknowledgement that something is True. It requires and action to back up and demonstrate that Belief.

For Example:

If two Jews walked up to a frozen over lake in early winter, and Jew #1 said to Jew#2,

"Do you believe the ice is thick enough to walk on already?"

If Jew #2 then said, "Yes, I believe it is thick enough to walk on."; and then gently reached out will one foot to test the ice.

Jew #1 would yell, "LIAR! If you really believed it, you would have stepped out there boldly with both feet and put your whole weight on the ice."

HENCE, to a JEWISH CHRISTIAN, Believing in Christ is NOT JUST intellectually claiming the name and acknowledging the stories about JESUS are True. To them it MEANS you are willing to put your whole weight and TRUST on HIM as LORD and MASTER.

Thanks for the Hebrew or Greek lesson 101 but English is fairly good for me. I'm okay with it. Should there be any hard to understand English words, I often look with a good English dictionary but sometimes, a well worth study is indeed a blessing! You have just to discover that the Bible defines it's words. Here is an example as you trying to point.

Ephesians 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,


True, to believe in Christ is not just a historical belief, a one mental assent but rather a full trust in Jesus to save.

God bless

 

[jaybird88]

Yea, I need to cope up this...

The language of the angel was understood by Lot. Gen. 19:1,15. The angels keep saying “Glory to God in the highest, and in earth, peace and goodwill toward men” Luke 2:10-14 and were understood by the Shepherd. Biblically speaking, the angel’s languages are known by men for it it also the language of men. What Paul speaking is “as if” there’s such angel’s language that is in a way that seems to show something but it’s not. Paul says:

“Though I speak…”

God bless

i agree, paul is making an exaggeration to prove a point, sad the point is missed by so many.