Praying in Tongues

you have to take that up with paul in cor 14 . what you take it to mean and what it says are two differnt things.

I was not asking about the apostolic time ( lifetime from the Apostles), but asking about the time after, till 1900.
You cant show me a christian church in this time which proofes that the baptism with the Holy Spirit and the speaking in tongues as evidence for this is be taught.

You may forget, that I am a german. In germany everybody is called a christian if he is baptised as baby. Without following Jesus. 25 years I meant to be a christian. Till I met born again christians which told me the truth.

I'd have to respectfully beg to differ; 1 Cor. 14 describes real, rational language, so no connection to the passage you referenced in your post.

With no disrespect seeing we do not wrestle against flesh and blood or are we supported by the things seen by our imaginations of our fleshly minds.

Separate the "I" From whose "ego"?

You may forget, that I am a german. In germany everybody is called a christian if he is baptised as baby. Without following Jesus. 25 years I meant to be a christian. Till I met born again christians which told me the truth.

If only you and many others fully understood the bolded in your post.....think about what we do pray, how we pray and the things we pray for and or even against......now let me give you my personal view on prayer....

a. Jesus said you have no need to pray for the things you need to sustain life such as food, clothing, shelter etc. because your Heavenly Father already knows you need these things.

He then goes on to say this is how you pray....Our Father which is in heaven thy WILL BE DONE on earth as it is in heaven.

What if we are just to pray for the will of God to be done....nothing more nothing less when it comes to what we NEED...

Or how about this pray.....

Johnny Stax is sick so we pray for them to get better <---What if it is God's will they die and come home, are we praying against the will of God? What if we say....Lord, Johnny is sick...thy WILL be DONE? <----and leave it at that......

I personally believe our prayers are filled with way to much "self" and too be honest......I have found in my life that the most selfless prayers are the ones that get answered yes more often than not....let me give you 2 examples and this is how MANY of my prayers are answered...

Once on a Saturday on the way home from building a cabin on my property I prayed to the Lord and said, " Lord I am in the middle of this project and I need $200 to finish it and I do not have the money, if it be within your will can you help me find the money." The next day at church a complete visitor and stranger walked up to me, shook my hand and said the Lord laid it on my heart to give you this.......IT WAS EXACTLY $200

On another occasion...I had two guys from Arkansas up in Missouri hunting deer and I was guiding and setting them each day for a few days and had been sick as a dog with a fever and had not even hunted. I sat in my truck and prayed to the Lord and said..."Lord, i do not care if I take a deer this year and if I was going to be blessed with a deer I would prefer you allow one of these guys to take one." As darkness rolled in and with about 15 minutes of shooting light left I parked my truck and got out to go get one of the guys and at that moment a 330 pound mature Missouri White Tail buck with 165 inches of rack stepped up tot he plate and gave me a 30 yard broadside shot which I took.......I am convinced to this day that the selflessness of my prayer resulted in that deer.......

I fully believe that when it comes to prayer we should put everyone else first and ourselves last with GOD's WILL being above all..........

Normalerweise unterscheiden wir uns (ich meine, bei uns hier im US) auch nicht - es ist nur so, daß sich einige Gruppen von Christen gerne von anderen unterscheiden (oder, so scheint es mir).

i think there must be a statistical bias in what we observe in terms of comments that agree or disagree. ((imo)) people are more likely to type out a reply to something they have a disagreement with than with something they don't. probably we are also more likely to read a thread about something they think is controversial or has 'gray areas' than a thread about something we see as settled or has no room for discussion or exploration.

so, we see an oversampling of dissenting opinion because people who have no disagreement are less likely to read a thread or post in it; controversial or mysterious topics are just, in a way, more interesting - we see them as having more to discuss.

read matthew 23 again guy. Jesus spoke to the disciples and the people gather there which included the :
Scribes and Pharisees
You will see why Jesus said what he said IF you read chapter 22 you know the one before 23.
In verse 41 of chapter 22 of matthews

The pharisees were qestioning Jesus.

"
41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose Son is He?”

They said to Him, “The Son of David.”

43 He said to them, “How then does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying:

44 ‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at My right hand,
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool” ’?
45 If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his Son?” 46 And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor from that day on did anyone dare question Him anymore.

Then chapter 23 starts
Jesus says to those there : Disciples and the multitudes, scribes, and Pharisees

"23 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you [a]to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.

everything Jesu was saying HERE was in context to the SCRIBES and Pharisees.

6 They love the [b]best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues,
7 greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’ 8 But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your [c]Teacher, [d]the Christ, and you are all brethren. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. 11 But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whoever exalts himself will be [e]humbled, and he who humbles himself will be [f]exalted.

13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves,nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.


All of this was directed to the Scribes and Pharisees. we do call men teachers today by your understand that too is a no no.

Wrong we call men today (f)ather but know who our (F)ather in Heaven is. These types Jesus called hypocrites.

The studies done at Penn State using SPECT imaging are, as the person (a Dr. Newberg, I think) who did the studies himself said, 'inconclusive'.

The results could be used to support either view (pro and con) of ‘tongues’.

I would argue that the results are exactly what one would expect to see. The language producing areas of the brain are not overly active in the production of “tongues” simply because “tongues” are not language. There’s no reason to suspect to see those areas of the brain overly active in its production. “Tongues” is non-cognitive non-language utterance, and the results of the Penn State study seem to support that.

On the other hand, some would argue that the fact that the language producing areas of the brain are not active when producing “tongues” is because they come from another source (i.e. the Holy Spirit). The problem with this, of course, is that what’s being produced is not language.

If it were something definable as a language of some type, bore the unmistakable marks of language (as opposed to free vocalization), I’d say, hey, maybe we’re on to something really cool here (which is what I was kind of hoping when I first started looking at the phenomenon of tongues), but that’s just not the case.

I don't have any problem with chapter 22 being the basis of 23 but i want to be sure that i'm getting you correct.

"...do not call anyone on earth your father for one is your Father, He who is in heaven."

Means:

A. The Pharisees and scribes on earth should not call anyone father
B. The people should not call the Pharisees and scribes on earth father
C. No one should call anyone on earth father

Which of the above is correct or within or near the context.

I don't have any problem with chapter 22 being the basis of 23 but i want to be sure that i'm getting you correct.

"...do not call anyone on earth your father for one is your Father, He who is in heaven."

Means:

A. The Pharisees and scribes on earth should not call anyone father
B. The people should not call the Pharisees and scribes on earth father
C. No one should call anyone on earth father

Which of the above is correct or within or near the context.

An normal believer I would say is an born again christian living in family and church life. A nominel christian is an name christian and not born again, but member of the church through childbaptism. ( the very most in germany)

i think there must be a statistical bias in what we observe in terms of comments that agree or disagree. ((imo)) people are more likely to type out a reply to something they have a disagreement with than with something they don't. probably we are also more likely to read a thread about something they think is controversial or has 'gray areas' than a thread about something we see as settled or has no room for discussion or exploration.

so, we see an oversampling of dissenting opinion because people who have no disagreement are less likely to read a thread or post in it; controversial or mysterious topics are just, in a way, more interesting - we see them as having more to discuss.

Well, there are tongues of angels.

If your reference is to Paul's comments in Corinthians, that's textbook hyperbole.

Interpretation can also said to be self-created. It is is a ‘spiritual improv’ of sorts, inspired by one’s deep faith and beliefs.

Interpretations are typically characterized by being inordinately longer than the actual glossic utterance, rather generic and non-specific in nature, and perhaps not surprisingly, open to multiple non-related ‘interpretations’. In other words, have ten interpreters listen to a glossic string and you’ll get ten different (typically unrelated) “interpretations”. In ‘tongues’, ‘The big brown dog is slow’, can also interpreted as ‘The small white cat is quick’. These latter two characteristics do not suggest anything that is divinely inspired. It fails even the most basic tests and criteria that define ‘communication’ itself.

The common come-back to the multiple interpretation issue is that God/the Holy Spirit gives different interpretations to different people. As someone once put it, Pentecostal Darwinism does not exist – there’s no mutation or transformation of one message into several for the sake of justifying an obvious discrepancy. If this were the case, it would completely eradicate the need for ‘tongues’ in the first place.

If your reference is to Paul's comments in Corinthians, that's textbook hyperbole.

Interpretation can also said to be self-created. It is is a ‘spiritual improv’ of sorts, inspired by one’s deep faith and beliefs.

Interpretations are typically characterized by being inordinately longer than the actual glossic utterance, rather generic and non-specific in nature, and perhaps not surprisingly, open to multiple non-related ‘interpretations’. In other words, have ten interpreters listen to a glossic string and you’ll get ten different (typically unrelated) “interpretations”. In ‘tongues’, ‘The big brown dog is slow’, can also interpreted as ‘The small white cat is quick’. These latter two characteristics do not suggest anything that is divinely inspired. It fails even the most basic tests and criteria that define ‘communication’ itself.

The common come-back to the multiple interpretation issue is that God/the Holy Spirit gives different interpretations to different people. As someone once put it, Pentecostal Darwinism does not exist – there’s no mutation or transformation of one message into several for the sake of justifying an obvious discrepancy. If this were the case, it would completely eradicate the need for ‘tongues’ in the first place.

If your reference is to Paul's comments in Corinthians, that's textbook hyperbole.

Interpretation can also said to be self-created. It is is a ‘spiritual improv’ of sorts, inspired by one’s deep faith and beliefs.

Interpretations are typically characterized by being inordinately longer than the actual glossic utterance, rather generic and non-specific in nature, and perhaps not surprisingly, open to multiple non-related ‘interpretations’. In other words, have ten interpreters listen to a glossic string and you’ll get ten different (typically unrelated) “interpretations”. In ‘tongues’, ‘The big brown dog is slow’, can also interpreted as ‘The small white cat is quick’. These latter two characteristics do not suggest anything that is divinely inspired. It fails even the most basic tests and criteria that define ‘communication’ itself.

The common come-back to the multiple interpretation issue is that God/the Holy Spirit gives different interpretations to different people. As someone once put it, Pentecostal Darwinism does not exist – there’s no mutation or transformation of one message into several for the sake of justifying an obvious discrepancy. If this were the case, it would completely eradicate the need for ‘tongues’ in the first place.

I fully expect you to continue to rail against tongues and haul in personal experience rather than biblical truth to try and persuade people you are right

you are not the first and certainly not the last

yet God will continue to move supernaturally in the lives of believers whether or not he has your permission and whether or not you believe

the Bible does not say you or other people will understand all tongues nor does it say when people pray in the spirit you or others must understand

you do not understand the difference between personal use and how the gift was first used in Acts

truly, that is your loss

you came in here in a mocking manner and then you try to say it was everyone else and state you expect those who speak in tongues to argue. the op certainly did not post anything to engender arguing, but in you anti-tongues people come and start your disruptions.

you don't see what you do