Pentecostalism's sketchy origins

If I were to form an 'law of first reference' rule out of Acts 2 I would soon have to abandon it as I read the other accounts that do not match my theory.

I think I need to take all of the scriptures and the context of each concerning speaking in tongues and get an entire picture by the contribution of each mention. I believe there is progressive revelation at play in the subsequent events and mentions. It is obvious that there are differences.

Also if one does formulate some kind of measuring rod with Acts 2 to judge all other instances that occur in scripture one better have the correct measurement of they will be far afield very quickly.

As already mentioned, a careful analysis of Acts 2 suggests that the reason for the amazement was not just that they had run into bilingual people. They were so confounded and Marveled because they could not figure out how it was possible for themselves and another person who spoke a different language, to both hear them speaking in their own languages.

Mind boggling How can this Be?

Now you may not agree with that interpretation but it is what the text says and I am being as faithful to it as possible without having to change the meaning to fit my bias or prejudice.

If this is what it means it adds to the supernatural element of this event.

5Now there were Jews staying in Jerusalem, devout people from every nation under heaven. 6When this sound occurred, a crowd came together and was confused because each one heard them speaking in his own language. 7They were astounded and amazed, saying,A “Look, aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? 8How is it that each of us can hear them in our own native language? 9Parthians, Medes, Elamites; those who live in Mesopotamia, in Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts), 11Cretans and Arabs — we hear them declaring the magnificent acts of God in our own tongues.” 12They were all astounded and perplexed, saying to one another, “What does this mean? ” 13But some sneered and said, “They’re drunk on new wine.”

If you read it carefully you can really get the sense that Luke is highlighting the impact it had on those who could not make sense of how people who spoke different languages could understand the same speakers in their own language. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? How is the possible? They were astounded and perplexed by this. It is way more than finding out someone can speak your own language that would cause all of these emotions and have this kind of impact.

It is also the fact that others who don't speak your language could understand the same speakers in their own language and you don't understand their language. How can this be?

At this point I lean toward the interpretation based on the plain reading of the text that it is a case where they understood all of the 120 speakers in their own language and others understood in their own language. But I cannot contend for that. Maybe they only heard some of the 120 that were near them and noticed that others of another language also understood them.

At this point I believe that the supernatural element of two or more people who spoke different languages understanding the same speakers in their own language were aware that others who spoke another language also understood the same speakers was the reason for their amazement and perplexity and this is what Luke was presenting. This boggled their minds at the supernatural event they were a part of.

Also that others mocking and accusing them of being drunk does not match what someone would think if they thought you had just learned a language instantly. They did not understand them. They thought they were speaking nonsense, babbling incoherently, like a drunk person. That is the most obvious interpretation that would not need further explanation from Luke.

If you insist that it was each 120 speaking a known foreign language such that one could record them send the recording to linguists and identify the language (which I do not believe is what is going on here) then you will have difficulty reconciling much of what Paul wrote about the use of the gift latter.

If you do use Acts 2 to insist that each of the other events in Acts has them speaking in foreign languages and yet there is no foreigners there to hear them, then what was the purpose. And some modifications to the "law of first reference' formulated from Acts 2 is immediately required. Also there is no mention of the cloven tongues of flame setting upon anyone else after the Acts 2 event in which case further modifications to the the rule of Acts 2 must be made.

When Paul writes so much about the use of the gift and says that his own understanding is unfruitful when he prays in tongues we cannot ignore the fact that these kinds of additional details give us a whole picture that makes it very difficult to insist on an identifiable language that can be recorded and sent to linguists for identification.

I believe that is not how the gift of tongues works. Nor can you record someone praying in tongues or even someone who gives a tongue in a church service to be interpreted and then take that recording and give it to someone who claims to have the gift of interpretation and have them interpret. If they really are used to give interpretations of tongues in their local church they will tell you that they cannot help you with that. That the Holy Spirit will not give them the interpretation under such a challenge circumstance like that. That the Holy Spirit will not cooperate with their challenge. That the Holy Spirit gives them interpretations in the moment of the utterance in the assembly to edify those that are there and not to answer a skeptics recording challenge.

Those two certainly don't represent the hard core of the Pentecostal movement in the same way that the Kardasians don't represent ordinary American familes.

This is where our paths diverge, as I disagree with your interpretation. What I see is that you put your own spin on what it actually says in order to justify what you're doing. It doesn't say what you claim. It was a speaking miracle, not a hearing miracle. It clearly says the apostles spoke those languages.



If the apostles actually spoke those languages, it was clearly miraculous. And so with every instance cited in the NT. Such signs as that and others they performed authenticated the gospel they preached. I just don't see that modern tongues measures up to that kind of miraculous event.

Paul was very clear that not everyone who received the Spirit spoke in tongues - 1 Cor. 12:30. Yet P/Cs continue to declare that everyone receiving the Spirit speaks in tongues. I heard it numerous times, and official doctrines of Pentecostals state that tongues is "the initial evidence" of the baptism of the H.S. This is clearly contrary to what Paul wrote.

But modern tongues is of a type of behavior that can be performed by anyone, whether Christian or not. Many people in other religions like Hindus, Muslims, and even Voodoo practitioners do the same. Pagan religions had the practice since some time B.C. They claim they are speaking the language of their gods, and some believe they are possessed by their gods. Some call it superstition or demonic, but I say it's simply a human ability. Anyone can do it, and it's been proven to be so. The claim that it's a miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit doesn't make it so.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a Th.D. to see that there is something wrong with the picture. Your interpretation is clearly slanted, and is not the natural reading of the text.

This is where our paths diverge, as I disagree with your interpretation. What I see is that you put your own spin on what it actually says in order to justify what you're doing. It doesn't say what you claim. It was a speaking miracle, not a hearing miracle. It clearly says the apostles spoke those languages.



If the apostles actually spoke those languages, it was clearly miraculous. And so with every instance cited in the NT. Such signs as that and others they performed authenticated the gospel they preached. I just don't see that modern tongues measures up to that kind of miraculous event.

Paul was very clear that not everyone who received the Spirit spoke in tongues - 1 Cor. 12:30. Yet P/Cs continue to declare that everyone receiving the Spirit speaks in tongues. I heard it numerous times, and official doctrines of Pentecostals state that tongues is "the initial evidence" of the baptism of the H.S. This is clearly contrary to what Paul wrote.

But modern tongues is of a type of behavior that can be performed by anyone, whether Christian or not. Many people in other religions like Hindus, Muslims, and even Voodoo practitioners do the same. Pagan religions had the practice since some time B.C. They claim they are speaking the language of their gods, and some believe they are possessed by their gods. Some call it superstition or demonic, but I say it's simply a human ability. Anyone can do it, and it's been proven to be so. The claim that it's a miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit doesn't make it so.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a Th.D. to see that there is something wrong with the picture. Your interpretation is clearly slanted, and is not the natural reading of the text.

i interloped with my wife 30 years ago, so there is no else for me to interlope with but my Mrs.

The personal affront is the sarcasm, as if to say I don't know what I'm talking about, which is the double standard I see in your responses.

And this is what I see in much of P/C attitude. An experience misinterpreted inclines one to a cultic role, because they get the feeling they have something the ordinary Christian doesn't have. That's egos getting puffed up.

And besides that, P/C doctrine on soteriology has vestiges of Catholic/Orthodox religion in their legalistic bent. I saw it and felt it for 25 years when among them, and I see it a lot in these forums.

No, you misunderstand me (again, your prejudice is speaking here). Your false judgment of me simply proves what I said, you think you're above me and can judge my motives, but you are wrong about it. Your attitude reeks of "holier than thou."

If you really believe that, then why aren't you acknowledging my view? Yet, one of us is wrong about the matter (or we both are). It's not a matter of "2 views," it's a matter of what modern tongues really is.

This is where our paths diverge. My belief is based on what scripture says, but your belief is based on your assessment of your experience. Big difference.

Correct, you were not clear. But this begs a question.
Is that person still alive? Do you have access to them? Can their tongues be recorded? Since I'm a skeptic on the subject, I need more than an anecdote, since stories can be embellished, as do many in the P/C movement.

Not surprised.....that you do not understand the difference in interloper and...eloper.
LOL

The personal affront is the sarcasm, as if to say I don't know what I'm talking about, which is the double standard I see in your responses. Did the apostle Paul ever say he knew better than other people? - 1 Tim. 1:7. In 1 Cor. 8:1, Paul mentions knowledge puffing up (the ego) in reference to idols. And this is what I see in much of P/C attitude. An experience misinterpreted inclines one to a cultic role, because they get the feeling they have something the ordinary Christian doesn't have. That's egos getting puffed up.

And besides that, P/C doctrine on soteriology has vestiges of Catholic/Orthodox religion in their legalistic bent. I saw it and felt it for 25 years when among them, and I see it a lot in these forums.



No, you misunderstand me (again, your prejudice is speaking here). Your false judgment of me simply proves what I said, you think you're above me and can judge my motives, but you are wrong about it. Your attitude reeks of "holier than thou."


If you really believe that, then why aren't you acknowledging my view? Yet, one of us is wrong about the matter (or we both are). It's not a matter of "2 views," it's a matter of what modern tongues really is.


You could make it about that, but I'm addressing a different narrative, which is directly related to the OP.


This is where our paths diverge. My belief is based on what scripture says, but your belief is based on your assessment of your experience. Big difference. And besides that, maturity is not measured by the toleration of error.


Correct, you were not clear. But this begs a question. Is that person still alive? Do you have access to them? Can their tongues be recorded? Since I'm a skeptic on the subject, I need more than an anecdote, since stories can be embellished, as do many in the P/C movement.

I hear you, bro. I take it you're talking about group rivalry that Paul was rebuking in 1 Cor. There ought to be unity among the churches. But the naming of the type of church it is besides location really is necessary in these days because of the disunity of doctrine. It indirectly lets people know the doctrinal nuances or emphasis of the leadership. That may be a good or a bad thing, depending on what people do with it.

Not surprised.....that you do not understand the difference in interloper and...eloper.
LOL

It seems that you are pretty well prejudiced against the Pentecostal movement, flavouring your interpretation of the history.

His are typical of new age religion attempts to change scriptures by commanding acceptance of his theories. Reflective of leftist tactics. "You got to accept this because I said so".

Too funny....if it wasn't so serious to the Christian community.

I don't wish to share any Scriptures. What Scriptures would you like to share?

Pentecostals don't need me to flavor their history, they do a great job of that on their own.

Jesus was the first Pentecostal.

Jesus, as the first Pentecostal, said to His disciples - "follow Me"

Jesus, as the first Penetcostal, said to His disciples -"wait for the Promise of the Father which you have heard from Me.........

So the Disciples heard the Word of God, believed on Him and were all Baptized in the power of the Holy Spirit - me too!!!

Right, if you say so.

Resident Alien, you are two things...predictable and pathetic...while we're at it, you're ugly and your mother dresses you funny.
Did I mention that you are blind also? If not, I just did! Lol
Attributing work of the Holy Spirit to Satan is not a good thing to do. You need to give yourself a shake, and if you are still able to, repent! You've been warned!