TONGUES false teaching.

[Scribe]

Paul did not pray in tongues. You are reading into the passage something that is not there.

It is clearly "there" Reading is all that is required.
14For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. 15What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also:

He also sang in tongues:
I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

Isn’t it human nature to want to have something that is uniquely your own and show it off? Or in the case of the pastors wife I mentioned...she feels ignored by the husband being the church and draws attention to herself quietly by ‘speaking’ in tongues. Which is what I was getting at.

Why don't you go speak to the pastor's wife? Ask her why she speaks in tongues out loud in the church congregation when 1 Cor 14:28 tells us to speak in tongues silently to God under the scenario you described in your Posts #281 and #287.

I can’t know everyone’s reason for speaking in tongues..but I would argue if everyone speaks the same language at church..then is there ever a reason to speak in tongues?

It is the Spirit which gives utterance. So, in effect, what you are saying is that when the Spirit gives utterance, the believer is to refuse the utterance because ... ???

 

[Major]

All your scriptures were interpreted but you held fast to your bad hermeneutics. You lost the debate but don't know how to concede.

It's over. The completed canon view is no longer presented by theologians who believe that tongues have faded. They use other arguments because they long ago conceded "that which is perfect is come" is not referring to canon of scripture.

You have not conceded this yet and don't realize that this view was tossed by Theologians that once held it. It is no longer taught in seminaries. It cannot be supported in an academic debate. You're just going to have to keep reading until you learn about this on your own.

I presented an entire Doctoral thesis on it. http://frankviola.org/theperfect.pdf

You are the one that has not confronted the overwhelming proof that the history of the interpretation of 1 Cor 13 has concluded that it is not talking about the canon of scripture but rather the state of perfection post resurrection in eternity or when we have obtained that state which Paul said he said he followed after not to be obtained in this life. the eschaton. You are just being beligerant by saying I have not confronted it.
What you need to say is that you have read and rejected every interpretation and the reasons for the interpretation and have decided that your canon completion view is a better interpretation. That I can respect. But I don't think you have read this paper and reviewed the reasons why the canon of scripture cannot be the correct interpretation because you don't want to be proven wrong.
http://frankviola.org/theperfect.pdf
So there is nothing else to say. Good luck with that.

THis is not a game of who wins or who losses.

It is about WHAT THE BIBLE says compared to "what you WANT TO DO"!!!

 

[Major]

Why don't you go speak to the pastor's wife? Ask her why she speaks in tongues out loud in the church congregation when 1 Cor 14:28 tells us to speak in tongues silently to God under the scenario you described in your Posts #281 and #287.





It is the Spirit which gives utterance. So, in effect, what you are saying is that when the Spirit gives utterance, the believer is to refuse the utterance because ... ???

I am being convicted by the Holy Spirit to not argue with people on the internet, especially about the gift of tongues. It is a waste of time and quickly causes division.

That is because you are convicted of your error and the more you talk about it the more you realize that you are wrong.

No one needs a degree in phycology to figure that out my friend.

 

[Major]

A person cannot read the story in Acts and say there were no women. I mean they just cannot. Something worse than just wrong going on.

12 Then the apostles returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day’s walk[c] from the city. 13 When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. 14 They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.

We have no reason to think the women were not there on the day of Pentecost, since v.14 indicates their habit was to 'join in prayer' CONSTANTLY.

I really am wondering just what church he belongs to.

Obviousely there were women there. But the Scriptures DO NOT SAY THAT WOMEN were speaking in tongues.

That is what YOU want it to say!!!

 

[Major]

Yes ... I think the problem began at SophieT Post #325


Here is what was submitted by ewq1938 in Post #290

On the gift of tongues, those who claim it continues in it's modern form have misinterpreted 1 Corinthians 12:10:​

​

"and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues,"​

​

Many translations insert the words: various, or divers (diverse), or different, etc. But this isn't found in the Greek text: it simply says gene glosson, "kinds of tongues." Gene is from genos, meaning family, race, people, nation or offspring. Paul is talking about language families (human languages), not all kinds of spiritual languages.​

​

In 1 Corinthians 14:10 Paul again uses gene. This time referring to human languages:​

​

"There are, perhaps, a great many kinds (gene) of languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning."​

​

My problem isn't so much with the gift of tongues but with the sloppy interpretation used to justify it and the way it's put into practice.​

​

Example:​

​

1 Corinthians 14:27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. 28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God.​

​

That verse is describing this type of situation:​

​

A group of Christians have arrived in Texas from a distant country and do not speak English. If they wish to give testimonies or preach, no more than 3 should be speaking and only if there is an interpreter. Why? One person interpreting what 3 other people are saying is hard! 4 or more would be too much. Paul also says if there is no interpreter these people should not be speaking to the congregation. Why? There is no one to interpret (which means to translation) from their language to English. They should simply speak to God quietly to themselves in their minds etc.​

​

There is no magical or miracle subject here. Tongues simply is a VERY OLD English word for "languages". All Paul is talking about is speaking and translating foreign languages so other people can know what's being said. Most of what Paul talks about in regards to "tongues" is this. The odd sounding "language" found in some churches is simply not something the bible promotes.​

If anyone wants to reply to what ewq1938 submitted, go back to Post #290 to reply ...

by the way hallelujah means 'Praise the Lord' for those who dont understand gibberish.

NO ONE understands "gibberish"! That is why it is callled Gibberish!

 

[Major]

dont see why you really need to translate praising God in another tongue.

If someone doesnt understand that you are praising God in another language and wants to accuse you of speaking gibberish well then its their loss!

Meaningless attempt to justify an activity that does not support your contentions.

 

[Major]

I am saying the Context of the Genesis account of the Tower of Babel has nothing to do with 1 Corinthians chapter 12 through 14.
Are you trying to make a connection with the Gifts of the Holy Spirit for the Body of Christ? Given to edify the church, is synonymous with Gods Judgement to stop evil? Interesting , But wrong exegesis.

Now I agree with that!

 

[Major]

Do you test to see if you are saved ? As a card carrying member of a pentecostal church saved and baptized in the Holy Spirit with evidence of speaking in an unknown tongues. I never sought to speak in tongues. I wanted what Jesus said I would receive in Acts 1:8 I asked Him. I asked Jesus to baptize me in the Holy Spirit to empowerment to be a witnesses as HE Jesus said would happen. IN the Gospel of John you will read were John the Baptist said "He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."

I ask you did the disciples do miracles before Acts 1:8 and the death of Jesus and HIS resurrection? Please answer .

Yes they did.

Jesus sent them out two by two and they came back rejoicing that even demons were subject to them. Jesus said don't rejoice that demon are subject to you but that your names are written. Read it in Luke.

IF they were able to do so then why did Jesus tell them to wait until you receive power from on high? they all ready displayed the ability to heal before the death and resurrection of Jesus why? answer that please.

You just said............
"Do you test to see if you are saved ? As a card carrying member of a pentecostal church saved and baptized in the Holy Spirit with evidence of speaking in an unknown tongues."

You just said what the Bible condemns my brother.

"With the evidence of speaking in a UNKNOWN tongue".

First of all the word "UNKNOWN" is not IN THE BIBLE at all. It was ADDED later by translators. Look at the word in the Bible and it is "ITIALCIZED". = ADDED.

Second.....to say that speaking in tongues is evidence of your salvation is also not Biblical. It may be a denominational dogma but it is not Biblical.

Speaking in tongues does not make you a better Christian than those of us who do not speak in such utterances. Tongues does not make anyone a Christian or prove that you are one.

Tongues were spoken in "Pagan" worship services thousands of years before Christianity came upon the scene my friend.

The Bible teaches in Romans 8:16.......
“The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.”

It is the Holy Spirit which comes to indwell (live) within every believer at the moment of salvation, that bears witness with our spirit that we are saved.

There is only one way to know if we are really saved. Just as the Philippian Jailer asked Paul and Silas in Acts 16:30,31,

...Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved...”​

There is only one thing we must do to have eternal life; that is, believe that Jesus Christ died to pay for our sins. Ephesians 1:13 tell us,

“In whom (Christ) 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 the holy Spirit of promise.”​

 

[Dino246]

Obviousely there were women there. But the Scriptures DO NOT SAY THAT WOMEN were speaking in tongues.

That is what YOU want it to say!!!

You want it to say that the women did not speak in tongues, but it doesn't say that either.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

NO ONE understands "gibberish"! That is why it is callled Gibberish!

1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God ...

 

[Major]

You want it to say that the women did not speak in tongues, but it doesn't say that either.

What do YOU believe that it says then my brother?

Please enlighten me.

Isn't it clear from 1 Corth. 11:5 that Paul understood that women were permitted to teach and pray in public worship as long as they were properly dressed???

Didn't Paul himself commend the women who labored with him in the gospel in Phip. 4:3.
Did not Lydia pray in church?

Would YOU please then tell all of us what Paul said in 1 Corth. 14:34 and if he did not men TONGUES, what then was he talking about????

 

[Major]

1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God ...

"UNKNOWN: in not in the Bible. It was added later by translators.

The word "Tongues" in the original Greek is "DILECTUS" = Dialect or better......"Languages".

That Scripture actually says that None present understand what is being said.

 

[Major]

Obviousely there were women there. But the Scriptures DO NOT SAY THAT WOMEN were speaking in tongues.

That is what YOU want it to say!!!

oops

 

[Dino246]

What do YOU believe that it says then my brother?

Acts 2 does not say that women were among those who spoke in tongues, and it does not say women were not among those who spoke in tongues.

In Acts 1, women were clearly included among the 120. Acts 2:1 says, "They were all together in one place." Either Luke meant the Eleven (and possibly Matthias), or he meant all 120, but he did not specify. Given the nature of the events that immediately followed, I believe that all 120 were present, which means that women were also speaking in tongues. However, that is not dogmatic because the Scripture doesn't clarify.

 

[Dino246]

"UNKNOWN: in not in the Bible. It was added later by translators.

The word "Tongues" in the original Greek is "DILECTUS" = Dialect or better......"Languages".

That Scripture actually says that None present understand what is being said.

In 14:2, the word is glossa, not dialektos.

 

[SophieT]

Paul did not pray in tongues. You are reading into the passage something that is not there. Without knowledge there is no edification. Jesus did not make bread from the rocks when tempted by satan. It would have been for His own benefit and not a benefit for the body of believers.

Meaningless attempt to justify an activity that does not support your contentions.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Major]

In 14:2, the word is glossa, not dialektos.

You seem intent more on argueing than learning. Do you really think what you just posted means what you think it does to support the speaking in tongues you want to do???? REALLY?

"glossa" which means language, and dialektos which means dialect of a language.

In Acts 2 says that it is what the crowd heard. A dialect means the slang of the language you were born into. If you're from the northern U.S. you'd hear 'you's guys'.

Is that the point you were going for.???

 

[Major]

Acts 2 does not say that women were among those who spoke in tongues, and it does not say women were not among those who spoke in tongues.

In Acts 1, women were clearly included among the 120. Acts 2:1 says, "They were all together in one place." Either Luke meant the Eleven (and possibly Matthias), or he meant all 120, but he did not specify. Given the nature of the events that immediately followed, I believe that all 120 were present, which means that women were also speaking in tongues. However, that is not dogmatic because the Scripture doesn't clarify.

Which is exactly what I said.

What is your point?

To say that women were speaking in tongues just because they were present is READING INTO the Scriptures what you want them to say.

 

[Major]

Acts 2 does not say that women were among those who spoke in tongues, and it does not say women were not among those who spoke in tongues.

In Acts 1, women were clearly included among the 120. Acts 2:1 says, "They were all together in one place." Either Luke meant the Eleven (and possibly Matthias), or he meant all 120, but he did not specify. Given the nature of the events that immediately followed, I believe that all 120 were present, which means that women were also speaking in tongues. However, that is not dogmatic because the Scripture doesn't clarify.

I am waiting for your response to post #552 and what YOUR explanation is of 1 Corth. 14:34 and what is Paul telling the woman not to do??????