Speaking in tongues
- Thread starter blessedafrican
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
That is what the Pharisees wanted: some miracle to "edify" the church. What was Jesus' answer:
Luke 11:29 "And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet."
Luke 11:29 "And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet."
There is no seeking after a sign here. Only seeking to confirm and bear witness to signs (tongues) that are supposed to be occurring in congregations everywhere by the untold thousands upon thousands.
-
1
- Show all
Nope. Please read my posts. For the sake of clarity only Act Ch 2 tongues will be considered for review, as they can be investigated and confirmed. In other words, I am limiting the sample size.
There must be UNTOLD THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of segments of video/audio posted on facebook alone that we can examine. Correct?
There must be UNTOLD THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of segments of video/audio posted on facebook alone that we can examine. Correct?
-
1
- Show all
Yes it is. It is my idea after all. And there are plenty of perfectly viable Church Authorities here that could benefit from this effort. As to "local eldership".....not scriptural. Not at all.
The tongues gifts sign are for the benefit of EVERYONE, believers, unbelieves, gentiles, Jews...everyone.
Furthermore, the tongues sign gifts were investigated by Peter and John, who were elders of a completely different assembly. Moreover, they were duly recorded on the MOST PUBLIC of all records....the bible.
No, sign gifts are to be PUBLICLY PROCLAIMED, and thereby confirmed and verified for the purpose of converting the unsaved and edifying any and all other church members.
Including last and least of all me.
So please upload your miraculous tongues signs video/audio here. There is no harm in this, only benefits.
The tongues gifts sign are for the benefit of EVERYONE, believers, unbelieves, gentiles, Jews...everyone.
Furthermore, the tongues sign gifts were investigated by Peter and John, who were elders of a completely different assembly. Moreover, they were duly recorded on the MOST PUBLIC of all records....the bible.
No, sign gifts are to be PUBLICLY PROCLAIMED, and thereby confirmed and verified for the purpose of converting the unsaved and edifying any and all other church members.
Including last and least of all me.
So please upload your miraculous tongues signs video/audio here. There is no harm in this, only benefits.
-
1
- Show all
Are you going to upload the video footage we need? Or you cannot? Its one or the other.
Furthermore, Peter and John were not local elders in the region of Samaria. The local elder would have been Phillip so far as the Samaritans are concerned. So you have been refuted in the specific case I am sighting......the calling in of Church Authorities to confirm the gift of the Holy Spirit and sign gift of tongues.
Furthermore, Peter and John were not local elders in the region of Samaria. The local elder would have been Phillip so far as the Samaritans are concerned. So you have been refuted in the specific case I am sighting......the calling in of Church Authorities to confirm the gift of the Holy Spirit and sign gift of tongues.
-
1
- Show all
I believe there is a name for this logical error-- assuming there are only two or three (or whatever) possibilities when there are numerous possiblities.
In this case, your choices are kind of like these choices:
"Mrs. Smith has a brand new baby. Where did the Bible come from?
A. It grew in the cabbage patch in the garden and she picked it and brought it home.
B. A stork flew by her house and dropped a new baby on her doorstep."
Neither solution is a good one, and neither are one of yours. Paul says nothing about being baptized in the name of saints. Who does that? I've never heard of such an idea. He never says anything about resurrected saints indwelling people. I think you are attributing bizaar non-Hebraic religious notions to Paul in this passage.
I'd have to take a stab at what this is about, but I'd image someone was baptized as a proxy for someone else who had died. For example, if there was a new catechumen-- and that may be an anachronistic use of the term-- maybe a new 'seeker' who had confessed his faith but died before his baptism, maybe someone was baptized on his behalf. That's a total guess, and it presents some theological problems. But this is a problem passage.
It's conceivable there were people who just got baptized again when someone died to remember he would rise again. Or maybe there was some kind of Jewish purification ritual, like a mikveh after touching a dead body, that they would do, but somehow connected it to the resurrection.
Again, these are just guesses, but at least they are not as strange a leap as your ideas are. You read ideas into passages that offer no support at all for the ideas. For example, Paul talking about death working in his body while he was alive is not evidence that his spirit would be dispersed among saints when he died. Here, you seem to be doing the same with the baptism for the dead verse.
In this case, your choices are kind of like these choices:
"Mrs. Smith has a brand new baby. Where did the Bible come from?
A. It grew in the cabbage patch in the garden and she picked it and brought it home.
B. A stork flew by her house and dropped a new baby on her doorstep."
Neither solution is a good one, and neither are one of yours. Paul says nothing about being baptized in the name of saints. Who does that? I've never heard of such an idea. He never says anything about resurrected saints indwelling people. I think you are attributing bizaar non-Hebraic religious notions to Paul in this passage.
I'd have to take a stab at what this is about, but I'd image someone was baptized as a proxy for someone else who had died. For example, if there was a new catechumen-- and that may be an anachronistic use of the term-- maybe a new 'seeker' who had confessed his faith but died before his baptism, maybe someone was baptized on his behalf. That's a total guess, and it presents some theological problems. But this is a problem passage.
It's conceivable there were people who just got baptized again when someone died to remember he would rise again. Or maybe there was some kind of Jewish purification ritual, like a mikveh after touching a dead body, that they would do, but somehow connected it to the resurrection.
Again, these are just guesses, but at least they are not as strange a leap as your ideas are. You read ideas into passages that offer no support at all for the ideas. For example, Paul talking about death working in his body while he was alive is not evidence that his spirit would be dispersed among saints when he died. Here, you seem to be doing the same with the baptism for the dead verse.
-
1
- Show all
Why would Paul say that he wanted the Corinthians to engage in a self-edifying behavior then? Follow the flow of argument in I Corinthians 14.
He who speaks in tongues edifies himself....I would that ye all spake with tongues...
He who prophesies edifies the church....I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied.
A lot of your comments and questions aren't really comprehensible. I think it is because you have your own personal idiocentric definitions of words and phrases that the rest of us do not share.
Jude said to edify yourselves in the most holy faith praying in the Holy Ghost. If you pray alone, you edify yourself if you build yourself. The word translated 'edify' means to build up. If you study the Bible and grow spiritual from it, you edify yourself. Edifying oneself is not bad, and in fact it is quite necessary. If you do not edify yourself, you will not have something to give to other.s
He who speaks in tongues edifies himself....I would that ye all spake with tongues...
He who prophesies edifies the church....I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied.
A lot of your comments and questions aren't really comprehensible. I think it is because you have your own personal idiocentric definitions of words and phrases that the rest of us do not share.
Jude said to edify yourselves in the most holy faith praying in the Holy Ghost. If you pray alone, you edify yourself if you build yourself. The word translated 'edify' means to build up. If you study the Bible and grow spiritual from it, you edify yourself. Edifying oneself is not bad, and in fact it is quite necessary. If you do not edify yourself, you will not have something to give to other.s
-
1
- Show all
Consider the effect tongues has on unbelievers in scripture, I am a bit wary of the practice of some to upload videos of speaking in tongues online. In Acts 2 situations where others understand, that may not be an issue.
Your probably haven't had a research methods class. I'm just guessing based on previous posts, but you face some issues when it comes to your idea for reasearch and who you conduct it. The first one is that scripture suggests tongues of men and of angels. Linguistics assume that languages are inflected for meaning based on certain variables that they have identified in other languages. But they cannot rightly say they have discovered all those variables. When it comes to tongues of angels, we do not know how the meaning is conveyed. It could be on aspects of language that do not convey meaning in English.
There is also the issue that not all speaking in tongues has to be the real thing for there to be genuine speaking in tongues out there.
I don't have collections of speaking in tongues, and I have never heard speaking in tongues in a language I knew (unless I did not know it was speaking in tongues because I know the language.) Much less recorded it. I have heard speaking in tongues that I thought was real languages (with my somewhat trained ear), including a situation where i did not know if someone was speaking in tongues or speaking in a regional language.
There was some research done by Samarin way back when in Lingusitics. I am not sure if his was an article I skimmed through in the library in college. But I saw a documentary type piece online of his critique of speaking in tongues. He rejected it because it was in a high pitched tone without the normal up and down tonality of human language. But I heard it and first of all, I hadn't heard too much speaking in tongues like that. But I had also heard people pray in English in a high pitch monotone. If he'd applied the same criteria, it seemed the English prayers of someone I went to church with should be rejected as not a real language.
I may have asked a European pastor about recording a Swiss man he knows who does not know English, but speaks in tongues in KJV-style English to record it. I don't recall what he said, but I do not believe he committed to do so.
Your probably haven't had a research methods class. I'm just guessing based on previous posts, but you face some issues when it comes to your idea for reasearch and who you conduct it. The first one is that scripture suggests tongues of men and of angels. Linguistics assume that languages are inflected for meaning based on certain variables that they have identified in other languages. But they cannot rightly say they have discovered all those variables. When it comes to tongues of angels, we do not know how the meaning is conveyed. It could be on aspects of language that do not convey meaning in English.
There is also the issue that not all speaking in tongues has to be the real thing for there to be genuine speaking in tongues out there.
I don't have collections of speaking in tongues, and I have never heard speaking in tongues in a language I knew (unless I did not know it was speaking in tongues because I know the language.) Much less recorded it. I have heard speaking in tongues that I thought was real languages (with my somewhat trained ear), including a situation where i did not know if someone was speaking in tongues or speaking in a regional language.
There was some research done by Samarin way back when in Lingusitics. I am not sure if his was an article I skimmed through in the library in college. But I saw a documentary type piece online of his critique of speaking in tongues. He rejected it because it was in a high pitched tone without the normal up and down tonality of human language. But I heard it and first of all, I hadn't heard too much speaking in tongues like that. But I had also heard people pray in English in a high pitch monotone. If he'd applied the same criteria, it seemed the English prayers of someone I went to church with should be rejected as not a real language.
I may have asked a European pastor about recording a Swiss man he knows who does not know English, but speaks in tongues in KJV-style English to record it. I don't recall what he said, but I do not believe he committed to do so.
-
1
- Show all
Why should I believe that it refers to the Spirit being 'gathered' to the people, when there is no evidence in the Bible of the idea of the patriarchs spirits being scattered (isn't that what you believe, really, rather than gathered) among the other people. You are using circular reasoning, assuming your doctrine exists, and then reading it into verses that do not teach it.
I'm quoting this from a page on the topic on stackexchange because I don't feel like looking up all the verses:
Genesis 15:15 As for you [Abraham], you shall go to your fathers in peace; you will be buried at a good old age.
Genesis 25:8 Abraham breathed his last and died in a ripe old age, an old man and satisfied with life; and he was gathered to his people.
Genesis 35:29 Isaac breathed his last and died and was gathered to his people, an old man of ripe age; and his sons Esau and Jacob buried him.
Genesis 49:29 I [Jacob] am about to be gathered to my people; bury me with my fathers in the cave that is in the field of Ephron the Hittite.
Numbers 20:24 Aaron will be gathered to his people; for he shall not enter the land which I have given to the sons of Israel, because you rebelled against My command at the waters of Meribah.
udges 2:10 All that generation [Joshua's] also were gathered to their fathers; and there arose another generation after them who did not know the Lord, nor yet the work which He had done for Israel.
Notice one verses says gathered to their fathers. These individuals fathers were already physically dead. Their bodies were buried.
As much as Jacob said he will be gathered to his people, it was still the word of God- he was inspired to say that.
Why would the gathering of the elect at the rapture be the same as a patriarch being 'gathered to his people' at death?
Show me that in either of the books to the COrinthians.
I did not say it was symbolic or an idiom. Why would you think Paul would know the 'day or hour.' The Hebrews spoke of the LORD bringing 'us' out of Egypt, even centuries after the Exodus, though the individuals who said this were born long after the Exodus. He did not say it would happen at 'the first century.'
So does being cut off from the church.
I'm quoting this from a page on the topic on stackexchange because I don't feel like looking up all the verses:
Genesis 15:15 As for you [Abraham], you shall go to your fathers in peace; you will be buried at a good old age.
Genesis 25:8 Abraham breathed his last and died in a ripe old age, an old man and satisfied with life; and he was gathered to his people.
Genesis 35:29 Isaac breathed his last and died and was gathered to his people, an old man of ripe age; and his sons Esau and Jacob buried him.
Genesis 49:29 I [Jacob] am about to be gathered to my people; bury me with my fathers in the cave that is in the field of Ephron the Hittite.
Numbers 20:24 Aaron will be gathered to his people; for he shall not enter the land which I have given to the sons of Israel, because you rebelled against My command at the waters of Meribah.
udges 2:10 All that generation [Joshua's] also were gathered to their fathers; and there arose another generation after them who did not know the Lord, nor yet the work which He had done for Israel.
Notice one verses says gathered to their fathers. These individuals fathers were already physically dead. Their bodies were buried.
As much as Jacob said he will be gathered to his people, it was still the word of God- he was inspired to say that.
Why would the gathering of the elect at the rapture be the same as a patriarch being 'gathered to his people' at death?
Show me that in either of the books to the COrinthians.
I did not say it was symbolic or an idiom. Why would you think Paul would know the 'day or hour.' The Hebrews spoke of the LORD bringing 'us' out of Egypt, even centuries after the Exodus, though the individuals who said this were born long after the Exodus. He did not say it would happen at 'the first century.'
So does being cut off from the church.
It seems like you are trying to bypass the foundation?
Bottom line is will we obey the law (1 Corinthians 14:21-22) in respect to a sign (Isaiah 28:10-15).
It is what sign gifts now days are all about trying to confirm something? But what?
Once we establish what the sign represents then looking at it more detail will have the proper foundation.
Who was the sign for or was it against? And why did God mock the Jews with Stammering lips?
In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they "not hear" me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, "not to them that believe", but "to them that believe not": but prophesying serveth "not for them that believe not", but for them which believe. 1 Corinthians 14:21-22
To me its like any doctrine a person must go to the foundation as a law. Basing it on the oral traditions of those who do seek after sign and wonders a person will come to another conclusion having a another witness as that seen needed to widen the authority of the word of God.
We begin in Isaiah to set the subject line. Why destroy the foundation as if it was never there?
For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.Wherefore hear the word of the Lord, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves: Isaiah 28:10-15
Well....we have to start somewhere. From what you say, there are slim pickings. But by other accounts on this board, tongues are a daily occurrence in and out of the Church congregation, amounting to untold thousands of incidents daily.
And its a secret? Or cannot be understood because it heavenly language or angelic speech?
All I need is Acts ch 2 bona fides uploaded to the board. Then we can research the matter more thoroughly.
BTW....I had a fiancée who was Pentecostal with all the trappings and was interfacing often with a group of likeminded women. Believe me I have heard "tongues" (and all the rest of the ah....spectacle)…...and it was utter nonsensical gibberish which I understood to be such instantaneously and it sounds exactly the same as Sid Roth on YouTube. A joke.
And its a secret? Or cannot be understood because it heavenly language or angelic speech?
All I need is Acts ch 2 bona fides uploaded to the board. Then we can research the matter more thoroughly.
BTW....I had a fiancée who was Pentecostal with all the trappings and was interfacing often with a group of likeminded women. Believe me I have heard "tongues" (and all the rest of the ah....spectacle)…...and it was utter nonsensical gibberish which I understood to be such instantaneously and it sounds exactly the same as Sid Roth on YouTube. A joke.
-
1
- Show all
The gathering has to do with those who have not received the end of their faith a new incorruptible bodies which we are receiving , neither male nor female Jew nor gentile as those in Hebrews 11:39-40
And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. Hebrews 11:39-40
It is that gathered body... they will be made perfect in the twinkling of the eye . Those in Hebrews and those still on earth reining with Christ when he does come on the last day like a thief in the night with the incorruptible new order.
The former things of this corrupted creation will not come to mind or be remembered forever and ever more
Flawed according to whose law?
That is how the law of God works. The Bible is the perfect law of God as it is written with it representing the faith of God not seen affirms that it is inerrant. Because it is a perfect law and not a philosophical theory of men Whatever the Bible says is true.
Therefore according to the law of God. The Bible is inerrant.
Three times the father of lies attempted to reason after the philosophies of this world. Three times using the same reasoning As it is written again with the word it representing the faith of God that worked to make the devil flee.
The law of circular reasoning.
Satan could not find a opening in the sealed circle. What go up must go down, spinning wheels spinning round .And where it stops only he knows