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.
I to want to support a NON-ARGUMENT about this subject, and just agree to disagree. NO NEED FOR TEMPERS TO FLARE. Each side has his or her position, with Biblical Support on both sides. Yes, the Charismatic and the Pentecostals, will have the opposite view point as I do, so instead of arguing, how about we wait until HEAVEN, when we will KNOW as we are KNOWN; to settle the argument.
Amazing you sort out to learn from books and tapes on the subject.
I prayed to Jesus to reveal and lead me to the truth of the full gospel that was preached to me in October 1996.
He did and confirmed the truth of the scriptures by filling me with the Holy Spirit and I spoke forth in a new tongue
exactly as Jesus prophesied that believers would do.
Then came all the other blessings and gifts: miracles, healings; blessings galore.
I prayed to Jesus to reveal and lead me to the truth of the full gospel that was preached to me in October 1996.
He did and confirmed the truth of the scriptures by filling me with the Holy Spirit and I spoke forth in a new tongue
exactly as Jesus prophesied that believers would do.
Then came all the other blessings and gifts: miracles, healings; blessings galore.
-
1
- Show all
7
status quo pretty much
how did you go from what I said about offering scripture to claims of physical supernatural manifestations of the Holy Spirit when I offered none?
I refer you to what I said at the end of the post you quoted:
further, I do not think or believe a person, church or body of believers, can actually sway, in truth, someone to doubt from scripture without plainly having a personal bias...and you can have that in either direction
truly without prejudice because I worry less and less that God Himself is ignorant of anything that transpires on this globe
He forces no one but can and does answer prayer whenever we prayed at the time that He decides is the right time
as when He sent His Son...He waited for the right time to send Him
MORE than just the specific languages, it actually said:
Acts 2:7-8 (HCSB)
7 And they were astounded and amazed, saying, “Look, aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? {The reason they were astonished that they were Galileans, is they were KNOWN to have a thick ACCENT. Like someone from the deep south of USA, cannot hide their Accent.}
8 How is it that each of us can hear in our own native language? [Dialektos in the Greek is a LANGUAGE, with the correct ACCENT, like they grew up in the SAME VILLAGE.}
There are unsaved, newly saved, carnal Christians, and spiritual Christians, most stay at "carnal" level, those who are willing to grow beyond mere salvation will do as Jesus described when He said "greater works than these shall they do". Those unsaved, newly saved and carnal can and often will deny that G-d is the same , yesterday, today and forever and He still heals, raises from the dead, infills with His Holy Spirit.
-
1
- Show all
There is nothing to prove and is why the Isaiah 28 foundation is left out when discussing tongues .
Scripture proves scriptures. Scripture proves no such thing as a sign gift. The word sign and gift are not linked together to form (Charismaticism). Signs are for those who rebel. Prophecy the word of God for those who beleive
Experience is the not the validation of the unseen world as it is written (prophecy) alone is
-
1
- Show all
Raises the dead spiritually through the gospel and healing indiscriminately remains the same . There is no outward sign to indicate or confirm a person had the Holy Spirit . Only God can look on the inside and see faith working .Signs following the work God performed they were used to represent the gospel when God was still brining new revelations .Therefore those kind of signs also ceased.
Seeking after signs as some work we could do is said to be for a evil generation (natural man) no faith coming from the word of God
Seeking after signs as some work we could do is said to be for a evil generation (natural man) no faith coming from the word of God
-
1
- Show all
Trying not to weigh in too heavily on this one as most arguments with respect to what ‘tongues’ is or isn’t can be found on other threads, but just a quick note -
“What do you think about the instances after Acts 2 in which believers spoke in tongues? These aren't identified as specific languages.”
No, they are not specifically identified. To me, there are two simple reasons for this: either the disciples/apostles who were there and later related the incident(s) did not recognize the language, or, given where the incident took place, the language in question was common knowledge; it didn’t need to be specifically stated. It was just one the disciples administering to these people did not speak. Between themselves, both parties involved would have used Greek as the common language (as both parties would have spoken it in various degrees of fluency).
If you’re thinking of something like Ephesus, keep in mind, like Corinth, it was a seaport and a major cultural crossroads. In addition, it was also home to one of the seven wonders of the ancient world; the temple of Artemis. In short, there would have been people there from all over the known world. It seems likely, given the reported narrative of Paul’s encounter, the folks he met were not native Ephesians; thus, not native speakers of Greek. They simply reacted to the situation in their native language – the narrative is silent as to what that language was. Why? Since it wasn't one known to Paul or his companions, they obviously could not report what it was; hence, why it is never named in the narrative. No modern tongues-speech here, just an unnamed rational language.
In any event, in all of these instances, what was spoken was real, rational language; not modern tongues-speech.
“What do you think about the instances after Acts 2 in which believers spoke in tongues? These aren't identified as specific languages.”
No, they are not specifically identified. To me, there are two simple reasons for this: either the disciples/apostles who were there and later related the incident(s) did not recognize the language, or, given where the incident took place, the language in question was common knowledge; it didn’t need to be specifically stated. It was just one the disciples administering to these people did not speak. Between themselves, both parties involved would have used Greek as the common language (as both parties would have spoken it in various degrees of fluency).
If you’re thinking of something like Ephesus, keep in mind, like Corinth, it was a seaport and a major cultural crossroads. In addition, it was also home to one of the seven wonders of the ancient world; the temple of Artemis. In short, there would have been people there from all over the known world. It seems likely, given the reported narrative of Paul’s encounter, the folks he met were not native Ephesians; thus, not native speakers of Greek. They simply reacted to the situation in their native language – the narrative is silent as to what that language was. Why? Since it wasn't one known to Paul or his companions, they obviously could not report what it was; hence, why it is never named in the narrative. No modern tongues-speech here, just an unnamed rational language.
In any event, in all of these instances, what was spoken was real, rational language; not modern tongues-speech.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Your comment is refreshingly non-confrontational. 
However, I disagree with your conclusion, because the point of the record(s) in Acts is that by the Holy Spirit, the new believers were empowered to speak in languages not previously learned. Whether or not the languages were "known" - that is, identifiable as, say, "Farsi" or "Hittite" is simply not stated, and the reason for such is not stated either.
Your conclusion also seems to assume that modern tongues-speech is not real, rational language. While abuses occur, abuses shouldn't define the phenomenon. Nobody has done an exhaustive examination of all "tongues-language" to determine whether it is "real, rational language".
However, I disagree with your conclusion, because the point of the record(s) in Acts is that by the Holy Spirit, the new believers were empowered to speak in languages not previously learned. Whether or not the languages were "known" - that is, identifiable as, say, "Farsi" or "Hittite" is simply not stated, and the reason for such is not stated either.
Your conclusion also seems to assume that modern tongues-speech is not real, rational language. While abuses occur, abuses shouldn't define the phenomenon. Nobody has done an exhaustive examination of all "tongues-language" to determine whether it is "real, rational language".
-
1
- Show all
Why are you making such a false statement? Here is the record listing at least sixteen known human languages. And Farsi ("Medes") is included.
ACTS 2
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue [LANGUAGE], wherein we were born?
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
ACTS 2
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue [LANGUAGE], wherein we were born?
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
Since you have made this mistake at least three times in the last week, I will ask this of you:
Do not reply to any post that I make unless you check out the context in which I am posting. You are quick to accuse me of making false statements, but you keep making false statements by ignoring the context.
If you took half a minute to check out the context, you would see that I was CLEARLY responding to another contributor, and the context of that conversation was about instances of tongue-speaking AFTER Acts 2. So, instead of getting your self-righteous nose out of joint, just get it out of my conversation until you do some reasonable homework.
Do not reply to any post that I make unless you check out the context in which I am posting. You are quick to accuse me of making false statements, but you keep making false statements by ignoring the context.
If you took half a minute to check out the context, you would see that I was CLEARLY responding to another contributor, and the context of that conversation was about instances of tongue-speaking AFTER Acts 2. So, instead of getting your self-righteous nose out of joint, just get it out of my conversation until you do some reasonable homework.
Why do you suppose the Lord never reveals the specific languages spoken?
It is likely that the miracle of tongues was in the ear of the hearer and not in the tongue of the speaker.
How wonderful would it be for a Gentile to speak of the glories of God in Hebrew as a sign to the Jews present that the same Holy Spirit was working in them as in the Jews.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
It is likely that the miracle of tongues was in the ear of the hearer and not in the tongue of the speaker.
How wonderful would it be for a Gentile to speak of the glories of God in Hebrew as a sign to the Jews present that the same Holy Spirit was working in them as in the Jews.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
-
1
- Show all
Why should He?
According to 1 Cor 14, the person speaking in tongues does not know the language he is speaking, let alone what he is saying. Part of the miracle of Pentecost was that the languages the apostles were given to speak were the languages of the other people present. That is not guaranteed, and almost never happens, which is why when a person speaks in tongues in public, it must be interpreted.
Every time a gentile Christian (or a Jewish Christian) speaks in tongues he is speaking the wonderful works of God, magnifying God, edifying himself, giving thanks well, and more. The specific language does not matter.
According to 1 Cor 14, the person speaking in tongues does not know the language he is speaking, let alone what he is saying. Part of the miracle of Pentecost was that the languages the apostles were given to speak were the languages of the other people present. That is not guaranteed, and almost never happens, which is why when a person speaks in tongues in public, it must be interpreted.
Every time a gentile Christian (or a Jewish Christian) speaks in tongues he is speaking the wonderful works of God, magnifying God, edifying himself, giving thanks well, and more. The specific language does not matter.
-
1
- Show all
To try to reply to a few posts above…..
That they were empowered to speak in languages not yet learned in Acts, assumes that what occurred at Pentecost was xenoglossy – I don’t believe it was. Not to get into it (you can see my blog entry for that – “Another Understanding of ‘Tongues” at Pentecost”).
Tongues-speech is not language no matter how you slice and dice it – again, I would kindly refer the reader to my blog entry on the subject, “Why Tongues Are Not Language”.
There have been numerous studies done over the past several decades – though not every known example was studied, enough were to draw some pretty solid conclusions. As an analogy, one does not have to study every tornado that occurs to make some pretty solid conclusions about them.
The SPECT image study done by the Univ. of PA is rather inconclusive – the results can be skewed to fit either a ‘pro’ or ‘con’ view. Language centers of the brain are not overly engaged as ‘tongues’ is not language.
The famous “list” is Acts is not a list of languages; it’s a list of places – not one language is referenced in the entire Pentecost narrative. The list’s inclusion in the narrative was actually done for political reasons. Again, see my blog posts referenced above of tongues at Pentecost.
“Tongues” were a spoken phenomenon, real rational languages; nothing to do with a “miracle of hearing”.
That they were empowered to speak in languages not yet learned in Acts, assumes that what occurred at Pentecost was xenoglossy – I don’t believe it was. Not to get into it (you can see my blog entry for that – “Another Understanding of ‘Tongues” at Pentecost”).
Tongues-speech is not language no matter how you slice and dice it – again, I would kindly refer the reader to my blog entry on the subject, “Why Tongues Are Not Language”.
There have been numerous studies done over the past several decades – though not every known example was studied, enough were to draw some pretty solid conclusions. As an analogy, one does not have to study every tornado that occurs to make some pretty solid conclusions about them.
The SPECT image study done by the Univ. of PA is rather inconclusive – the results can be skewed to fit either a ‘pro’ or ‘con’ view. Language centers of the brain are not overly engaged as ‘tongues’ is not language.
The famous “list” is Acts is not a list of languages; it’s a list of places – not one language is referenced in the entire Pentecost narrative. The list’s inclusion in the narrative was actually done for political reasons. Again, see my blog posts referenced above of tongues at Pentecost.
“Tongues” were a spoken phenomenon, real rational languages; nothing to do with a “miracle of hearing”.
-
1
- Show all