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.
So which of these languages did the OT
Please upload a video/audio of your speaking in tongues ASAP. This would be of great value to Christians everywhere. And video/audio of other members of your Church also if possible. If this is happening regularly, fulfilling this request should be straightforward.
Please upload a video/audio of your speaking in tongues ASAP. This would be of great value to Christians everywhere. And video/audio of other members of your Church also if possible. If this is happening regularly, fulfilling this request should be straightforward.
In fact I had a fiancée who was Pentecostal. There was ZERO exegesis, teaching, or scholarship is some of the churches she frequented.....however there was lots of screaming, crying, wailing, rolling on the floor and raucous "music". And there were incessant demands to see signs and persistent efforts for seeking after signs though, and most were desperately attempting to work the works of God.
All in all an unmitigated disaster.
All in all an unmitigated disaster.
I don't speak in tongues.....you however do. Supposedly. So take a few weeks and when it happens whip out your cell phone and make sure you record the incident and post it here for review. No reason to be shy is there? If it is legitimate the ENTIRE BOARD will definitely know after seeing the video footage.
The OldTestament was inspired in Hebrew . The reformation came. The new Testament is inspired in all the tongues of the world.
Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature
The reformation came the Holy Spirit no longer using one flesh that of a Jew but now upon all flesh female, male, girls, and boys as prophets. The tongues of many nations
Acts 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
It's fine for what you're asking, for some proof. But simply with this unknown tongue idea always being gibberish, it wouldn't do any good to get a video of sound of it. But let's all try to be more kind and respectful when we disagree, please. No one likes lies, but still let's not let that get ahead for caring about the others. I'm not saying you're being really mean but I just gave this feeling you're about to possibly get a bit frustrated.
-
2
- Show all
Please upload a video of one of the instances where another LANGUAGE tongue utterance is taking place. According to what you have stated, there are many types. All I really need is the known language type. The "gibberish" language may be obvious but if necessary we can have it examined by an linguistics expert.
What I am looking for is an example of a member of you church who only knows English manifesting a miraculous language such as Mandarin Chinese or Arabic or Hindustani or Spanish.....something known. Even an ancient language.
So please prepare and fulfill this request.....take video footage of the "gibberish" as well as the known language phenomenon.
This will advance the cause of Christians everywhere, as miraculous gifts being confirmed will thus be proven o be valid and on the record for the world to see.
Thanks in advance and have a nice evening.
What I am looking for is an example of a member of you church who only knows English manifesting a miraculous language such as Mandarin Chinese or Arabic or Hindustani or Spanish.....something known. Even an ancient language.
So please prepare and fulfill this request.....take video footage of the "gibberish" as well as the known language phenomenon.
This will advance the cause of Christians everywhere, as miraculous gifts being confirmed will thus be proven o be valid and on the record for the world to see.
Thanks in advance and have a nice evening.
I do. Right next to my job and down the road from my house. Their motto says "come witness the experience! " when they want you to witness some exciting experience and they're Pentecostals, you know it's the tongue speaking and possibly rolling around and falling down shaking believing it's the holy spirit.
Plus the majority of my family are Pentecostal. even my grandfather was a Pentecostal pastor for decades. I have had plenty of years and people in my life to explain, show me and give me reason then take it all to God and get the truth from him after considering everything. And God let me know it was false.
Plus the majority of my family are Pentecostal. even my grandfather was a Pentecostal pastor for decades. I have had plenty of years and people in my life to explain, show me and give me reason then take it all to God and get the truth from him after considering everything. And God let me know it was false.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
I'm not going around that insane gibberish again. I'm sure there are plenty of videos on Pentecostal websites, maybe YouTube and such. Are you asking me to show you what true speaking in tongues is anyways or the false understanding of the unknown tongue? I can simply make a video of myself, put on an act and say waka chiki batta jewbracabra! And there you go, unknown tongue. But you were talking to someone else first and I just asked you to stay calm and kind with them. I'm not the one who cares to see the stuff or show videos. Making up anything that doesn't make sense to anyone on earth is the proof. I'm sure you can imagine that. It's like a newborn baby trying to tell you what they want.
Lol. I will limit my request to LEGITIMATE languages per Acts chapter 2.
Please take video footage of real languages being spoken. I realize that you believe there are at least 5 types, so I will make it much simpler for the time being and ask for one type only...the Acts Ch 2 type:
Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. 7And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? 9Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, 11both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.”
Please take video footage of real languages being spoken. I realize that you believe there are at least 5 types, so I will make it much simpler for the time being and ask for one type only...the Acts Ch 2 type:
Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. 7And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? 9Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, 11both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.”
Where do you get the idea that I think of anything about 5 languages? I've never said anything about how many languages there are for anything. The only thing I've said about language is that the Pentecostal view of unknown tongues is false. I never said anything else about languages or how many I believe there are. Have you confused me with someone else?
John 14:15-17 If you love me, keep my commandments. I will ask the Father to give you another Helper, to be with you always. He is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor recognizes him. But you recognize him, because he lives with you and will be in you.
Another helper who is God with us in spirit will be with us till the end of time.
Another helper who is God with us in spirit will be with us till the end of time.
Do you really think Paul wrote Hebrews? He did not put his name on it as he did on all his epistles.
Some commentaries take this as a reference to Habakkuk 2:3-4.
Anyway, that's not a crystal clear 'parousia' of Christ verse when compared to other verses. Also, the amil approaches...and I am not amil...make a lot more sense than this distributing of ghosts stuff you promote.
A day with the Lord is as a thousand years.
I do not follow your line of argument here. It also says ten thousands.
No, it does not follow. That does not make sense. Linguistically, grammatically, textually, it does not follow that 'caught up' to meet the Lord in the air means for the dead to indwell the living.
You might as well say it means to play golf on the moon.
Do you mean Thessalonika? Anyway, each generation of Israelites was to think and speak about the Exodus as if they themselves were brought out of the land of Egypt. Paul was alive at the time, and wrote 'we which are alive and remain.' You are being very hyper-literal here-- and throwing out a major doctrine, the resurrection of the body, in the process.
He told us what the resurrection will be like.
When I read this, I do not make the same assumptions you do. Verse 20 changes from third person to second person, to address the people. I do not read this and think the people enter into rooms right after the resurrection of the dead. This makes me think of the Israelites staying in their homes in Egypt during the plague of the first born.
I just had a glance at it and once of his arguments there is obviously wrong, which we can see from context. He says that he that speaks in tongues edifies himself means it 'puffs your ego.'
But look at Paul's argument in I Corinthians 14.
3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
John MacArthur, at least back in the early 1990's, would have had us believe that 'edify' in verse 3 is good, but edify in verse 4 is bad? Why the definition change between verses?
5 I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
Consider the argument, "He that speaks in a tongue edifies himself...I want you all to speak with tongues." If speaking in tongues puffs up the ego, why would Paul want them to do it? In verse 5 speaking in tongues, even without an interpreter is a good thing. We know this because Paul wanted them to speak with tongues. But prophesying is better.
Edifying self--> Good.
Edifying church--> Better.
The one who prophesies and edifies the church is greater than the one who speaks in tongues (without interpretation) and edifies himself. Compare with what Jesus said that He who is the greatest among you shall be the servant of all.
Anyway, MacArthur's assertions do not line up with the text. Basically, he wants to redefine 'edify' between verses 3 and 4, and we are supposed to believe it, I suppose, because he says so. And then the next verse does not make sense if you follow his argument.
His Liberal Oracle of Delphi Interpretation
These days, John MacArthur is known for verse-by-verse teaching. But here, he does not do that. His interpretation does not hold up if you actually go verse by verse through the text. What he's doing is parroting the ideas of 19th century liberals about speaking in tongues. His argument only makes sense if you do not believe the scripture is authoritative and you believe that Paul missed it. Some of the liberals thought the Corinthians were engaging in pagan babble. But if we look at Paul's writings, he treats I Corinthians 14 tongues as a genuine gift. He says their tongues were a 'fabrication coming from their pagan background' and a counterfeit.
Now, if you don't really believe the text of the passage is inspired, you might think Paul was just wrong, and that the Corinthians were engaging in some nonsense pagan babbling. But you can't approach the text sensibly and go verse by verse with a coherent interpetation and believe that if you have a high view of scripture. I think MacArthur was reading some bad commentaries and parroting what he'd read.
Using the Oracle of Delphi as an exegetical key makes no sense either. They were a bit of a distance from Delphi. And what evidence is there for the Oracle of Delphi speaking in some kind of magical babble? There were myths about some people not being able to understand what the prophecy meant, but where is the evidence for it being some sort of incomprehensibl language? Plutarch was a first century author, and he was actually a priest at Delphi. He actually addressed the issue that many people expected a prophecy in high poetry at Delphi. He defended the idea that the oracle could give a prophecy in regular prose. So it is clear they were speaking comprehensible words at Delphi, even if the prophecies they gave were inegmatic.
The really sad thing here is this man is so anti-speaking in tongues, that he has actually attacked the speaking in tongues in the actual pages of scripture itself.
But look at Paul's argument in I Corinthians 14.
3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
John MacArthur, at least back in the early 1990's, would have had us believe that 'edify' in verse 3 is good, but edify in verse 4 is bad? Why the definition change between verses?
5 I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
Consider the argument, "He that speaks in a tongue edifies himself...I want you all to speak with tongues." If speaking in tongues puffs up the ego, why would Paul want them to do it? In verse 5 speaking in tongues, even without an interpreter is a good thing. We know this because Paul wanted them to speak with tongues. But prophesying is better.
Edifying self--> Good.
Edifying church--> Better.
The one who prophesies and edifies the church is greater than the one who speaks in tongues (without interpretation) and edifies himself. Compare with what Jesus said that He who is the greatest among you shall be the servant of all.
Anyway, MacArthur's assertions do not line up with the text. Basically, he wants to redefine 'edify' between verses 3 and 4, and we are supposed to believe it, I suppose, because he says so. And then the next verse does not make sense if you follow his argument.
His Liberal Oracle of Delphi Interpretation
These days, John MacArthur is known for verse-by-verse teaching. But here, he does not do that. His interpretation does not hold up if you actually go verse by verse through the text. What he's doing is parroting the ideas of 19th century liberals about speaking in tongues. His argument only makes sense if you do not believe the scripture is authoritative and you believe that Paul missed it. Some of the liberals thought the Corinthians were engaging in pagan babble. But if we look at Paul's writings, he treats I Corinthians 14 tongues as a genuine gift. He says their tongues were a 'fabrication coming from their pagan background' and a counterfeit.
Now, if you don't really believe the text of the passage is inspired, you might think Paul was just wrong, and that the Corinthians were engaging in some nonsense pagan babbling. But you can't approach the text sensibly and go verse by verse with a coherent interpetation and believe that if you have a high view of scripture. I think MacArthur was reading some bad commentaries and parroting what he'd read.
Using the Oracle of Delphi as an exegetical key makes no sense either. They were a bit of a distance from Delphi. And what evidence is there for the Oracle of Delphi speaking in some kind of magical babble? There were myths about some people not being able to understand what the prophecy meant, but where is the evidence for it being some sort of incomprehensibl language? Plutarch was a first century author, and he was actually a priest at Delphi. He actually addressed the issue that many people expected a prophecy in high poetry at Delphi. He defended the idea that the oracle could give a prophecy in regular prose. So it is clear they were speaking comprehensible words at Delphi, even if the prophecies they gave were inegmatic.
The really sad thing here is this man is so anti-speaking in tongues, that he has actually attacked the speaking in tongues in the actual pages of scripture itself.
Paul said 'if there be no interpreter, let him keep silent in the church and speak to himself and to God.'
There are different schools of thought on this. I went to an Assemblies of God church in middle school where they believed that tongues should be interpreted. I was in a chapel service where a kid spoke in tongues. After a while, when there is no interpretation, the principle, a pastor said he believed that tongue was for personal edification and not intended for the congregation, and just moved on. I think he meant it as correction without being too harsh on him.
But, in the Assemblies of God churches I was a part of, back then at least, if someone spoke in tongues in church that I recall, it was interpreted. I saw that at other churches, too.
Now, I have seen some Charismatic churches where they tell everyone to pray in tongues. The preacher at that A/G I went to would not agree with that.
Some people interpret 'let him keep silent in the church and let him speak to himself and to God' to mean that he should not speak the message out to be interpreted, but that he is allowed to kind of pray out loud, but sort of quietly, in the church. Some of the churches from Holiness movement backgrounds in the US have a practice where people pray out loud at the same time. I have heard this verse used as a defense of the practice:
Acts 4
24 And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:
I think that's a questionable intepretation of the passage, personally, but it is not something I would want to divide over.
[quote[
I prayed about it, for the fact most my family are Pentecostals, they do this, and they claim if you are saved you will do this.[/quote]
There are Trinitarian Pentecostals and Oneness Pentecostals. A congregation about a decade after the Azusa Street Revival started teaching that Jesus is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. That developed into the Oneness movement, where many of them believe someone has to say 'in Jesus' name' or something similar at your water baptism for you to be saved, and that if you haven't spoken in tongues you aren't saved.
But the vast majority of Pentecostals, about 95% from what I've read, are Trinitarian, and do not believe that you are not saved if you have not spoken in tongues.
Pentecostals in the US used to call themselves 'Apostolic'. A couple of the early Pentecostal newsletters were called 'The Apostolic Faith.' But after the Oneness movement started, in the US, they called themselves 'Apostolic', and the Trinitarians stopped using the label. A missionary went to South Africa before the Oneness movement and some of the Trinitarian congregations there call themselves Apostolic. And there are now other movements that use the term 'apostolic' nowadays that do not part of oneness Pentecostalism. The largest Oneness denomination is the United Pentecostal Church International.
Usually, no one can identify tongues as a language, which was probably the case in Corinth, also. But there have been accounts of many occasions where individuals did recognize languages spoken 'in tongues', especially at the Azusa Street Revival. There are also people who get the same interpretation. I have known at least three people who got the interpretation to a tongue and someone else gave the same interpretation before they could. There are also cases where one person gets a prophecy and someone else gives it. I've experienced something along those lines, hearing tell give a word of knowledge or part of it for someone as part of a prophecy.
And of course, there are those prophecies you get in one place, go elsewhere and someone else prophesies the same thing. Paul experienced the Spirit testifying in every city that bonds and imprisonment awaited him in Jerusalem.
There are different schools of thought on this. I went to an Assemblies of God church in middle school where they believed that tongues should be interpreted. I was in a chapel service where a kid spoke in tongues. After a while, when there is no interpretation, the principle, a pastor said he believed that tongue was for personal edification and not intended for the congregation, and just moved on. I think he meant it as correction without being too harsh on him.
But, in the Assemblies of God churches I was a part of, back then at least, if someone spoke in tongues in church that I recall, it was interpreted. I saw that at other churches, too.
Now, I have seen some Charismatic churches where they tell everyone to pray in tongues. The preacher at that A/G I went to would not agree with that.
Some people interpret 'let him keep silent in the church and let him speak to himself and to God' to mean that he should not speak the message out to be interpreted, but that he is allowed to kind of pray out loud, but sort of quietly, in the church. Some of the churches from Holiness movement backgrounds in the US have a practice where people pray out loud at the same time. I have heard this verse used as a defense of the practice:
Acts 4
24 And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:
I think that's a questionable intepretation of the passage, personally, but it is not something I would want to divide over.
[quote[
I prayed about it, for the fact most my family are Pentecostals, they do this, and they claim if you are saved you will do this.[/quote]
There are Trinitarian Pentecostals and Oneness Pentecostals. A congregation about a decade after the Azusa Street Revival started teaching that Jesus is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. That developed into the Oneness movement, where many of them believe someone has to say 'in Jesus' name' or something similar at your water baptism for you to be saved, and that if you haven't spoken in tongues you aren't saved.
But the vast majority of Pentecostals, about 95% from what I've read, are Trinitarian, and do not believe that you are not saved if you have not spoken in tongues.
Pentecostals in the US used to call themselves 'Apostolic'. A couple of the early Pentecostal newsletters were called 'The Apostolic Faith.' But after the Oneness movement started, in the US, they called themselves 'Apostolic', and the Trinitarians stopped using the label. A missionary went to South Africa before the Oneness movement and some of the Trinitarian congregations there call themselves Apostolic. And there are now other movements that use the term 'apostolic' nowadays that do not part of oneness Pentecostalism. The largest Oneness denomination is the United Pentecostal Church International.
Usually, no one can identify tongues as a language, which was probably the case in Corinth, also. But there have been accounts of many occasions where individuals did recognize languages spoken 'in tongues', especially at the Azusa Street Revival. There are also people who get the same interpretation. I have known at least three people who got the interpretation to a tongue and someone else gave the same interpretation before they could. There are also cases where one person gets a prophecy and someone else gives it. I've experienced something along those lines, hearing tell give a word of knowledge or part of it for someone as part of a prophecy.
And of course, there are those prophecies you get in one place, go elsewhere and someone else prophesies the same thing. Paul experienced the Spirit testifying in every city that bonds and imprisonment awaited him in Jerusalem.