Speaking in tongues

[Noose]

Tongues are not meaningless words.

Romans 8:26-28
In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. 27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God. 28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

Wordless groans doesn't mean meaningless words.

1 Cor 14:7 Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the pipe or harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the notes? 8 Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? 9So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. 10 Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning.

 

[Noose]

And how do you determine that my words are meaningless?
Obviously God understands my spiritual language completely and therefore many many times over answers my prayers;
with no shortage of the miraculous.

Words whose meaning you understand forms what we call a language and it is not unique to you, everyone speaks a language or two.

It is absurd to think God prays for you and then answers Himself with no shortage of miracles.

I have always asked, who are these people?:

Matt 7:21“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’


They must be many because many means many. And if they are indeed many and they are not athiests/muslims/budhists/satanists/tribal Jews- who are they?

 

[Noose]

The resurrected body, a spiritual body, is immortal, and does not disintegrate back into the earth.

You say I do not know what a spirit is. Why don't you tell me of your experiences with spirits, so you can explain why you think you know more about what a spirit is than I do? I am going off of what the Bible teaches? I am a human being with a spirit, too, as you are. And I disagree with your understanding of what a spirit is.

Do you have some specific experiences with spirits that leads you to these conclusions? Maybe some other religious ideas or texts that influence you?



I have read the Bible, and I am pretty sure it says nothing about Jesus being resurrected in 'spiritually in a twinkling of an eye.' Jesus was resurrected as the firstfruits of them that slept. He is still a Man. He could eat fish. He was not a ghost. John says we shall be like Him.

The Bible never says His resurection was only so it culd be preached that Jesus died and visibly resurrected. We also participate in his death and resurrection through baptism. That's another reason. He is the firstfruits of them that slept. We could label that as a reason, too. We can preach these things, but there is no reason to think Jesus ended up in some other state other than His resurrected state unless you have some kind of odd agenda that does not line up with New Testament teaching. It's like Mormonism. They say they believe the Bible, but they have this other belief system and work the Bible in as a part of that other belief system.



Okay. Great passage.



See, raise us, not create another duplicate body in heaven, or a duplicate spirit, or cause our spirit to be distributed among other people.



I think you have a very limited idea of what 'spirit' is. The Spirit of God hovered over the face of the deep in Genesis. The Spirit of the Lord came upon various people in the Old Testament. The Spirit of the Lord came upon Zecharias and He prophesied. We have to understand the concept of 'spirit' before reading the following verse.


Can you show me the verse that says that and we can discuss it.

[/quote][/QUOTE]

A spirit is a mind/ a mind is consciousness/ Consciousness is a degree of self awareness. It has no physical attributes, yes it immortal but it doesn't mean an immortal physical body.

When it is said that the spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the deep- doesn't mean some physical immortal body was moving from point A to point B over an ocean.
When prophets said " the spirit of the Lord came over me.." , it doesn't mean some physical immortal body came to them, it means it all happened in their mind.
When John says in Revelation ".. i was in the spirit..." when he saw the visions, it doesn't mean he took an immortal body when he saw the visions, it only means those visions were revealed or everything was playing out in his mind.

It is the spirit that gets resurrected and it is clear from the verse i provided that Jesus resurrected first spiritually immediately after dying (Fact). The 3 days and 3 nights was a sign for a wicked generation that relies on signs so that some may be convicted.

Upto this point, i'll call it a wrap on this discussion because this is not the forum for it but you can PM if you want or suggest a new thread if possible.

 

[Sketch]

Wordless groans doesn't mean meaningless words.

1 Cor 14:7 Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the pipe or harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the notes? 8 Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? 9So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. 10 Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning.

Any tongues-speaker who has experienced this knows it is in the same category of manifestations of the Holy Spirit.

There are at least five different kinds of tongues.
Those who don't speak in tongues seem to have only one definition, which differs according to the person.
Some claim Acts 2 (evangelistic tongues - #5) others claim 1 Cor 12-14. (Prophetic tongues - #3)

Five Different kinds of tongues
1) Personal prayer language - Speaking to/with God
2) Intercessory prayer language - Praying for others in the Spirit
3) Prophetic prayer language - Addressing the whole church/preferably with interpretation
4) Singing in the Spirit - Singing in tongues/worship activity
5) Evangelistic language - Speaking the message of God to a people in their own language (not yours)

 

[Noose]

Any tongues-speaker who has experienced this knows it is in the same category of manifestations of the Holy Spirit.

There are at least five different kinds of tongues.
Those who don't speak in tongues seem to have only one definition, which differs according to the person.
Some claim Acts 2 (evangelistic tongues - #5) others claim 1 Cor 12-14. (Prophetic tongues - #3)

Five Different kinds of tongues
1) Personal prayer language - Speaking to/with God
2) Intercessory prayer language - Praying for others in the Spirit
3) Prophetic prayer language - Addressing the whole church/preferably with interpretation
4) Singing in the Spirit - Singing in tongues/worship activity
5) Evangelistic language - Speaking the message of God to a people in their own language (not yours)

Nope, there are no tongues today just meaningless words.
I spoke in tongues myself and would have categorized it nicely like you have done here, but it simply means nothing.

 

[Sketch]

Nope, there are no tongues today just meaningless words.
I spoke in tongues myself and would have categorized it nicely like you have done here, but it simply means nothing.

Do you consider yourself a Cessationist?

 

[cv5]

Any tongues-speaker who has experienced this knows it is in the same category of manifestations of the Holy Spirit.

There are at least five different kinds of tongues.
Those who don't speak in tongues seem to have only one definition, which differs according to the person.
Some claim Acts 2 (evangelistic tongues - #5) others claim 1 Cor 12-14. (Prophetic tongues - #3)

Five Different kinds of tongues
1) Personal prayer language - Speaking to/with God
2) Intercessory prayer language - Praying for others in the Spirit
3) Prophetic prayer language - Addressing the whole church/preferably with interpretation
4) Singing in the Spirit - Singing in tongues/worship activity
5) Evangelistic language - Speaking the message of God to a people in their own language (not yours)

All you need to do is post video/audio of tongues of the Acts Ch 2 sort.
Explainations or opinions I do not need. Post video such as the Sid Roth video that I posted. ASAP.

 

[Noose]

Do you consider yourself a Cessationist?

Yes, an extreme one.

 

[Kavik]

Tongues are not meaningless words.

Romans 8:26-28
In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. 27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God. 28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

And that passage in Romans has absolutely zero to do with the modern tongues phenomenon. It's typically taken completely out of context as another way to 'proof' the modern experience in a Biblical narrative.

 

[garee]

This has been explained to you repeatedly, and you refuse to learn. Your closed-mindedness on this matter is amazing.

Round and round we go.


Circular reasoning as a law has been explained to you repeatedly, and you refuse to learn. Your closed-mindedness on this matter is amazing.

 

[garee]

Of course I know what I pray for... that is how I know that my prayers are answered.

How could you know what you prayed for if it is a unknown language? Why was the word unknown added ? What does the sign represent? A unknown as in no fruit?

 

[garee]

And how do you determine that my words are meaningless?
Obviously God understands my spiritual language completely and therefore many many times over answers my prayers;
with no shortage of the miraculous.

Whose prayer was answered when God mocked the Jews (stammering lips) that refused to hear prophecy, as a sign against them?

Was the sign miraculously turned up side down and it points to the believers of prophecy?

Do we ignore the law? It seem clear to me what it is saying. ( and not even so will they hear Me,)

in the law it hath been written, that, `With other tongues and with other lips I will speak to this people, and not even so will they hear Me, saith the Lord;' so that the tongues are for a sign, not to the "believing", but to the "unbelieving"; and the prophesy [is] not for the unbelieving, but for the believing,! corinthisans 14: 21-22

 

[Dino246]

Round and round we go.


Circular reasoning as a law has been explained to you repeatedly, and you refuse to learn. Your closed-mindedness on this matter is amazing.

Since you are so sure that your definition is valid, please provide two independent references that support it. I've given you one for mine; here are three more:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/66/Circular-Reasoning

https://www.britannica.com/topic/circular-argument

Now, either you are capable of supporting your definition as valid and widely accepted, or you aren't. I won't hold my breath.

 

[PS]

Paul said:
I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: (1Co 14:18 KJV)

He also said to Christians, many of whom spoke in tongues:
Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. (Eph 6:11-12 KJV)

 

[presidente]

Yes, an extreme one.

I would actually agree with that comment, but on other matters of theology as well, and not just on the issue of cessationism.

 

[presidente]

Tongues are not meaningless words.

Romans 8:26-28
In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. 27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God. 28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

I believe in spiritual gifts, but do a word study on what the KJV calls 'groanings which cannot be uttered' comparing the Greek word with 'as the Spirit gave them utterance.'

These groanings in Romans 8 cannot be uttered. Tongues clearly can be uttered because in Acts 2, they spoke in tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. If they can't be uttered, you would'n't hear them.

I just don't get how using this as a passage for speaking in tongues ever got any mileage in the Pentecostal or Charismatic movement. It just doesn't hold water, IMO, and it doesn't make sense. Kenneth Hagin used a commentary from AW Pink where he described the groanings as words that could not be spoken with 'intelligible speech' or words to that effec.t And this is just arguing off the turn of phrase the commentator used, not the actually meaning of the words in the passage. Hagin was influential, and some of his ideas found some traction outside of the Word of Faith movement. Probably, like many other ideas, that could have not been original with him.

Whatever the case, I don't see any specific passages that say tongues are for intercession, though I would not say the Spirit could not use it that way.

We should accept speaking in tongues as a genuine gift, but that doesn't mean we have to accept everything every preacher or layperson says about speaking in tongues. Since speaking in tongues is a 'doctrinal distinctive' and has a lot to do with the identity of certain groups, there has been a tendency to really stretch the importance of the practice and sometimes the interpretation of passages. For example, when Paul says 'no man understandeth him', that's how tongues works in a meeting without interpretation. I don't see Paul's point as being about the importance of praying in tongues so the Devil can't hear you and interfere with your prayers being answered. Who cares if the Devil hears our prayers? Is the Prince of Persia going to get in the way? All authority on heaven and earth is given unto Jesus.

Then there is the idea that it is good for a whole church to get together and pray in tongues at the same time so they can all 'build their spirits' and be powerful for whatever comes next in the service. Why can't people 'build their spirit' at home. The prooftexts for these practices are in a passage about how speaking in tongues doesn't edify other people in the assembly unless it is interpreted.

There are extremes on both sides. One is people being too gung ho about speaking in tongues in a disorderly fashion, possibly a problem at Corinth, and the other is rejecting the practice even within Biblical guidelines.

 

[cv5]

I believe in spiritual gifts, but do a word study on what the KJV calls 'groanings which cannot be uttered' comparing the Greek word with 'as the Spirit gave them utterance.'

These groanings in Romans 8 cannot be uttered. Tongues clearly can be uttered because in Acts 2, they spoke in tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. If they can't be uttered, you would'n't hear them.

I just don't get how using this as a passage for speaking in tongues ever got any mileage in the Pentecostal or Charismatic movement. It just doesn't hold water, IMO, and it doesn't make sense. Kenneth Hagin used a commentary from AW Pink where he described the groanings as words that could not be spoken with 'intelligible speech' or words to that effec.t And this is just arguing off the turn of phrase the commentator used, not the actually meaning of the words in the passage. Hagin was influential, and some of his ideas found some traction outside of the Word of Faith movement. Probably, like many other ideas, that could have not been original with him.

Whatever the case, I don't see any specific passages that say tongues are for intercession, though I would not say the Spirit could not use it that way.

We should accept speaking in tongues as a genuine gift, but that doesn't mean we have to accept everything every preacher or layperson says about speaking in tongues. Since speaking in tongues is a 'doctrinal distinctive' and has a lot to do with the identity of certain groups, there has been a tendency to really stretch the importance of the practice and sometimes the interpretation of passages. For example, when Paul says 'no man understandeth him', that's how tongues works in a meeting without interpretation. I don't see Paul's point as being about the importance of praying in tongues so the Devil can't hear you and interfere with your prayers being answered. Who cares if the Devil hears our prayers? Is the Prince of Persia going to get in the way? All authority on heaven and earth is given unto Jesus.

Then there is the idea that it is good for a whole church to get together and pray in tongues at the same time so they can all 'build their spirits' and be powerful for whatever comes next in the service. Why can't people 'build their spirit' at home. The prooftexts for these practices are in a passage about how speaking in tongues doesn't edify other people in the assembly unless it is interpreted.

There are extremes on both sides. One is people being too gung ho about speaking in tongues in a disorderly fashion, possibly a problem at Corinth, and the other is rejecting the practice even within Biblical guidelines.

The error today is this:
Tongues today are thought to be self-willed, with the speaker initiating the phenomenon.
I do not see that anywhere in Scripture. It is God Will and whim, His purpose and timing.
No purpose, no tongues. Self-will....bogus tongues.

 

[presidente]

The error today is this:
Tongues today are thought to be self-willed, with the speaker initiating the phenomenon.
I do not see that anywhere in Scripture. It is God Will and whim, His purpose and timing.
No purpose, no tongues. Self-will....bogus tongues.

Read I Corinthians more carefully. Look at 14:28. Paul says '...if there be no interpreter, let him keep silent in the church and let him speak to himself and to God.'

Here, the speaker chooses to keep silent in the church instead of anouncing his uninterpreted tongue for all to hear. Here the speaker can choose to speak to himself and to God.

 

[Sketch]

All you need to do is post video/audio of tongues of the Acts Ch 2 sort.
Explainations or opinions I do not need. Post video such as the Sid Roth video that I posted. ASAP.

If I ask you to stop pestering me, will you comply?

 

[Sketch]

Yes, an extreme one.

Two questions:
If someone testified that God spoke to them, would you accept their testimony?
If someone was healed after being prayed for, would give God the glory for their healing?