Speaking in tongues

holdup · Dec 7, 2018

cv5 said:

You are nothing but a confrontational buffoon. It was my first post and you jumped down ones throat as in some perverted way to what? HAVE ME SUBMIT TO your opinion. I said they are in error, I do not know them nor does one video from when? 10 years ago? or what? I’m suppose to assume this was yesterday? If you are just going to attack people for posting on a thread then know I will not be your whipping post here find some else you self-righteous Pharisees

cv5 · Dec 7, 2018

holdup said:

False prophets are nothing less than false teachers, false proclaimers, self-interested parasites who are voluminously described and warned of in Scripture. The most commonplace use of the term prophet is he who speaks forth, though there is of course direction, instruction and future-telling as well in a certain fraction of NT cases, this being necessary in the emerging Church.

Are they saved? Nope not a chance. If they think they can live like kings devouring their flock they are in for quite a shock.

Are they condemned? Not yet and not if the truly repent and turn from their course of life. Copeland should disgorge his ill-gotten loot for one thing. That action would be fruits worthy of repentance for a start

garee · Dec 7, 2018

Dino246 said:

No one said he does not commune with His children giving us our daily bread . His words are living, they are spirit, and they are the daily bread life.

I suggested he is no longer bringing new revelations .Like the silent period between the two testaments of four hundreds years, a time of testing . Finishing the second and last testament we are not to expect any more new.

Its how we try the spirits to see if they are of God not seen or men seen . If any man say I have seen the Lord, heard audible voice, or had a dream as a personal experience we are to believe not.He warned us before hand.

Every new claim of a new of prophet bringing new revelations...…. he proves himself to be a false prophets that brings false prophecy.(no new prophecy)

Every prophet that declares the perfect word the whole gospel of our salvation now that we have the whole he is a true prophet. He is known by the prophecy he brings limited by the perfect. They would be the ones that obey the last commandment made to mankind. Do not add or substract from the book of prophecy .it is a sealed book of His law, sealed up till the end of time.

Why add to it? Is there a law missing by which we could know Him better?

cv5 · Dec 7, 2018

holdup said:

Well Sir/Madame, Tilton and Copeland show all of the attributes of false prophets. I suggest you conduct an investigation yourself. I did. Their bogus tongues is another drawing card for the unlearned and unwary.

holdup · Dec 7, 2018

cv5 said:

I don't waste my time with foolishness nor would i even have been drawn into a discussion about those who are in error. The thread says speaking in tongues, the context of that in the New testament in found in Acts 2 and in context to the Gift of the Holy Spirt found in 1cor chapters 12 to 14. Are you using the error of the video to porve tongues is not real? Or what fake tongues is ? Or what the gift is when it is being abused? it is possible it is all three. Or do you know thse in the video so well that they always from day one were in error?

Kavik · Dec 7, 2018

Dino246 said:

Acts 10 and 19 describe real, rational language - (apologies for length)

With respect to Peter and Cornelius, I’m going to paraphrase (and in a few places quote) here and there, from the book “Tongues Revisited – a Third Way” in which the author devotes a section which addresses just this subject.

We have to put this into a bit of quick historical perspective from what we know about Roman soldiers. Given that Cornelius commanded a unit known as the “Italian Regiment”, one may surmise that he was from Italy (Latin, “Italia”) and that his native language was likely Latin. He was in Caesarea with his “household”. A Roman soldier’s ‘household’ would have included not only relatives, but fellow soldiers and slaves as well.

Let’s examine this for a moment as it plays an important role with respect to ‘tongues’.

His relatives, like Cornelius, would have presumably spoken Latin. Fellow soldiers also spoke Latin, but as Roman soldiers it’s important to note that they could have come from just about anywhere in the Empire. Likewise, and especially, his slaves.

In short, though the soldiers in his command spoke Latin, it may not at all have been their native language(s). His slaves almost certainly not – though they spoke and understood some Latin, it’s very unlikely that they would have been native Latin speakers. Like the soldiers, their native language(s) could have come from anywhere in the Roman Empire.

So, in Cornelius’ household, we essentially have several people who comprised a multi-lingual group. We must also surmise that most of this company also spoke Greek in varying degrees. The passage is silent as to what language Peter and his group, and Cornelius and his group, conversed in; but, as was the practice in the day when speakers of two different languages tried to communicate with each other, the common language of choice was Greek (just as it would be English in today’s world).

Since the narrative reports no communication difficulty, I think it safe to assume that the common language in this scenario would have been Greek. Peter may have known a few words and phrases in Latin (from the Roman occupation of his homeland), but it’s very unlikely he spoke it. Also unlikely is that Cornelius spoke Aramaic with any degree of fluency.

From the narrative, we know that the incident is reported from the perspective of Peter and his group. “They (Peter and his company) heard them speaking in languages (“tongues”) and praising God”.

From this, we can deduce two types of speech here: (1) speech that Peter and his group understood, and (2) speech they did not understand.

Considering Peter and his company report in the narrative that they knew that some of what was said were praises to God, it must have been said in a language they knew (likely Greek, but possibly some recognized Latin). Some of what was said however, they did not understand because it was foreign to them. Peter and his company did not speak, nor apparently recognize, those languages.

To quote from the aforementioned book – “Is praise of God, that is, saying in some way how marvelous God is, evidence for the presence of the Holy Spirit? If backed up by a true understanding of and commitment to God and his work, then I would say it is indeed an indication of the residence in that person of the Holy Spirit. It is to be expected that a new believer will praise the Lord in some way, and these people had just minutes previously become believers in Christ! Cornelius and his family were devout and God-fearing (Acts 10:2, 22). They had accepted the revelation of God that they knew of up to that point, but they were not saved (Acts 11:14). They had become Jewish proselytes, Gentiles who had adopted the faith of the Jews. This was in spite of the disdain in which they were held by ethnic Jews (Acts 10:28) even while they were respected by them (Acts 10:22).”

The likely scenario was that Peter and his company entered Cornelius’s house and Peter addressed the gathered group, telling them about Jesus, his life, resurrection, etc. Cornelius and his company responded to what they heard as a reaffirmation of what they already believed. Reacting joyously, some of them addressed the Lord directly in their mother-tongue; languages Peter and his company did not know or speak, or turned to their companions and discussed these tremendous things with them (again in languages unknown to Peter and his companions). Considering the soldiers, and especially the slaves, could have come from anywhere in the Empire – any number of languages are possible here.

To quote directly again - “Some of them, perhaps for the benefit of Peter and his friends, addressed the Lord, or talked among themselves in their shared language (likely, Greek). They were filled with the wonder and joy of having received 'life through repentance' (Acts 11:18). It was very evident to Peter and the others that here were truly converted people. It is so reminiscent of Acts 2; the multilingual situation and the praise of the wonders of God, though in this case it was from newly converted people. Another difference also was that here there were no cultural 'high language/low language' conventions to break. These people were simply thrilled that they were saved and told the Lord so. This is quite sufficient to have prompted Peter's comment, "The Holy Spirit came on them as he came on us at the beginning." “

So, no modern tongues-speech here, just plain old real languages. Languages Peter and his friends apparently did not know or recognize. Cornelius and his company were among the non-Jews; as such, any native language(s) they spoke, including Latin itself, would have been considered a “tongue” (read “language”).

Turning to Paul in Ephesus - The passage simply states that while in Ephesus, Paul found “some/certain disciples”. The text does not offer much more about these people nor does it mention their nationality as, frankly, it’s not really relevant to the story. The natural assumption most make is that they were natives of Ephesus and thus, native speakers of Greek, but…they may not have been.

Ephesus boasted the Temple of Artemis; considered to be one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. Ephesus had also served as a crossroads between East and West for centuries. In short, like Corinth, it was a cultural and linguistic melting pot. It’s quite possible, and given what happened based on the narrative, quite probable, that these individuals were not native Ephesians; thus, not native speakers of Greek.

We are not told what their native language was. It appears however, that both these people and Paul conversed in the ‘common language’ (dare I say “tongue”) of the day: Greek.

When Paul baptized them, they may have simply been, out of joy one may assume, expressing themselves in their native language; one that Paul was obviously not familiar with. The fact that they began speaking in a language unknown to Paul, and was reported in the narrative, further lends to the idea that these disciples were not native Ephesians.

When a bi-lingual or multi-lingual speaker utters something suddenly/spur of the moment in an emotional outburst (not to be taken with any negative connotations), the speaker will always revert to their native language. That’s just known fact. It seems, that is what happened here.

I don’t see the Cornelius or Ephesus incidents as being problematic with respect to real language, nor do I see modern tongues-speech, or anything really 'miraculous' for that matter. As with 1 Cor. 14:2, the speakers were speaking in their native languages, languages that, at that particular point in time, were known only to God since those listening/hearing did not speak them. Even though they may have been praying/praising by the leading of the H/S (i.e."praying in the Spirit"), to Peter and Paul & company, they were uttering 'mysteries'.

So to your point - I don't hold that such gifts are specific to Christians; the context in how they are used however, is what defines them as "spiritual gifts".

Dino246 · Dec 7, 2018

garee said:

Where does it say that? Certainly not in 1 John 4, wherein we are instructed how to test the spirits. Nor in Deuteronomy 13 wherein Israel is instructed how to identify false prophets.

garee said:

Has any contributor to this thread made such a claim? Anywhere? No. Why do you continually argue against assertions that NOBODY has made?

garee · Dec 7, 2018

cv5 said:

Signs as lying wonders called miracles?

What is meant by God has visited us with signs and miracles? He informs us it an evil generation as natural converted man that does seek after them and informs us the last one given which has been fulfilled is the sigh of Jonas.

What does the sign of tongues confirm? Once we can find that out then we can test for positive or negative. Blessing or curse

Dino246 · Dec 7, 2018

Kavik said:

Acts 10 and 19 describe real, rational language - (apologies for length)

With respect to Peter and Cornelius, I’m going to paraphrase (and in a few places quote) here and there, from the book “Tongues Revisited – a Third Way” in which the author devotes a section which addresses just this subject.

We have to put this into a bit of quick historical perspective from what we know about Roman soldiers. Given that Cornelius commanded a unit known as the “Italian Regiment”, one may surmise that he was from Italy (Latin, “Italia”) and that his native language was likely Latin. He was in Caesarea with his “household”. A Roman soldier’s ‘household’ would have included not only relatives, but fellow soldiers and slaves as well.

Let’s examine this for a moment as it plays an important role with respect to ‘tongues’.

His relatives, like Cornelius, would have presumably spoken Latin. Fellow soldiers also spoke Latin, but as Roman soldiers it’s important to note that they could have come from just about anywhere in the Empire. Likewise, and especially, his slaves.

In short, though the soldiers in his command spoke Latin, it may not at all have been their native language(s). His slaves almost certainly not – though they spoke and understood some Latin, it’s very unlikely that they would have been native Latin speakers. Like the soldiers, their native language(s) could have come from anywhere in the Roman Empire.

So, in Cornelius’ household, we essentially have several people who comprised a multi-lingual group. We must also surmise that most of this company also spoke Greek in varying degrees. The passage is silent as to what language Peter and his group, and Cornelius and his group, conversed in; but, as was the practice in the day when speakers of two different languages tried to communicate with each other, the common language of choice was Greek (just as it would be English in today’s world).

Since the narrative reports no communication difficulty, I think it safe to assume that the common language in this scenario would have been Greek. Peter may have known a few words and phrases in Latin (from the Roman occupation of his homeland), but it’s very unlikely he spoke it. Also unlikely is that Cornelius spoke Aramaic with any degree of fluency.

From the narrative, we know that the incident is reported from the perspective of Peter and his group. “They (Peter and his company) heard them speaking in languages (“tongues”) and praising God”.

From this, we can deduce two types of speech here: (1) speech that Peter and his group understood, and (2) speech they did not understand.

Considering Peter and his company report in the narrative that they knew that some of what was said were praises to God, it must have been said in a language they knew (likely Greek, but possibly some recognized Latin). Some of what was said however, they did not understand because it was foreign to them. Peter and his company did not speak, nor apparently recognize, those languages.

To quote from the aforementioned book – “Is praise of God, that is, saying in some way how marvelous God is, evidence for the presence of the Holy Spirit? If backed up by a true understanding of and commitment to God and his work, then I would say it is indeed an indication of the residence in that person of the Holy Spirit. It is to be expected that a new believer will praise the Lord in some way, and these people had just minutes previously become believers in Christ! Cornelius and his family were devout and God-fearing (Acts 10:2, 22). They had accepted the revelation of God that they knew of up to that point, but they were not saved (Acts 11:14). They had become Jewish proselytes, Gentiles who had adopted the faith of the Jews. This was in spite of the disdain in which they were held by ethnic Jews (Acts 10:28) even while they were respected by them (Acts 10:22).”

The likely scenario was that Peter and his company entered Cornelius’s house and Peter addressed the gathered group, telling them about Jesus, his life, resurrection, etc. Cornelius and his company responded to what they heard as a reaffirmation of what they already believed. Reacting joyously, some of them addressed the Lord directly in their mother-tongue; languages Peter and his company did not know or speak, or turned to their companions and discussed these tremendous things with them (again in languages unknown to Peter and his companions). Considering the soldiers, and especially the slaves, could have come from anywhere in the Empire – any number of languages are possible here.

To quote directly again - “Some of them, perhaps for the benefit of Peter and his friends, addressed the Lord, or talked among themselves in their shared language (likely, Greek). They were filled with the wonder and joy of having received 'life through repentance' (Acts 11:18). It was very evident to Peter and the others that here were truly converted people. It is so reminiscent of Acts 2; the multilingual situation and the praise of the wonders of God, though in this case it was from newly converted people. Another difference also was that here there were no cultural 'high language/low language' conventions to break. These people were simply thrilled that they were saved and told the Lord so. This is quite sufficient to have prompted Peter's comment, "The Holy Spirit came on them as he came on us at the beginning." “

So, no modern tongues-speech here, just plain old real languages. Languages Peter and his friends apparently did not know or recognize. Cornelius and his company were among the non-Jews; as such, any native language(s) they spoke, including Latin itself, would have been considered a “tongue” (read “language”).

Turning to Paul in Ephesus - The passage simply states that while in Ephesus, Paul found “some/certain disciples”. The text does not offer much more about these people nor does it mention their nationality as, frankly, it’s not really relevant to the story. The natural assumption most make is that they were natives of Ephesus and thus, native speakers of Greek, but…they may not have been.

Ephesus boasted the Temple of Artemis; considered to be one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. Ephesus had also served as a crossroads between East and West for centuries. In short, like Corinth, it was a cultural and linguistic melting pot. It’s quite possible, and given what happened based on the narrative, quite probable, that these individuals were not native Ephesians; thus, not native speakers of Greek.

We are not told what their native language was. It appears however, that both these people and Paul conversed in the ‘common language’ (dare I say “tongue”) of the day: Greek.

When Paul baptized them, they may have simply been, out of joy one may assume, expressing themselves in their native language; one that Paul was obviously not familiar with. The fact that they began speaking in a language unknown to Paul, and was reported in the narrative, further lends to the idea that these disciples were not native Ephesians.

When a bi-lingual or multi-lingual speaker utters something suddenly/spur of the moment in an emotional outburst (not to be taken with any negative connotations), the speaker will always revert to their native language. That’s just known fact. It seems, that is what happened here.

I don’t see the Cornelius or Ephesus incidents as being problematic with respect to real language, nor do I see modern tongues-speech, or anything really 'miraculous' for that matter. As with 1 Cor. 14:2, the speakers were speaking in their native languages, languages that, at that particular point in time, were known only to God since those listening/hearing did not speak them. Even though they may have been praying/praising by the leading of the H/S (i.e."praying in the Spirit"), to Peter and Paul & company, they were uttering 'mysteries'.

So to your point - I don't hold that such gifts are specific to Christians; the context in how they are used however, is what defines them as "spiritual gifts".

I see two flaws in this argument still. First, you assume that "modern tongues-speech" is not real, rational language. That assertion can be proven... with great effort by many people. Second, if context determines whether a gift is "of the Holy Spirit" then most of 1 Corinthians 12-14 is wasted text, because the nine gifts listed are nothing special to Christians. The only lesson that could be extracted from the whole passage is "use your natural abilities to bless the local church". While a valid lesson, it doesn't need three chapters to say.

Further, who exactly has the "natural ability" to work miracles or prophesy accurately? Such things are ONLY done by the power of the Holy Spirit. That debunks your entire argument.

holdup · Dec 7, 2018

Dino246 said:

this is one of the most hateful threads I have seen so far those who attack people who are not overly condeming of those in error when the Word of God says leave them alone after you have tried to correct them.

cv5 said:

well good for you if God led you to seek about them and it was not pride that led you, then you should go a nd confront them. Maybe you can win them over and see the error of their ways corrected.

holdup · Dec 7, 2018

garee said:

you should know that is not the only verse about signs and wonders. I love how those against the gifts of the Holy Spirit and to those who seek after them use this verse to suggest they are evil for doing so. Yet Jesus said too Mark 16:17 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

Mark 16:20

And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

Dino246 · Dec 7, 2018

holdup said:

I agree... it can get a unpleasant in here at times. I usually try to keep my comments focused on the ideas rather than the people. I cross that line when I want to address the person about an aspect of their belief or behaviour... usually this doesn't happen unless they are repeating an error after being corrected more than once.

Sketch · Dec 7, 2018

Noose said:

What about the Apostles and Prophets?

Ephesians 2:19-21
Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.

Ephesians 3:4-5
In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets.

1 Corinthians 12:28
And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues.

Sketch · Dec 7, 2018

Kavik said:

1 Corinthians 14:2
For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit.

Sketch · Dec 7, 2018

Kavik said:

We partially agree.
I think the term spiritual "gifts" is a misnomer. They are manifestations of the Holy Spirit.

Sketch · Dec 7, 2018

Kavik said:

The only difference between what you’re doing and what I’m doing is the _’experience’_ - You’re producing this in conjunction with a religious ‘experience’; I am not. Therefore, your views/beliefs on what you’re doing are going to be totally different from mine, even though linguistically, we’re both producing the exact same thing.

Right. Like the difference between swimming and baptism.

garee · Dec 7, 2018

Dino246 said:

Those are different time periods and different purposes. The Deuteronomy 13 is ongoing, 1 John 4 the final test . Just like the Deuteronomy 4 used to protect the integrity of a single word seeing change the meaning of a single word changes the authorship.

While the Revelation 22 the warning as the last commandment of God it is in respect to the whole or the perfect .(Do not add or subtract) Nothing missing.

With the if it "were possible"in mind we are informed

And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it "were possible", they shall deceive the very elect. Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. Mathew 23: 22-26

"Behold, I have told you before" not after when it was to late

There in Mathew we are informed it will not be possible (if it "were possible") to deceive the elect. a perfect way of sealing his own identity from the father of lies the identity thief in the night. protecting the integrity of the whole .His perfect way to try the spirits.

John was the last prophet of God used to bring new prophecy . Its how we try the spirits to see if they are of men who say ….I had a vison or a dream come put your faith in me seen .

There is a whole list going all the way back to the first false prophet one that after the book was complete that said Lo is Christ he here or there . we are to believe not those oral tradition of men that make the word of God without effect, dead

garee · Dec 7, 2018

holdup said:

I am not against the unseen gifts of God that he works in us to both will and do His good pleasure. I rather lift up that kind of representative glory .

Signs confirm not lead a person to believe. The sign of tongues confirms those who do not believe prophecy .

The sign that followed after the apostles confirmed they were not harmed by the poison of false doctrine. According to the power of the gospel they would cast out demons (false doctrines) and they themselves were used as prophets like Peter who when he spoke the holy Spirit as a spiritual gift eternal God personally gave each one a understanding by which they could believe God called speaking new tongues . That way two people of different tongues could understand God through each other, as the spiritual gift to both coming from the mutual faith of God that did work in them both comforting them by the hearing of faith (the unseen law of faith )giving us ears to hear .

Three thousand heard the gospel in there ow language that day . It was the sign propmised against the t unbelieving (no faith ) Jews in Isaiah 28 we can find the foundation for tongues.

Kavik · Dec 7, 2018

Sketch said:

Yes, I agree - they are manifestations; not "gifts".

Kavik · Dec 7, 2018

Sketch said:

1 Cor 14:2 is perhaps the quintessential passage used to "evidence" modern tongues in the Bible. It simply describes real rational language - one just needs to put it into the context of the demographic landscape of 1st century Corinth.

To put the phase in a more modern English – “For one who speaks in a language, speaks not to men, but to God; no one hears with understanding; though he’s praying by the leading of the Spirit, we still have no idea what he’s saying.” Why don’t we understand what he’s saying? Because no one here speaks his language. Nowhere in this passage does it even remotely imply or suggest that the speaker does not understand what he himself is saying.

To take a sort of analogy – If I attend a worship service in ‘East Haystack’, Alabama two things are going to be evident: one; there’s only going to be so many people at that service (i.e. there will be a finite given amount of people there) and two; the chances that anyone in East Haystack speaks anything but English is pretty slim to nil.

If I start praying aloud in say Lithuanian, there’s no one at that service that’s going to understand a word I’m saying; “no one hears with understanding.” Even though I’m speaking a real language, no one there will understand my “tongue”. That does not mean or imply that no one else understands Lithuanian; just no one at that particular service . In this sense, therefore, I am speaking only to God, since he understands all languages. To everyone at the service, even though I’m praying in the Spirit (see that defined below), I’m speaking “mysteries”, an idiomatic way of saying “it’s all Greek to us”, or perhaps a bit more colloquially, “we have no clue what he’s saying.” It’s nothing more complicated than that – real language issue in a multi-cultural/lingual environment.

One of the issues that arises is the Pentecostal/Charismatic redefinition of “praying in the spirit” – it does not refer to the words one is saying. Rather, it refers to how one is praying. In the three places it is used (Corinthians, Ephesians, and Jude), there is absolutely zero reference to 'languages' in connection with this phrase. “Praying in the Spirit” should be understood as praying in the power of the Spirit, by the leading of the Spirit, and according to His will. In Pentecostal/Charismatic parlance however, the phase has come to be equated with modern “tongues”, i.e. when one “prays in the Spirit”, one is typically engaged in some form of tongues-speech.

For Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians, the passage can only be interpreted in such as way that the speaker also does not understand what he himself is saying. It's the only way the modern tongues experience can be '"proofed" in the passage. Remove that interpretation, replace "tongues" with the more modern "language" and the modern tongues phenomenon becomes somewhat difficult to postulate here.

Speaking in tongues

New member

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

New member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Senior Member

New member

New member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member