"Theories" of the canonization?
The canonization of our Bible is a historical fact.
That's where our Bible came from.
Have you hugged a Catholic today? We have them to thank for our Bible.
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.
The canonization of our Bible is a historical fact.
That's where our Bible came from.
Have you hugged a Catholic today? We have them to thank for our Bible.
Christ is not divided and neither is His word of prophecy, scripture
We are to compare the living, abiding, eternal Word of God called scripture or prophecy... to the same word of God, scripture or "faith to faith" the unseen spiritual
Prophecy/scripture is a universal revelation for all believers.
Prophecy is typically for an individual or small group of individuals as well as a large. This is when two or three gather together under his name (Prophecy) or 2 million. Comparing the spiritual (mixing faith ) to the spiritual. That work he works in us it helps put together the mysteries of the puzzles he speaks to us. Hiding the understanding for those who do not have faith
For no man understands him not seen or heard ; because in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
The word of God prophecy fits all situations. It cannot return void from the good purpose he sends it out. It is not subject to the hearer but give them ears to hear what the scriptures prophecy is saying
The person giving the prophecy typically has no idea what it means.
The person giving the prophecy speaks the words the Spirit put on their lips and moved them understand.
Yes Apostles are sent with prophecy it give meaning to the word apostle (sent one) The Holy Spirit who is not served by human hands moves their feet a swell as their thoughts .
Wow. I've never heard such clueless comments about the spiritual gift of prophecy.
What is the time frame for prophecy given in Acts chapter two?
Acts 2:17-18, 39
“‘In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
18 Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy. ...
39 The promise is for you and your children and for
all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
Prophecy..... the Bible is not any more from humans then it was from Balaam's Donkey
The Bible came from God the author. He is not served by human hands in any way shape or form. He can bring the good news through a child of God or a unbeliever.
We are to try the spirits to see if they are from the enemy (false prophecy) coming from men . Satan the antichrist(singular) uses men antichrists (plural) to bring false prophecy . He moved Peter to commit blasphemy. Peter was forgiven seeing it was against the Son of man seen and not God the Holy Spirit who is not a man as us. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit not seen is not forgivable
2 Peter 1:19-21 King James Version (KJV) We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost
The time frame is when the perfect or complete comes the end of new prophesies . It is sealed up till the end. Something missing?
Its not a sign to confirm God is brining new revelation as if the kingdom of God was of this world and we did walk by sight
I see dreams every night . Does it confirm I am a child of God as a signs wonder or sign gift ?
Before hand he gives a warning to believe not. The elect obey making it impossible to look of new prophecy therefore dividing true prophecy the book of the law and those they say I had a dream follow me false prophecy . Nothing wrong with dreams. But new prophecy I say no and no need
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. Behold, I have told you before.Mathew24:24-25
Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.1 Corinthians13:8-12
I guess the Apostle Paul didn't get the memo.
1 Corinthians 14:39
Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.
Trophimus, Epaphroditus, Timothy and Paul were stricken with illness and no cure. Whats up with that?
Hi Thanks for the reply
I would offer the complete perfect is more the completion of the written will of God as the perfect to come . It is he perfect in so much that all the laws needed to protect His unseen integrity have been given .No knew knowledge is possible or needed... we walk by that faith(Christ's) as it works in us .
The perfect in respect to new heavens and earth I would offer is not a restoration, but a promised new creation in all things are new . it would seem not having any rudiment of this world.
In Genesis he created two beginnings. One was corrupted the other not.
In that way corruption does not cloak itself with the incorruptible but rather a new body as a new foundation. Not after the rudiments
The former things the Bible, as the law of God will not be remembered or ever come to mind. The perfect as the completion of the Bible would seem to in mind.
What good would it do to warn us of something that will never come to mind, in that perfect or new.
I ask why add and go above that which is written.
That was before the last new revelation.(Revelation 22) Do you have something to add to it?
We can still be eager to prophesy even through we do have the whole or perfect. But new prophecy (tongues) no need. What for, a sign that points to those who refuse to hear prophecy in any language ?
7
7seasrekeyed
Guest
well you do get right to your point then
but you do not get my point
no I was not at all referring to prophecy.
the someone was no one and you did not see the bigger picture
What we are enjoying, you will never miss.
That's fine. But you need to consider what you are doing if you
want to make a career out of getting us to do it your way.
As you know, my pet peeve is people who don't speak in tongues
telling those who do, what they are and how they should be used.
Frankly, it's none of their business.
Here's your question again.
The topic on that page was prophecy.
Actually, a deceived person isn't lying at all. They are telling you what they believe to be the truth.
That is not lying.
“Speaking in tongues” is just “speaking in languages”, which I do all the time. “Tongues” as used by Christians is glossolalia (meant in the linguistic sense of random free vocalization). I do use glossolalia on occasion as well, but not in a Christian context. Though I may use it on occasion, I'm fully aware of what it is.
The thing is, is that while there are many things in religion that must be taken on faith alone (they can neither be proven nor disproven), “tongues” is just not one of these things; it’s something very concrete and very tangible. The phenomenon can be, and has been, studied extensively.
Modern tongues themselves is entirely self-created non-cognitive, non-language utterance. Whether spoken by a Christian here in the US or by a shaman in some remote part of the world – it’s all produced the exact same way.
It’s how this unique tool is used and the experience(s) it creates which define its importance and place in various religious beliefs that practice it.
As I’ve mentioned – is this phenomenon that Christians are doing evidenced/’proofed’ in the Bible? No, it’s not. Does that fact it’s not there make it somehow wrong to use? No, of course not; it’s a very powerful spiritual tool, which is clearly attested by many that use it. But a self-created tool nonetheless. There’s just nothing mysterious or divine in the mechanics of producing modern tongues.
I don’t believe I’ve ever commented on how they should be used – that’s totally up to the individual practitioner and what they believe to be correct according to their beliefs. No argument there.
@ Presidente -
I see the language as something supernatural the speaker would not generally understand.
I would respectfully argue that that’s the only way tongues-speakers can view it. If it were real rational language(s), it would kind of negate the whole ‘tongues’ thing.
What I don't get is why you would think that Paul would characterize praying in a foreign language as the spirit of the individual praying as opposed to the understanding praying.
Again, I think you’re misunderstanding, or maybe I’m not getting what you’re saying. The language the speaker uses is irrelevant; it’s the fact that the audience/those listening to him, do not speak/understand it; therefore, what you’re saying is a mystery to them. “Praying in the Spirit” has nothing whatsoever to do with “tongues” or what language a person uses to pray in; it’s how they are praying, not what language they’re doing it in.
I am not sure what languages you think Paul knew only faintly. I thought with the diglossia theory you were of the opinion that there were rather few languages in the Grecco-Roman world, and all the Jews in the east would have spoken Greek rather than local languages.
I don’t think anyone has the answer to that one – as a “world traveler” of his day, he would have been able to get by just about anywhere he went (in looking at a map of his journeys) with Greek, Latin and Aramaic (it’s likely he had knowledge of Hebrew as well, but obviously not as an everyday spoken language).
Most of the places he went to fell into the lands of the Western Diaspora – countries and lands that had long been Hellenized with Greek having replaced indigenous languages for several generations. Greek, by far, would have likely been Paul’s primary language in his travels.
It seems he makes a point of going to a lot of sea-ports; i.e. places with a pretty good cross-section of cultures and languages. This makes perfect sense – by comparison, if one wants to spread the message of a new religion to the world, and you were from the US, I’m pretty sure you’d choose New York City, or Los Angeles over ‘East Wheatfield’, Kansas.
In addition to the three languages above, it stands to reason that he may have picked up a little of other more distantly spoken languages from some of the travelers to those ports. I don’t think he spoke them with any degree of fluency, perhaps a few everyday phrases.
With respect to his statement in 1 Cor. 14:19 though, I would take it to mean as I’ve described it, I also think it likely he was just using himself as an example in a hypothetical situation. If I say something like, “I’d rather spend my money on a yacht than on a plane”. It doesn’t mean I’m planning on buying either one, nor for that matter does it even mean I have the money to buy something like that – I’m just using myself in a hypothetical example to illustrate a point. I suspect it’s the same here, which, of course, is likely to be an issue for those who take the Bible literally word for word.
But let's say he spoke just a bit of Lyaconian. He would still be speaking with his 'understanding' in Lyaconian, even if he had an accent and had to circumlocute a bit to get his point across.
Yes, he’d still be speaking with his ‘understanding’ of that language (limited though it may be), but since this part of his letter calls for clarity and understanding in a public service so that all may benefit, his concern I think would be that he wouldn’t want to circumlocute at all. There’s a pretty good chance he’d miss some of the nuance and clarity he wants to communicate. Better to speak a few words in a language you’re comfortable with and can covey those nuances and retain clarity, than a language where you’re not sure you’re really getting your point across (perhaps the 10,000 words vs. 5 words is his way of speaking to the concept of circumlocution – just a thought to consider).
No, the last part of the post (in red) was from someone else, not you – sorry for the confusion.
I see the language as something supernatural the speaker would not generally understand.
I would respectfully argue that that’s the only way tongues-speakers can view it. If it were real rational language(s), it would kind of negate the whole ‘tongues’ thing.
What I don't get is why you would think that Paul would characterize praying in a foreign language as the spirit of the individual praying as opposed to the understanding praying.
Again, I think you’re misunderstanding, or maybe I’m not getting what you’re saying. The language the speaker uses is irrelevant; it’s the fact that the audience/those listening to him, do not speak/understand it; therefore, what you’re saying is a mystery to them. “Praying in the Spirit” has nothing whatsoever to do with “tongues” or what language a person uses to pray in; it’s how they are praying, not what language they’re doing it in.
I am not sure what languages you think Paul knew only faintly. I thought with the diglossia theory you were of the opinion that there were rather few languages in the Grecco-Roman world, and all the Jews in the east would have spoken Greek rather than local languages.
I don’t think anyone has the answer to that one – as a “world traveler” of his day, he would have been able to get by just about anywhere he went (in looking at a map of his journeys) with Greek, Latin and Aramaic (it’s likely he had knowledge of Hebrew as well, but obviously not as an everyday spoken language).
Most of the places he went to fell into the lands of the Western Diaspora – countries and lands that had long been Hellenized with Greek having replaced indigenous languages for several generations. Greek, by far, would have likely been Paul’s primary language in his travels.
It seems he makes a point of going to a lot of sea-ports; i.e. places with a pretty good cross-section of cultures and languages. This makes perfect sense – by comparison, if one wants to spread the message of a new religion to the world, and you were from the US, I’m pretty sure you’d choose New York City, or Los Angeles over ‘East Wheatfield’, Kansas.
In addition to the three languages above, it stands to reason that he may have picked up a little of other more distantly spoken languages from some of the travelers to those ports. I don’t think he spoke them with any degree of fluency, perhaps a few everyday phrases.
With respect to his statement in 1 Cor. 14:19 though, I would take it to mean as I’ve described it, I also think it likely he was just using himself as an example in a hypothetical situation. If I say something like, “I’d rather spend my money on a yacht than on a plane”. It doesn’t mean I’m planning on buying either one, nor for that matter does it even mean I have the money to buy something like that – I’m just using myself in a hypothetical example to illustrate a point. I suspect it’s the same here, which, of course, is likely to be an issue for those who take the Bible literally word for word.
But let's say he spoke just a bit of Lyaconian. He would still be speaking with his 'understanding' in Lyaconian, even if he had an accent and had to circumlocute a bit to get his point across.
Yes, he’d still be speaking with his ‘understanding’ of that language (limited though it may be), but since this part of his letter calls for clarity and understanding in a public service so that all may benefit, his concern I think would be that he wouldn’t want to circumlocute at all. There’s a pretty good chance he’d miss some of the nuance and clarity he wants to communicate. Better to speak a few words in a language you’re comfortable with and can covey those nuances and retain clarity, than a language where you’re not sure you’re really getting your point across (perhaps the 10,000 words vs. 5 words is his way of speaking to the concept of circumlocution – just a thought to consider).
No, the last part of the post (in red) was from someone else, not you – sorry for the confusion.
One of my pet peeves are those who say we do not need prophecy to define the things of God not seen. If it feels good make a noise.
Well then whose business is it if God word is not involved in what the sign represents and who it points to? I simply do not believe sign are required to believe God who has no form. We are to walk by faith the unseen Holy place of God.
Why did God assign a sign the to Jews in Isaiah 28 and confirm it by defining who it points to in 1 Corinthians 14? Then we can look at it with a better understanding. The tongues doctrine is not founded in the new testament . If we destroy the foundation of the doctrine .How would we ever expect to understand what it was given for in the first place
Below is the law. What does the sign confirm?
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
I am no scholar but it does not seem that difficult to understand. Why turn things upside down and take away the understanding of God by this oral tradition of men?
Isaiah 29:16 Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no "understanding"?
I would turn that around and ask, why not honor all that is written?
there is not GROAN or utterance that, God of the Bible does not know. Nor is your human undertanding limit God .
Actually, you are only partially correct. If you read Act chapter 2 you will see where the Holy Spirit gave them the ability to speak, yet the bibles says “they spoke” in tongues.
Acts 2: 4”And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and “began to speak” with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. "NKJV
The word of God does say in scriptures that both Holy Spirit and man play a part in the action of speaking in tongues.
The Holy Spirit gives the ability to the person and the person speaks . You have no scriptures to support your claim. Acts 2:4 is just one. In addition 1cor chapter 12 tell us the Holy distributes gifts to be used by the person. If this were not so why did the Holy Spirit have Paul correct errors in the gifts? That would make no sense. The Holy Spirit does not error, only man does. Therefore, if the Holy Spirit is the one who causes or makes one speak then there should have been no correction needed. 1cor chapter 12 to 14 speak to what men did and are to do when using the gifts of the Holy Spirit. IF the Holy makes you do it then there should have been no error, and Paul would have been led to teach that the Holy Spirit will make you do the gifts. Your understanding is error and unbiblical