Praying in Tongues

[7seasrekeyed]

So what language were you praying in?

And I disagree that English is limited because it is of the mind........WE reason with OUR MIND and I have had too many prayer requests answered to a T while praying in English....God understands the heart, mind and LANGUAGE of any and every man.........

And if GOD knew, why would he need you when he can drop a bible in her lap at any moment?

we sure do

while the things of the Spirit are not of the mind

we are to renew our minds ACCORDING to the word of God and not according the the reasoning of mankind

for example, what human would consider having their son die on a cross...a horrible death...to secure the salvation of all who would call on his name?

not gonna happen. but God choose this as His plan of redemption and plenty of people scoff at that and call Christianity a 'bloody or bloodthirsty' religion

does God answer prayer or not? what do you mean by 'if God knew?'

Jesus gave the example of the woman badering the judge as a metaphor for praying

you are out of line here in your desire to prove yourself right. God knows ALL things yet we are clearly and repeatedly told to pray

 

[CS1]

Not sure what you meant by "Thee (A)postles"?

I would offer if you have a desire to share the word of God as those sent out (apostle) into the world .That would make you an apostle. (sent one) Adding meaning to the word destroys the intent of the author . We I believe are warned not to add to a word singular in Deuteronomy 4:2 which is a different warning at the end of scripture in the Revelation chapter 22 now that the perfect had come we are not to add to the whole.

Some say Paul was not a apostle because he did not see the lord in person.

The Catholics have taken the word apostle and made it into a authority by which they make the word of God without effect rising above that which is written. Called apostolic succession

Ananias I think would be a false apostle who persecuted the church

Come on sir, you know what the qualification of Capital “A” Apostle Peter James, John and Paul all have seen the Risen Lord with their eyes. That is the qualification to be an Apostle. The word “apostle” is context with the gifts to the church apostles, prophets, evangelist, pastors and teachers found in 1cor and Eph. Means sent out ones. Like a missionary.

Ananias was a false apostle ? Hey did you read the Book of Acts ? That statement is crazy

 

[Dino246]

How many things does the scripture attribute to blasphemy?
Someone lied to the Apostles about the proceeds they got from selling a piece of land, they hid some and only gave a portion, they were struck dead because they hand blasphemed the Holy spirit by lying. How much more is attributing to God things that are not from God.

They were dealing with Apostles that time, we are claiming to deal directly with God this time. If i say, the things that i say or do is because God is doing them in me and it turns out that it is not God- how bad can it get. It is the pinnacle of pride.

You are welcome to call it blasphemy if you choose, but you don't have clear scriptural support for doing so, and nobody is obligated to accept your designation as anything more than an opinion.

 

[CS1]

Fathers- Ancestors- Biological connection.

Matt 23: 9 And do not call anyone on earth your father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.

No church fathers in whatever context you want to have or imagine.

wrong Jesus refered to "fathers" well after that statment. the word father can mean teacher, Elder or one who respect and honor is do . Render honor to who honor is due. You have taken the term father and removed from those who have earned right to have the title . AS Jesus said this to the Pharisees. You just hate the Catholics and this is the only form of Apologetics you know to argue with them. You are wrong.

 

[Dino246]

Ananias was a false apostle ? Hey did you read the Book of Acts ? That statement is crazy

Garee may have been thinking of the Ananias of Acts 5, not of Acts 9. Neither was designated as an apostle though. Scripture calls the one in Acts 9 a "disciple".

 

[Noose]

wrong Jesus refered to "fathers" well after that statment. the word father can mean teacher, Elder or one who respect and honor is do . Render honor to who honor is due. You have taken the term father and removed from those who have earned right to have the title . AS Jesus said this to the Pharisees. You just hate the Catholics and this is the only form of Apologetics you know to argue with them. You are wrong.

Wrong.
Jesus was talking to His disciples telling them not be called 'instructors/teachers' or never to call anyone in the world their 'father' for there is one Father in heaven and they are all brothers.

So, you have been crying context since yesterday only to be out of context, not that i didn't know you are cornered.

No church fathers.

Matt 23:8 But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth your father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Christ. 11The greatest among you shall be your servant. 12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

The key word is earth, not Pharisees in Jerusalem. The context is earth.
Again, no church fathers, not unless they operated in Mass.

 

[Kavik]

What do you do with the Penn State studies of the brain where tongues originate?

The studies done at Penn State using SPECT imaging are, as the person (a Dr. Newberg, I think) who did the studies himself said, 'inconclusive'.

The results could be used to support either view (pro and con) of ‘tongues’.

I would argue that the results are exactly what one would expect to see. The language producing areas of the brain are not overly active in the production of “tongues” simply because “tongues” are not language. There’s no reason to suspect to see those areas of the brain overly active in its production. “Tongues” is non-cognitive non-language utterance, and the results of the Penn State study seem to support that.

On the other hand, some would argue that the fact that the language producing areas of the brain are not active when producing “tongues” is because they come from another source (i.e. the Holy Spirit). The problem with this, of course, is that what’s being produced is not language.

If it were something definable as a language of some type, bore the unmistakable marks of language (as opposed to free vocalization), I’d say, hey, maybe we’re on to something really cool here (which is what I was kind of hoping when I first started looking at the phenomenon of tongues), but that’s just not the case.

 

[wolfwint]

the teaching of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit goes back to about 95AD you will find it in John chapter 1 Jesus is the Baptizer in the Holy Ghost. And that promise of the Holy Spirit goes out to all who receive Christ. The context of tongues is seen in the Book of Acts . all before the 1900's.

Not realy an answer to my post.

 

[CS1]

Wrong.
Jesus was talking to His disciples telling them not be called 'instructors/teachers' or never to call anyone in the world their 'father' for there is one Father in heaven and they are all brothers.

So, you have been crying context since yesterday only to be out of context, not that i didn't know you are cornered.

No church fathers.

Matt 23:8 But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth your father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Christ. 11The greatest among you shall be your servant. 12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

The key word is earth, not Pharisees in Jerusalem. The context is earth.

read matthew 23 again guy. Jesus spoke to the disciples and the people gather there which included the :
Scribes and Pharisees
You will see why Jesus said what he said IF you read chapter 22 you know the one before 23.
In verse 41 of chapter 22 of matthews

The pharisees were qestioning Jesus.

"
41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose Son is He?”

They said to Him, “The Son of David.”

43 He said to them, “How then does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying:

44 ‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at My right hand,
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool” ’?
45 If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his Son?” 46 And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor from that day on did anyone dare question Him anymore.

Then chapter 23 starts
Jesus says to those there : Disciples and the multitudes, scribes, and Pharisees

"23 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you [a]to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.

everything Jesu was saying HERE was in context to the SCRIBES and Pharisees.

6 They love the [b]best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues,
7 greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’ 8 But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your [c]Teacher, [d]the Christ, and you are all brethren. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. 11 But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whoever exalts himself will be [e]humbled, and he who humbles himself will be [f]exalted.

13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves,nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.


All of this was directed to the Scribes and Pharisees. we do call men teachers today by your understand that too is a no no.

Wrong we call men today (f)ather but know who our (F)ather in Heaven is. These types Jesus called hypocrites.

 

[CS1]

The studies done at Penn State using SPECT imaging are, as the person (a Dr. Newberg, I think) who did the studies himself said, 'inconclusive'.

The results could be used to support either view (pro and con) of ‘tongues’.

I would argue that the results are exactly what one would expect to see. The language producing areas of the brain are not overly active in the production of “tongues” simply because “tongues” are not language. There’s no reason to suspect to see those areas of the brain overly active in its production. “Tongues” is non-cognitive non-language utterance, and the results of the Penn State study seem to support that.

On the other hand, some would argue that the fact that the language producing areas of the brain are not active when producing “tongues” is because they come from another source (i.e. the Holy Spirit). The problem with this, of course, is that what’s being produced is not language.

If it were something definable as a language of some type, bore the unmistakable marks of language (as opposed to free vocalization), I’d say, hey, maybe we’re on to something really cool here (which is what I was kind of hoping when I first started looking at the phenomenon of tongues), but that’s just not the case.

we do not need secular humanism to explain the word of god even if the finds were not inconclusive by your saying . I saw where they did say it was a real language but did not fully know how they did speak it. The word of God is the authority not Penn State.

 

[Kavik]

really praying Privately is scriptural. Jesus said to go and pray in secret Matthew 6:6

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret (privately)shall reward thee openly. How sad you would attack the very instructions of the Lord Jesus.

In other words, (I take this to mean), when you pray, don't make a 'spectacle of yourself' - pray somewhere quiet and private. But, praying privately does not equate to using some sort of 'private prayer language'.

 

[CS1]

Not realy an answer to my post.

Ok then it is a response to your assertion

 

[wolfwint]

what is a normal believer?

I would not hesitate to state that would actually be a nominal believer

An normal believer I would say is an born again christian living in family and church life. A nominel christian is an name christian and not born again, but member of the church through childbaptism. ( the very most in germany)

 

[CS1]

In other words, (I take this to mean), when you pray, don't make a 'spectacle of yourself' - pray somewhere quiet and private. But, praying privately does not equate to using some sort of 'private prayer language'.

you have to take that up with paul in cor 14 . what you take it to mean and what it says are two differnt things.

 

[Kavik]

they did say it was a real language but did not fully know how they did speak it

Who, said that? Those speaking it?

 

[CS1]

An normal believer I would say is an born again christian living in family and church life. A nominel christian is an name christian and not born again, but member of the church through childbaptism. ( the very most in germany)

actually the word Christian means follower of Christ. that would be taken as one who as been born again You do not see the term " Born again Christian in the word of God you see Jesus saying this in John chapter 3 but that is in context to the experiance of salvation which one is known as a Christian. read it in Acts.

 

[CS1]

Who, said that? Those speaking it?

read it again and or watch the video . the dr. did. he never used the term fake or free vocalization stuff. he conducted a study and was surprised. But as I said, I do not need human reasoning to Authenticate what God said we can do; when it is faith we use to receive from the Lord.

 

[wolfwint]

Ok then it is a response to your assertion

I was not asking about the apostolic time ( lifetime from the Apostles), but asking about the time after, till 1900.
You cant show me a christian church in this time which proofes that the baptism with the Holy Spirit and the speaking in tongues as evidence for this is be taught.

 

[wolfwint]

actually the word Christian means follower of Christ. that would be taken as one who as been born again You do not see the term " Born again Christian in the word of God you see Jesus saying this in John chapter 3 but that is in context to the experiance of salvation which one is known as a Christian. read it in Acts.

You may forget, that I am a german. In germany everybody is called a christian if he is baptised as baby. Without following Jesus. 25 years I meant to be a christian. Till I met born again christians which told me the truth.

 

[posthuman]

well having an opposing opinion is pretty much the default position of many here

i think there must be a statistical bias in what we observe in terms of comments that agree or disagree. ((imo)) people are more likely to type out a reply to something they have a disagreement with than with something they don't. probably we are also more likely to read a thread about something they think is controversial or has 'gray areas' than a thread about something we see as settled or has no room for discussion or exploration.

so, we see an oversampling of dissenting opinion because people who have no disagreement are less likely to read a thread or post in it; controversial or mysterious topics are just, in a way, more interesting - we see them as having more to discuss.