The Basics of Speaking in Tongues
- Thread starter Wansvic
- 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.
- Status
J
spirit does not mean angel language. Jesus had the spirit when He did His ministry, yet no angel language. people were in the spirit throughout the bible, Samuel, Moses, Elijah and no angel language.
outside of Pauls one line, there are no examples of this anywhere in scripture, zero.
Paul says other things like this such as let women be silent in church, do you really think women are not allowed to speak in church, especially given all the examples of women speaking in church?
Peter says Paul can be easily misunderstood and Peter was trained by Jesus. if Paul teaches something that can not be confirmed anywhere else in scripture, dont you think there is a good chance your misunderstanding Paul?
outside of Pauls one line, there are no examples of this anywhere in scripture, zero.
Paul says other things like this such as let women be silent in church, do you really think women are not allowed to speak in church, especially given all the examples of women speaking in church?
Peter says Paul can be easily misunderstood and Peter was trained by Jesus. if Paul teaches something that can not be confirmed anywhere else in scripture, dont you think there is a good chance your misunderstanding Paul?
When the entire chapter 14 of 1 Corinthians is read in context it is quite obvious Paul is making specific points about the Spiritual gift of speaking in unknown tongues. Yet you think when he mentions praying and singing in the Spirit he cannot mean he did via unknown tongues.
One can only come to that conclusion if they are bias.
One can only come to that conclusion if they are bias.
There is no reference to "tongues" in Corinthians that does not refer to, or can not be explained in light of, real, rational languages(s) - usually unknown to those listening/hearing them, but always known the the speaker(s); it's his/their native language(s). Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians are reading into the text something that just is not there in order to "proof" the modern phenomenon in the Biblical narrative.
J
yes, praying, singing, speaking in a tongue (language) through the spirit.
i think the confusion is when people see spirit and translate this to angel language.
now if Paul really meant angel language every time he says spirit we should be able to confirm this fact in scripture, after all Paul said let all things be established by 2 or 3 witnesses. however there is no second witness to this, which would mean your misunderstanding Paul.
i think the confusion is when people see spirit and translate this to angel language.
now if Paul really meant angel language every time he says spirit we should be able to confirm this fact in scripture, after all Paul said let all things be established by 2 or 3 witnesses. however there is no second witness to this, which would mean your misunderstanding Paul.
Yep and we also have the......
a. Completed word of God
b. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word <---does not say signs
c. The words cease, fail and vanish away swept under the table by many or JESUS is identified as "THAT"............
Look....I know we agree on many things and regardless of your view I do consider you a brother....I do not shoot from the hip and the best we can do is agree to disagree......Two of the three NO longer exist and the ONLY one that gets pushed and peddled is that which bears no similarity to that which actually took place in the bible......
A house full of chickens cackling = confusion..............When I see one speak English and a Russian understand in Russian and another can interpret in Russian.........then I might be inclined to start leaning that way.....Until then Paul was clear...TONGUES WILL CEASE......I can only go by what was said.
a. Completed word of God
b. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word <---does not say signs
c. The words cease, fail and vanish away swept under the table by many or JESUS is identified as "THAT"............
Look....I know we agree on many things and regardless of your view I do consider you a brother....I do not shoot from the hip and the best we can do is agree to disagree......Two of the three NO longer exist and the ONLY one that gets pushed and peddled is that which bears no similarity to that which actually took place in the bible......
A house full of chickens cackling = confusion..............When I see one speak English and a Russian understand in Russian and another can interpret in Russian.........then I might be inclined to start leaning that way.....Until then Paul was clear...TONGUES WILL CEASE......I can only go by what was said.
-
1
- Show all
Agreed - aside from the fact it's a later addition, the verse that some like to quote is Mark 16:17 - “they will speak in new tongues” (read "they will speak in new languages") –
Yes, in order for the early missionaries to spread the gospel they needed to learn new languages (and hence "speak in new tongues"); new (or, as some like to differentiate between ‘neos’ and ‘kainos’, novel, hither before unknown), to the ones learning them, but obviously not to those who already spoke them.
The passage simply means that in order for the gospel to be spread, people are going to need to learn (and then speak) new languages.
If I say to someone, “Hey, I’m learning a new language” – is that language completely new and never heard of before, unknown to me and anyone else hearing it, or is it simply a new language to me (I don't know it, hence, I'm learning it)??
Again, another example of how many Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians are reading into the narrative things that just are not there in order to ‘proof’ the modern tongues phenomenon.
Yes, in order for the early missionaries to spread the gospel they needed to learn new languages (and hence "speak in new tongues"); new (or, as some like to differentiate between ‘neos’ and ‘kainos’, novel, hither before unknown), to the ones learning them, but obviously not to those who already spoke them.
The passage simply means that in order for the gospel to be spread, people are going to need to learn (and then speak) new languages.
If I say to someone, “Hey, I’m learning a new language” – is that language completely new and never heard of before, unknown to me and anyone else hearing it, or is it simply a new language to me (I don't know it, hence, I'm learning it)??
Again, another example of how many Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians are reading into the narrative things that just are not there in order to ‘proof’ the modern tongues phenomenon.
-
1
- Show all
- Status