TONGUES false teaching.

[Nehemiah6]

It is not possible that it was a known language. There would be no need for the Holy Spirit gift of interpretation. You would only need a translator instead, no Holy Spirit gift required, the translator would not even need to be saved. You could take any unsaved German and have them translate.

We need to go back to Acts 2 and see that at least 15 known languages or dialects were being spoken by the Galilean apostles and disciples supernaturally, so there was no need for interpreters.

And people from the various regions of the Roman empire (who were gathered in Jerusalem) were actually hearing their own languages, and they marveled at this: And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue [language], wherein we were born? (Acts 2:7,8)

However, when it came to the Greek-speaking church at Corinth, both Jews and Gentiles were essentially Greek speakers. Hence the need for interpretation, when someone spoke in another language supernaturally. The absence of interpretation would mean that tongues could not be spoken to the assembly (1 Cor 14:28).

 

[calibob]

I hear you. We are under a partial lockdown here, but at least it doesn't prevent me from spending an afternoon in the workshop.

I'm just a tenant with no car or TV and it's raining. Well no TV after the kids get up.

 

[Dino246]

I'm just a tenant with no car or TV and it's raining. Well no TV after the kids get up.

Thank God for internet, coffee, and umbrellas!

 

[Scribe]

We need to go back to Acts 2 and see that at least 15 known languages or dialects were being spoken by the Galilean apostles and disciples supernaturally, so there was no need for interpreters.

And people from the various regions of the Roman empire (who were gathered in Jerusalem) were actually hearing their own languages, and they marveled at this: And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue [language], wherein we were born? (Acts 2:7,8)

However, when it came to the Greek-speaking church at Corinth, both Jews and Gentiles were essentially Greek speakers. Hence the need for interpretation, when someone spoke in another language supernaturally. The absence of interpretation would mean that tongues could not be spoken to the assembly (1 Cor 14:28).

The other accounts in Acts has no mention of foreigners hearing in their own language. They spoke in tongues and no one knew what they were saying except the narrator Luke lets us know they were also prophesying in Acts 19. We have these different accounts in Acts, 2, 5, 8, 10, 19 for a reason and what we clearly see is that it was a normative experience for the believers at the beginning of the church.

 

[calibob]

The other accounts in Acts has no mention of foreigners hearing in their own language. They spoke in tongues and no one knew what they were saying except the narrator Luke lets us know they were also prophesying in Acts 19. We have these different accounts in Acts, 2, 5, 8, 10, 19 for a reason and what we clearly see is that it was a normative experience for the believers at the beginning of the church.

Just think of how people react if they say this;

36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized? ” 38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. 39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing.

 

[Scribe]

Just think of how people react if they say this;

36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized? ” 38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. 39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing.

I like the painting.

 

[presidente]

I hear you. We are under a partial lockdown here, but at least it doesn't prevent me from spending an afternoon in the workshop.

I was glad the black helicopters did not show up when I went out to the garden to get vegetables last April.

 

[presidente]

Just think of how people react if they say this;

36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized? ” 38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. 39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing.

They must have gone down into invisible water in this painting.

 

[Lanolin]

Rejoicing can be done in any language/tongue and is not gibberish to God.

People that dont understand in the natural just wont understand, because the gift is spiritual.

The Natural man doesnt know the spiritual things of God.
I am not going to mock anyone who is praising God just because *I* dont understand the words they are saying.

 

[CS1]

You know nothing of the pentecostal doctrine or the founding of it. Which is in the Book of Acts and the New Testament. FYI most earlier ones for your information were Southern Baptist. There was no issue with the pentecostal experience until it became a movement. You try to use science and secular mind-set to explain a biblical/spiritual context, that is error. I looked very hard for any Scriptural references to support your post I do not see anything here to address 1Corinthians chapter 12-14 or Eph chapter 4 or the Book of Acts accounts contextually. Which all Pentecostals stand on.

The idea of those of secular, carnal, unsaved explaining the Gifts of the Holy Spirit is absurd. And Christians regurgitating them because they have hate for Pentecostals. These same types who say when speaking about the gift of tongues, found in the listing of all gifts of the Holy Spirit in 1cor chapter 12 hold to secular explanation of biblical things. Here are some secular statements which is common:

• entirely self-created phenomenon.
• It is non-cognitive non-language utterance; random free vocalization based upon a subset of the existing underlying sounds (called phonemes)
• People tend to believe something to be supernatural because they can't explain it otherwise.
• “tongues-speakers” are producing that cannot easily be explained in linguistic terms."

Please know those who received such explanation of the gifts of the Holy Spirit will and have supported gay marriage , transgenderism, and look to pagan worship to attack and using the very same kind of secular science to do so.

I will say this, IF the science speaks against what God said not to do, the science is wrong.

Of course the secular science would say " it's all made up", but transgender is a real thing.
They even try to explain a supernatural event recorded in the Word of God because "it is scientifically impossible for the red sea to be split, or Jesus did not actually walk on water. " it's fairy tales", "Spaghetti Monster under the sea", and " that was meant figuratively, not literally". Most Christians who support this type of explanation have been attacked as many of us have in our Secular education. Can't be part of the clubs if you stand for such things. Wimps, and sell outs.

This is not about the gifts of the Holy Spirt, this is about those who have a carnal mind-set and will not accept what the word of God says because it insults their carnal mind-set (intelligence) . They will pull out a linguist or two but if there is list of other scientific studies that say otherwise, well, that is false.

You can't explain what happen in book ACTS accounts of the empowering of the 120, by the Holy Spirit or the House of Cornelius, or the christians who Paul met, refute 1cor 12 through 14, without taking only one verse to build a straw man on.

The gifts of the Holy Spirit are for today and the gift of tongues and interpretation of tongues, and prophesying are for the edification of the Body of Christ which that is still happening today.

Deal with the abuse, the scamming, of those who you know we all have spoken out about, but don't use pagan or secular science to disprove Biblical spiritual things seen in the word of God that we believe is for today.

Refute by the word of God. You can't you all wrong about 1cor 13:10 and many will not admit it because of pride, so you

go outside the word of God and try to stick us to false pagan practices like Kundalini or other cult and pagan things.

Yet it is well known those in the holiness movement would never even have anything to do with pagan or Cultic practices.

The only source used in the 1900s for the gifts of the Holy Spirit was the Bible. Those here would have you believe

1. a group of people who had a desire to have more of God praying to the Lord Jesus was overtaken by a cult they never knew about or even spoken on. The very Pentecostal doctrine which was taken from the very word of God explains why we believe the gifts of the Holy Spirit are for today.
2. Those who claim to be Christians have to go outside the Bible to explain what happens inside the Bible that those who believe still happens today are going because when they called on Jesus and asked for the empowering the Holy Spirit God gave them a devil instead.

yet they say we are unbiblical. Ridicules.

s/p check lol

 

[calibob]

Part 1 -
There is absolutely nothing mysterious about Biblical "tongues" – when referring to something spoken, they are nothing more than real, rational language(s); usually unknown to those listening to them, but always known by the speaker(s) – it’s their native language.

In contrast, the “tongues” Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians are producing today is an entirely self-created phenomenon. It is non-cognitive non-language utterance; random free vocalization based upon a subset of the existing underlying sounds (called phonemes) of the speaker’s native language, and any other language(s) the speaker may be familiar with or have had contact with.

It is, in part, typically characterized by repetitive syllables, plays on sound patterns, assonance, alliteration, and over-simplification of syllable structure. It is also interesting to note that any disallowed sound combinations, i.e. consonant clusters, in the speaker’s native language are also disallowed in his/her tongues-speech. Further, this subset of phonemes typically contains only those sounds which are easiest to produce physiologically.

Tongues-speech is occasionally sprinkled with recognizable praise words/phrases (things like ‘hallelujah’, ‘praise Jesus’, ‘Meshiach’, ‘Adonai’, etc.). Sometimes, part of the utterance is rendered in the speaker’s native language, and part in tongues-speech. One of the most immediately recognizable results of all these processes is that no two ‘speakers’ will ever have the same “tongue”…ever. There are as many ‘tongues’ as there are speakers of tongues.

Occasionally some speakers will use two or more subsets of phonemes to generate glossolalia, producing what, to them, sounds like two (or more) distinct “tongues languages”, thus claiming to be able to speak in “divers tongues”.

Here’s the thing, if a person or being produces a stream of speech, in order for it to be ‘language’, regardless of whether spoken in front of you, in some remote corner of the word, on some alien planet, or on some heavenly/spiritual plain of existence, for it to be 'language', it must contain, at a minimal, two specific features – I can’t stress enough that these two features are universal, regardless of where or, more to our point, by whom the speech is being produced; 'tongues-speech’ contains neither one of these two features. It is simply a facade of language. Neither, by the way, is modern tongues/glossolalia gibberish. Gibberish by its nature does not seek to mimic language. Glossolalia does.

People tend to believe something to be supernatural because they can't explain it otherwise. There are, of course, many things in religion which must be taken on faith; they can neither be proved nor disproved. "Tongues" however, is not one of these things. It is something very concrete and tangible; it is a phenomenon which can be (and has been) studied and analyzed. As one writer rather bluntly put it: “tongues speakers need to understand they are making a very testable claim, and the test has failed, every single time.”

Indeed, there is absolutely nothing that “tongues-speakers” are producing that cannot easily be explained in linguistic terms.

Conversely, when it comes to something spoken, there are absolutely no Biblical references to “tongues” that do not refer to, and cannot be explained in light of, real rational language(s), though it may not be the explanation you want to hear, and it may be one which is radically different from what you believe, or were taught.

If the history of the Pentecost movement is examined, one fact is very clear: at some point, between 1906 and 1907, the Pentecostal church was compelled to re-examine the narrative of Scripture with respect to “tongues”. The reason for this re-examination was that it quickly became embarrassingly obvious that their original supposition, and fervent belief in tongues as xenoglossy, certainly wasn’t what they were producing.

As a result of things like Azusa Street, early Pentecostal missions were sent all over the world. The issue was that no one bothered to learn the language of the country they were going to, as they firmly believed their “tongues” were these languages. In not one instance was anyone able to even carry on the most basics of simple everyday conversation, let alone preach the gospels.

Not much has been recorded about the failure of these missions – you kind of have to hunt it down.

This forced a serious theological dilemma — As a whole, either the Pentecostal movement would have to admit it was wrong about “tongues”, or the modern experience needed to be completely redefined.

It seems the latter option was chosen.

What you posted is partially true some of the time. But it is not entirely true, You should be carful;

Matthew 12:31 Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the one to come.…
Berean Study Bible

 

[CS1]

What you posted is partially true some of the time. But it is not entirely true, You should be carful;

Matthew 12:31 Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the one to come.…
Berean Study Bible

The Post you responded to was very much opinionated and not founded in fact or truth. it was that post I responded to and yet I see not one has refuted it.

 

[calibob]

The Post you responded to was very much opinionated and not founded in fact or truth. it was that post I responded to and yet I see not one has refuted it.

Chill. I read your post first first, then went back and read his post and responded. I have no issues with yours.

On another note; I, in opposition to many, believe that Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is most likely degrading the power of the Holy Spirit. Like when they accused Jesus of being in league with Beelzebub. It's not what the pop theologists think at all. A person can reject salvation, then repent and ask for mercy. If a person is truly speaking in tongues and Someone ridicules them. Someone risks hell's fire. It seems plain as day to me.

 

[notuptome]

The other accounts in Acts has no mention of foreigners hearing in their own language. They spoke in tongues and no one knew what they were saying except the narrator Luke lets us know they were also prophesying in Acts 19. We have these different accounts in Acts, 2, 5, 8, 10, 19 for a reason and what we clearly see is that it was a normative experience for the believers at the beginning of the church.

It the appearance of tongues was for the Jews present so they would know that these folks were being saved and reporting the information back to headquarters in Jerusalem.

Gentiles being saved was unthinkable for Jews. The Jews were shocked by the appearance of tongues at Pentecost. Not shocked in a good way but offended that God was saving folks in a new way by grace through faith.

You endeavor to make tongues "normative" at the beginning of the church. Intellectually amusing considering that the foundational church was mostly Jewish.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Scribe]

It the appearance of tongues was for the Jews present so they would know that these folks were being saved and reporting the information back to headquarters in Jerusalem.

Gentiles being saved was unthinkable for Jews. The Jews were shocked by the appearance of tongues at Pentecost. Not shocked in a good way but offended that God was saving folks in a new way by grace through faith.

You endeavor to make tongues "normative" at the beginning of the church. Intellectually amusing considering that the foundational church was mostly Jewish.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

So, regardless of the Jews reactions to the fact that Gentiles were filled with the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues; the take away is that God is filling Gentiles with the Holy Ghost and giving them the gift of speaking in tongues.

I have decided to stop arguing with people on the internet about tongues. It is really dumb. It often results in people blaspheming the holy things of God and I need to stay far away from such conversations. I do not want to grieve the Holy Spirit.

I will walk someone through all the scriptures on the subject if they have an open mind and are willing to reexamine their position but that cannot be done effectively on CC. It requires attention and a verse by verse analysis of every scripture on the subject without loosing focus and going down rabbit trails.

That is why I suggest the scholars I have suggested in previous posts. I feel I have done some good if one person reads one of those scholars works on the subject on their own time. That is about the best I can do on CC in helping someone find the best hermeneutic on this topic.

 

[Dino246]

It the appearance of tongues was for the Jews present so they would know that these folks were being saved and reporting the information back to headquarters in Jerusalem.

That's an incomplete sentence, and it's not clear what you're trying to say.

Gentiles being saved was unthinkable for Jews. The Jews were shocked by the appearance of tongues at Pentecost. Not shocked in a good way but offended that God was saving folks in a new way by grace through faith.

Cornelius was the first gentile saved, according to Scripture. His case would not have caused such a stir if there were gentiles saved at Pentecost.

Only Jews (and perhaps some proselytes to Judaism) were saved at Pentecost. See Acts 2, verses 5 and 10. There is no evidence that the people were "shocked"; rather, they were "in amazement and great perplexity" while some were mocking (v. 12).

 

[CS1]

Chill. I read your post first first, then went back and read his post and responded. I have no issues with yours.

On another note; I, in opposition to many, believe that Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is most likely degrading the power of the Holy Spirit. Like when they accused Jesus of being in league with Beelzebub. It's not what the pop theologists think at all. A person can reject salvation, then repent and ask for mercy. If a person is truly speaking in tongues and Someone ridicules them. Someone risks hell's fire. It seems plain as day to me.

I know you don't

 

[CS1]

It the appearance of tongues was for the Jews present so they would know that these folks were being saved and reporting the information back to headquarters in Jerusalem.

Gentiles being saved was unthinkable for Jews. The Jews were shocked by the appearance of tongues at Pentecost. Not shocked in a good way but offended that God was saving folks in a new way by grace through faith.

You endeavor to make tongues "normative" at the beginning of the church. Intellectually amusing considering that the foundational church was mostly Jewish.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

do you have any biblical proof to support your claim you said here:
"It the appearance of tongues was for the Jews present so they would know that these folks were being saved and reporting the information back to headquarters in Jerusalem."

That is not what Jesus said in Acts 1:4-8
Nor was that the promise given to the Jews through the Prophet Joel which Peter said in Acts chapter 2:12-21
You are speaking of the effects after the power fell on them and what happen in addition but this did not happen for that. Jesus was very clear in Acts 1:8 after the Apostles were standing and speaking with the resurrected Lord for 40 days they asked " Will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” verse 6.

IF what you said was paramount Jesus would not have told them then "in verse 7-8
"it is not for you to know the times or seasons which the Father has put in HIS own authority. 8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you and you shall be Witnesses to me in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and to the END of the earth". After
Jesus said these thing the very last words to the Church leaders of that time was wait for power. That was said not by Joel but BY the Lord Jesus and HE made it a normative because HE said so.

 

[notuptome]

That's an incomplete sentence, and it's not clear what you're trying to say.

Written in haste and lacking a couple commas. It, the appearance of tongues, should help.

Cornelius was the first gentile saved, according to Scripture. His case would not have caused such a stir if there were gentiles saved at Pentecost.

Only Jews (and perhaps some proselytes to Judaism) were saved at Pentecost. See Acts 2, verses 5 and 10. There is no evidence that the people were "shocked"; rather, they were "in amazement and great perplexity" while some were mocking (v. 12).

Acts 15:8 We see the purpose for tongues in the testimony before the Jews. The Sanhedrin had spies keeping tabs on what was going on among the people. Theses spies were taking back the reports of the appearance of tongues when folks were getting saved both Jew and Gentile.

Like I said they were shocked. "amazement and great perplexity".

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[CS1]

Written in haste and lacking a couple commas. It, the appearance of tongues, should help.

Acts 15:8 We see the purpose for tongues in the testimony before the Jews. The Sanhedrin had spies keeping tabs on what was going on among the people. These spies were taking back the reports of the appearance of tongues when folks were getting saved both Jew and Gentile.

Like I said they were shocked. "amazement and great perplexity".

For the cause of Christ
Roger

this is one of the greatest examples of improper Bible interpretation said here. it is not only opinionated, and allegorized, it is a textbook example of eisegesis reading into the text what you want it to say over proper Exegesis of drawing out what the context provides. Acts 15:8 to use the text you provided there is nothing there to suggest "Sanhedrin had Spies".


Chapter 15 of Acts is addressing those Pharisees who wanted the gentile converts to be circumcised read in verse 5. Which Paul and Barnabas disputed as verse 2 states.

Your comments here could be possible yet the context of chapter 15 doesn't support your claim.