TONGUES false teaching.
- Thread starter Major
- 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.
S
A person cannot read the story in Acts and say there were no women. I mean they just cannot. Something worse than just wrong going on.
12 Then the apostles returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day’s walk[c] from the city. 13 When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. 14 They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.
We have no reason to think the women were not there on the day of Pentecost, since v.14 indicates their habit was to 'join in prayer' CONSTANTLY.
I really am wondering just what church he belongs to.
12 Then the apostles returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day’s walk[c] from the city. 13 When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. 14 They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.
We have no reason to think the women were not there on the day of Pentecost, since v.14 indicates their habit was to 'join in prayer' CONSTANTLY.
I really am wondering just what church he belongs to.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Do you test to see if you are saved ? As a card carrying member of a pentecostal church saved and baptized in the Holy Spirit with evidence of speaking in an unknown tongues. I never sought to speak in tongues. I wanted what Jesus said I would receive in Acts 1:8 I asked Him. I asked Jesus to baptize me in the Holy Spirit to empowerment to be a witnesses as HE Jesus said would happen. IN the Gospel of John you will read were John the Baptist said "He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."
I ask you did the disciples do miracles before Acts 1:8 and the death of Jesus and HIS resurrection? Please answer .
Yes they did.
Jesus sent them out two by two and they came back rejoicing that even demons were subject to them. Jesus said don't rejoice that demon are subject to you but that your names are written. Read it in Luke.
IF they were able to do so then why did Jesus tell them to wait until you receive power from on high? they all ready displayed the ability to heal before the death and resurrection of Jesus why? answer that please.
I ask you did the disciples do miracles before Acts 1:8 and the death of Jesus and HIS resurrection? Please answer .
Yes they did.
Jesus sent them out two by two and they came back rejoicing that even demons were subject to them. Jesus said don't rejoice that demon are subject to you but that your names are written. Read it in Luke.
IF they were able to do so then why did Jesus tell them to wait until you receive power from on high? they all ready displayed the ability to heal before the death and resurrection of Jesus why? answer that please.
-
1
- Show all
You assert this, but do you have any evidence at all for your interpretation? I Corinthians 12 lists 'interpretation of tongues' among gifts of the Spirit along with healing, miracles, prophecy. There are no mere natural abilities in that list. The ability to speak 'divers tongues' is a supernatural ability. We see this in Acts 2. There is no reason to think that the disciples could speak in those languages before they were empowered by the Spirit to do so. Why would 'interpretation of tongues' be the odd man out and be the only gift that is a minor enhancement of a natural ability?
I get the feeling that you may be choosing an interpretation that is the opposite of your 'opponent's' viewpoint, and not because it is a reasonable interpretation of scripture.
Poppycock! No verse in this passage hints or indicates that there was a 'fake language.' Read the verses around this. Paul wrote about how a foreigner-- a Barbarian who did not speak the known tongue--would not be understood. Paul is talking about genuine speaking in tongues throughout the passage. If others do not understand the language, to others it is like a pipe or harp playing without a distinctive melody.
In genuine tongues....but only without an interpretation. This is part of Paul's argument leading up to the need for interpretation. Paul's argument flows in this passage. He doesn't suddenly jump to the idea of fake tongues without letting his reader in on the hint that he is doing so.
The verses do not just mean what you want them to, or fit with whatever idea just pops into your head. The context does not support what you are saying.
Speaking in tongues cannot be understood by the congregation, but Paul allows that if followed by interpretation in verses 27-28. Again, Paul is not saying if they have spoken in tongues they have done something wrong. This is part of his explanation of why tongues need to be interpreted to edify the congregation. He is explaining that speaking in tongues edifies the speaker, but does not edify others if they do not understand.
Your commentary is not consistent with those definitions. One of my professors in college knew Greek and 30 something other languages. He was a Proto-IndoEuropean specialist. He said that the theory on where 'barbarian' comes from is the Greeks described foreigners who did not speak Greek as saying 'bar bar bar.'
I agree that the latter two 'glosses' there you present are better descriptors of what Paul is saying here. Paul writes about a foreigner speaking in a different language. 'Barbarian' languages, like speakers of Sythian or Lyaconian for example, spoke real languages. But your average Greek in Corinth would not have understood these language. Nowhere in the passage does Paul make reference to any kind of fake 'made up by YOU' tongue.
Real languages sound like gibberish to those who do not know the languages.
I get the feeling that you may be choosing an interpretation that is the opposite of your 'opponent's' viewpoint, and not because it is a reasonable interpretation of scripture.
Poppycock! No verse in this passage hints or indicates that there was a 'fake language.' Read the verses around this. Paul wrote about how a foreigner-- a Barbarian who did not speak the known tongue--would not be understood. Paul is talking about genuine speaking in tongues throughout the passage. If others do not understand the language, to others it is like a pipe or harp playing without a distinctive melody.
In genuine tongues....but only without an interpretation. This is part of Paul's argument leading up to the need for interpretation. Paul's argument flows in this passage. He doesn't suddenly jump to the idea of fake tongues without letting his reader in on the hint that he is doing so.
The verses do not just mean what you want them to, or fit with whatever idea just pops into your head. The context does not support what you are saying.
Speaking in tongues cannot be understood by the congregation, but Paul allows that if followed by interpretation in verses 27-28. Again, Paul is not saying if they have spoken in tongues they have done something wrong. This is part of his explanation of why tongues need to be interpreted to edify the congregation. He is explaining that speaking in tongues edifies the speaker, but does not edify others if they do not understand.
Your commentary is not consistent with those definitions. One of my professors in college knew Greek and 30 something other languages. He was a Proto-IndoEuropean specialist. He said that the theory on where 'barbarian' comes from is the Greeks described foreigners who did not speak Greek as saying 'bar bar bar.'
I agree that the latter two 'glosses' there you present are better descriptors of what Paul is saying here. Paul writes about a foreigner speaking in a different language. 'Barbarian' languages, like speakers of Sythian or Lyaconian for example, spoke real languages. But your average Greek in Corinth would not have understood these language. Nowhere in the passage does Paul make reference to any kind of fake 'made up by YOU' tongue.
Real languages sound like gibberish to those who do not know the languages.
smh[/QUOTE]
smh,
There is a problem with your interpretation. I Corinthians 12 lists 'divers tongues' and 'interpretation of tongues' among a list of supernatural gifts, not a list of natural human abilities. There is also Acts 2, where speaking in tongue involved followers of Jesus speaking in a variety of languages that they did not know.
smh,
There is a problem with your interpretation. I Corinthians 12 lists 'divers tongues' and 'interpretation of tongues' among a list of supernatural gifts, not a list of natural human abilities. There is also Acts 2, where speaking in tongue involved followers of Jesus speaking in a variety of languages that they did not know.
Paul taught the need for interpreting speaking in tongues in I Corinthians 14:27-28. The Corinthians were likely not following this order, but Paul does not correct them for being attention-seekers, but rather for being childish in their understanding. They misunderstood how these spiritual gifts should operate.
I would like to suggest that you be careful about judging other people's motives. Some people come from church traditions where it feels like it is a sin to make the sound of a pin dropping while the service is going on. Any deviations from hymns-prayer-offering-prayer-sermon-communion-prayer-hymns seems like sacrilege to them. They think 'Let all things be done decently and in order' refers to this type of church meeting they grew up with, rather than the type of meeting Paul describes in the chapter where that quote comes from, I Corinthians 14.
In I Corinthians 14:26, Paul writes, 'How is it then brethren, when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying." Paul wrote a lot about spiritual gifts. The church meeting is where 'regular believers' can speak, using their gift to edify others. Paul pointed out that 'every one of you' had these things to share in church. His restriction on it was 'let all things be done unto edifying.' Then he specified how members of the congregation could speak in tongues, interpret, and prophesy in an orderly manner.
No where in scripture does it speak of one pastor offering one sermon in the meeting. Paul did, on one occasion before leaving the next day, teach the disciples all night. The word for teach is the word from whence we get the English 'dialogue', and it is possible he taught by means of discussion.
Some Pentecostal and Charismatic churches allow at least some aspect of this type of meeting in allowing for prophecies and tongues and interpretation. In my experience, too many of them are still bound to the pulpit-centered, sermon-centered tradition of church, but there is still room for some forms of mutual edification in these churches beyond the congregational hymn singing, joint scripture reading and confessing of 'amen' of Protestant churches.
One should be careful not to judge the motives of those who seek to use their gifts to edify others as 'attention-seeking'. And Paul's approach to those who misused tongues was to consider them childish in their understanding, not to accuse them of fake tongues or even attention-seeking.
I would like to suggest that you be careful about judging other people's motives. Some people come from church traditions where it feels like it is a sin to make the sound of a pin dropping while the service is going on. Any deviations from hymns-prayer-offering-prayer-sermon-communion-prayer-hymns seems like sacrilege to them. They think 'Let all things be done decently and in order' refers to this type of church meeting they grew up with, rather than the type of meeting Paul describes in the chapter where that quote comes from, I Corinthians 14.
In I Corinthians 14:26, Paul writes, 'How is it then brethren, when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying." Paul wrote a lot about spiritual gifts. The church meeting is where 'regular believers' can speak, using their gift to edify others. Paul pointed out that 'every one of you' had these things to share in church. His restriction on it was 'let all things be done unto edifying.' Then he specified how members of the congregation could speak in tongues, interpret, and prophesy in an orderly manner.
No where in scripture does it speak of one pastor offering one sermon in the meeting. Paul did, on one occasion before leaving the next day, teach the disciples all night. The word for teach is the word from whence we get the English 'dialogue', and it is possible he taught by means of discussion.
Some Pentecostal and Charismatic churches allow at least some aspect of this type of meeting in allowing for prophecies and tongues and interpretation. In my experience, too many of them are still bound to the pulpit-centered, sermon-centered tradition of church, but there is still room for some forms of mutual edification in these churches beyond the congregational hymn singing, joint scripture reading and confessing of 'amen' of Protestant churches.
One should be careful not to judge the motives of those who seek to use their gifts to edify others as 'attention-seeking'. And Paul's approach to those who misused tongues was to consider them childish in their understanding, not to accuse them of fake tongues or even attention-seeking.
I am saying the Context of the Genesis account of the Tower of Babel has nothing to do with 1 Corinthians chapter 12 through 14.
Are you trying to make a connection with the Gifts of the Holy Spirit for the Body of Christ? Given to edify the church, is synonymous with Gods Judgement to stop evil? Interesting , But wrong exegesis.
Are you trying to make a connection with the Gifts of the Holy Spirit for the Body of Christ? Given to edify the church, is synonymous with Gods Judgement to stop evil? Interesting , But wrong exegesis.
S
smh
There is a problem with your interpretation. I Corinthians 12 lists 'divers tongues' and 'interpretation of tongues' among a list of supernatural gifts, not a list of natural human abilities. There is also Acts 2, where speaking in tongue involved followers of Jesus speaking in a variety of languages that they did not know.[/QUOTE]
You are not quoting my post. I think the quote feature is being messed up. I did not write the post you are responding to.
There is a problem with your interpretation. I Corinthians 12 lists 'divers tongues' and 'interpretation of tongues' among a list of supernatural gifts, not a list of natural human abilities. There is also Acts 2, where speaking in tongue involved followers of Jesus speaking in a variety of languages that they did not know.[/QUOTE]
You are not quoting my post. I think the quote feature is being messed up. I did not write the post you are responding to.
The A/Gs I went to growing up and the ones I have been to overseas did not, as I recall, have the audience mumbling in tongues or speaking loudly in tongues at the same time, but speaking with A/G folks online, this seems rather common. I had thought this to be a practice of the Pentecostal churches that historically came from Holiness Movement backgrounds primarily in the Southeast rather than the ones with CMA, Baptist and other evangelical backgrounds in the A/G. Some of the churches from those denominations in the Southeast all pray in English at the same time. But I may have overgeneralized.
Be that as it may, if you are mumbling in tongues, how is that keeping silent? If you are silent in the church, and speak to yourself and to God, can't you 'speak to yourself and to God' after the meeting is over...elsewhere? Mumbling isn't silent. And visitors keep you are crazy.
It can also be difficult to hear the one praying and addressing the assembly if everyone is praying out loud at the same time, be that in English or in tongues....and to say 'Amen' to what they are saying (I Corinthians 14:16). It is good to take turns, listen, and agree with what someone else is saying while praying.
Be that as it may, if you are mumbling in tongues, how is that keeping silent? If you are silent in the church, and speak to yourself and to God, can't you 'speak to yourself and to God' after the meeting is over...elsewhere? Mumbling isn't silent. And visitors keep you are crazy.
It can also be difficult to hear the one praying and addressing the assembly if everyone is praying out loud at the same time, be that in English or in tongues....and to say 'Amen' to what they are saying (I Corinthians 14:16). It is good to take turns, listen, and agree with what someone else is saying while praying.
S
I apologize for the misattribution. It was not intentional. Alas, the five minute mark for editing has passed.[/QUOTE]
Oh no worries. it looks like I posted that, my name is on it as my post. I'm not messing with the quote feature in the posts so I don't know what gives.
I don't agree with that post at all so really do not want it attributed to me LOL!
Oh no worries. it looks like I posted that, my name is on it as my post. I'm not messing with the quote feature in the posts so I don't know what gives.
I don't agree with that post at all so really do not want it attributed to me LOL!
S
You seem to be finding fault with God's method of giving Paul the gift of tongues that when he prayed he did not understand but his spirit prayed. If you find this to be wrong for Paul you must take it up with God.
When lead by the Holy Spirit there can be times that people are praying and no one is leading in a prayer. There is a sort of "flow" in the prayer meetings where these things are obvious to those that are involved. These kinds of prayer meetings are not visited by the uninitiated by manned by those who know what it is all about.
It is not that everyone is mumbling in tongues but that someone here and there are and some here and there are mumbling in English and people are scattered in different places around the room, some walking around and praying some on their face praying, it is all very "in order" when the Spirit is leading it. It is not for visitors, they can come to the service when no one is speaking in tongues, but to judge these meetings as out of order because every slight utterance of tongues is not followed by an interpreter when it was not even being addressed to the assembly is a legalistic application of what Paul was intending to say instead of grasping the point.
When lead by the Holy Spirit there can be times that people are praying and no one is leading in a prayer. There is a sort of "flow" in the prayer meetings where these things are obvious to those that are involved. These kinds of prayer meetings are not visited by the uninitiated by manned by those who know what it is all about.
It is not that everyone is mumbling in tongues but that someone here and there are and some here and there are mumbling in English and people are scattered in different places around the room, some walking around and praying some on their face praying, it is all very "in order" when the Spirit is leading it. It is not for visitors, they can come to the service when no one is speaking in tongues, but to judge these meetings as out of order because every slight utterance of tongues is not followed by an interpreter when it was not even being addressed to the assembly is a legalistic application of what Paul was intending to say instead of grasping the point.
-
1
- Show all
Paul did not pray in tongues. You are reading into the passage something that is not there. Without knowledge there is no edification. Jesus did not make bread from the rocks when tempted by satan. It would have been for His own benefit and not a benefit for the body of believers.
Meaningless attempt to justify an activity that does not support your contentions.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Meaningless attempt to justify an activity that does not support your contentions.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
-
2
- Show all
Yes ... I think the problem began at SophieT Post #325
Here is what was submitted by ewq1938 in Post #290
If anyone wants to reply to what ewq1938 submitted, go back to Post #290 to reply ...
Here is what was submitted by ewq1938 in Post #290
On the gift of tongues, those who claim it continues in it's modern form have misinterpreted 1 Corinthians 12:10:
"and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues,"
Many translations insert the words: various, or divers (diverse), or different, etc. But this isn't found in the Greek text: it simply says gene glosson, "kinds of tongues." Gene is from genos, meaning family, race, people, nation or offspring. Paul is talking about language families (human languages), not all kinds of spiritual languages.
In 1 Corinthians 14:10 Paul again uses gene. This time referring to human languages:
"There are, perhaps, a great many kinds (gene) of languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning."
My problem isn't so much with the gift of tongues but with the sloppy interpretation used to justify it and the way it's put into practice.
Example:
1 Corinthians 14:27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. 28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God.
That verse is describing this type of situation:
A group of Christians have arrived in Texas from a distant country and do not speak English. If they wish to give testimonies or preach, no more than 3 should be speaking and only if there is an interpreter. Why? One person interpreting what 3 other people are saying is hard! 4 or more would be too much. Paul also says if there is no interpreter these people should not be speaking to the congregation. Why? There is no one to interpret (which means to translation) from their language to English. They should simply speak to God quietly to themselves in their minds etc.
There is no magical or miracle subject here. Tongues simply is a VERY OLD English word for "languages". All Paul is talking about is speaking and translating foreign languages so other people can know what's being said. Most of what Paul talks about in regards to "tongues" is this. The odd sounding "language" found in some churches is simply not something the bible promotes.
If anyone wants to reply to what ewq1938 submitted, go back to Post #290 to reply ...