Pentecostalism's sketchy origins

  • 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.
ResidentAlien

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
#781
Apr 21, 2021
8,232
3,575
113
#781
Amanuensis said:
Always making the mistake of contending for the English word rather than the original Greek word. :)
You are contending for an English word translated from a Greek word.
It doesn't mean no sound. It means quiet. Ask a Greek Scholar.
Silent (no sound, or no speaking) prayer was not known by them. And how can one speak in tongues without speaking? It means quiet.
Click to expand...
You don't know what you're talking about, it means silent. The only version that translates it "quiet" is the NIV. Besides, if it means quiet and not silent why did you conveniently leave it out?
 
A

Amanuensis

Well-known member
#782
Jun 12, 2021
1,457
460
83
#782
ResidentAlien said:
You don't know what you're talking about, it means silent. The only version that translates it "quiet" is the NIV. Besides, if it means quiet and not silent why did you conveniently leave it out?
Click to expand...
I did not leave it out. I explained it as it would have been understood to the original readers. Being quiet and speaking to your self and to God meant quietly as though it were obvious that you were speaking to God and yourself not giving a public utterance to be interpreted.

How does one speak to himself and to God in tongues and be silent at the same time? By understanding that the Greek word used was not the English word Silent.

When the Greek word is analyzed then it makes sense that one can be quiet and speak to themselves and to God and still be SPEAKING ,though in a quiet manner not the English definition of literal silence which NO ONE PRAYED like that back then.

If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God. NIV

The NIV is an excellent translation in attempting to retain the meaning that the original Greek reader would understand. There is a reason that the NIV is the most quoted translation in modern evangelical commentaries. But that requires a separate thread.

I can't explain all the reasons as a Greek Scholar could but I have read about this in various scholarly commentaries such as Gordon Fee and I have been fully persuaded especially considering the fact that they did not do silent praying though they did quiet praying.

If I don't know what I am talking about, then do a Google Search "Does 1 Cor 14:28 mean silent or quiet?" and see what you find.

I never say things that people can't easily verify with a simple Google search.

I believe it will be easy to discover that there are scholarly discussions about it and most agree that quiet is better for our current cultural understanding of the word silent.

I just checked.. There are plenty of articles and links.

This is actually something that anyone who has seriously attempted to read and understand all of the scriptures on speaking in tongues would already have read about. Even if they decided that they believe silent means no sound, they would have known that there was a great body of discussion from Greek scholars that it did not mean literally no audible sound. The fact that someone thinks I just made this up on a CC thread means that they have not actually studied all of the texts on speaking in tongues and have formed an opinion without doing the due diligence to become familiar with the texts. It is pretty much impossible to not know about the silent/quiet discussion if one has attempted to read some commentaries on this verse. If I did not know about it "then" it could be said that I do not know what I am talking about. But because I did know about it and you did not, suggest that you are the one that has not done a proper intellectually honest study of the texts about speaking in tongues or you would be familiar with the silent/quiet discussion.

But it's ok, one can humble themselves and go back over the material and learn. May God bless you in your future study on the subject.

Silent is not a bad word if one does not use a literal "no sound at all" definition of silent. However in modern culture the English word silent is taken more literally as no sound at all which is not really what Paul was trying to say. He simply meant "speak to himself and to God" and not to the Church.
 
ResidentAlien

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
#783
Apr 21, 2021
8,232
3,575
113
#783
Whatever, I don't read long rambling posts anyway. If it can't be said succinctly it's not worth saying, and not worth my time reading. But a lot of people here are only talking to themselves.
 
A

Amanuensis

Well-known member
#784
Jun 12, 2021
1,457
460
83
#784
ResidentAlien said:
Whatever, I don't read long rambling posts anyway. If it can't be said succinctly it's not worth saying, and not worth my time reading.
Click to expand...
In other words, you now concede that there is a silent/quiet discussion in print and in academia on this verse and has been for a long time?
 
ResidentAlien

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
#785
Apr 21, 2021
8,232
3,575
113
#785
Amanuensis said:
In other words, you now concede that there is a silent/quiet discussion in print and in academia on this verse and has been for a long time?
Click to expand...
I concede you're a longwinded bore, that's about it.
 
A

Amanuensis

Well-known member
#786
Jun 12, 2021
1,457
460
83
#786
ResidentAlien said:
I concede you're a longwinded bore, that's about it.
Click to expand...
I am sorry that you feel that way. I will pray for you to be able to discuss differences in interpretation of scriptures with civility and kindness and a desire to edify one another. This site can help people learn how to do that, or it can cause them to sin with a spirit of striving. I am always seeking to edify. If I don't come across that way, I will work on it. Being reasonable and kind in my writing is one of my goals.
 
shittim

shittim

Senior Member
#787
Dec 16, 2016
13,749
7,751
113
#787
I will pray he come to walk in Galatians c5 v22-23 attributes and not the other.
 
C

ChristianTonyB

Guest
#790
#790
Amanuensis said:
No one translated when the people in the house of Cornelius spoke in tongues. When the disciples in Ephesus spoke in tongues or the 120 spoke in tongue there was no one with the gift of interpretation needed.

To understand what Paul was talking about in the church meetings in Corinth you must understand the context and setting which he was referring to.

Paul did not forbid them to speak in tongues if there was no interpreter even in the church meeting.

He said if there was no interpreter to speak to themselves and to God.

Now in order to speak in tongues to themselves it means in a quiet manner where people know you are not giving a public utterance to be interpreted by someone with the gift of interpretation. That means you are speaking quieter, but you are still speaking. Like when someone is praying between themselves and God in a low tone of voice where you would have to lean in to even know what they were saying because it is not for the public but it is still audible.

These saints prayed out loud. They could pray out loud to themselves and to God in their own language or in tongues and not need an interpreter in that case because they are praying to themselves and to God like Paul said.

The first century Jews knew nothing about silent prayers. When Paul said pray to them selves and to God he would have only meant in a quieter voice but still speaking. You can look at a video of them praying at the wailing wall today to understand that Jews still pray audibly even when praying to themselves and God and they did so in the 1st century church.

When the fist century Church prayed together it would be a bunch of people making noises while they prayed and when someone prayed out loud in a tongue as if they were giving a prophetic utterance for someone to interpret that would be a noticeable difference than the many who were praying in tongues to themselves and to God. Just as it would be noticeable if someone gave a prophesy in such a meeting. They would get louder above the general noise of everyone praying out loud to themselves and to God.

And the gift of interpretation was another Spiritual gift and not simply translation from someone who was bilingual.

I realize these things are not obvious to those who have not read all of the scriptures on tongues or who have not taken the time to analyze each text in its original context.

One can research "did the first church pray out loud" or "did Jews pray out loud" or something like that and find the historical documentation that proves that they did and that the first century church did as well.
Click to expand...
I understand the context only too well. I didn't pose the question to yourself, but to M. Please give him the chance to reply, and don't rudely butt in!
 
A

Amanuensis

Well-known member
#792
Jun 12, 2021
1,457
460
83
#792
ChristianTonyB said:
I understand the context only too well. I didn't pose the question to yourself, but to M. Please give him the chance to reply, and don't rudely butt in!
Click to expand...
I say this in a friendly tone. This is a PUBLIC format, where people are used to responding to any post, and it is not considered rude to reply to any post even if they are responding to a post you addressed to someone else. It is considered an open dialogue that anyone can join or "butt into" at any time. My reply does not keep anyone from replying to you. No one has to wait for anyone to respond to you first. It does not work that way. I say this not to argue, I am just explaining in case you thought there were such rules. No such rules exist here.

To ask "did someone translate into English" suggests that you did not understand the subject and prompted my response.

It was begging for a response. LOL I couldn't resist. There is no such thing as translating tongues into English. Not even in the church assembly when giving a tongue. It is the gift of interpretation that is called for which is not a linguistic translation.

Also when anyone received the initial gift upon the baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts there was no one who understood them except for the day of Pentecost. All other accounts they just spoke in tongues and no one understood nor was there a need for anyone with the gift of interpretation.

Therefore asking someone who just gave a testimony of how they initially received the gift of tongues if there was anyone to translate into English was begging for a response of "Hunh? What are you Talking About?!" As it will whenever you ask such a thing.

If not from me, from someone else. And it won't be considered rude for them to respond as to the rules of the platform. As long as they are not rude in tone of course. :)

If you don't wish to discuss the subject that is fine. I am open to discuss or not too. May God bless you as you seek Him and learn His Word every day. :)

.
 
C

ChristianTonyB

Guest
#793
#793
Amanuensis said:
I say this in a friendly tone. This is a PUBLIC format, where people are used to responding to any post, and it is not considered rude to reply to any post even if they are responding to a post you addressed to someone else. It is considered an open dialogue that anyone can join or "butt into" at any time. My reply does not keep anyone from replying to you. No one has to wait for anyone to respond to you first. It does not work that way. I say this not to argue, I am just explaining in case you thought there were such rules. No such rules exist here.

To ask "did someone translate into English" suggests that you did not understand the subject and prompted my response.

It was begging for a response. LOL I couldn't resist. There is no such thing as translating tongues into English. Not even in the church assembly when giving a tongue. It is the gift of interpretation that is called for which is not a linguistic translation.

Also when anyone received the initial gift upon the baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts there was no one who understood them except for the day of Pentecost. All other accounts they just spoke in tongues and no one understood nor was there a need for anyone with the gift of interpretation.

Therefore asking someone who just gave a testimony of how they initially received the gift of tongues if there was anyone to translate into English was begging for a response of "Hunh? What are you Talking About?!" As it will whenever you ask such a thing.

If not from me, from someone else. And it won't be considered rude for them to respond as to the rules of the platform. As long as they are not rude in tone of course. :)

If you don't wish to discuss the subject that is fine. I am open to discuss or not too. May God bless you as you seek Him and learn His Word every day. :)

.
Click to expand...
By all means have your say, but in order...'waiting your turn in a conversation' seems to be a proper etiquette, at least that is what I was taught!
 
shittim

shittim

Senior Member
#794
Dec 16, 2016
13,749
7,751
113
#794
ChristianTonyB said:
By all means have your say, but in order...'waiting your turn in a conversation' seems to be a proper etiquette, at least that is what I was taught!
Click to expand...
What ever you were "taught" was before the internet format of forums.
 
G

Gideon300

Well-known member
#795
Mar 18, 2021
5,296
3,123
113
#795
Edify said:
Hi, Gideon.
Normally I would agree with you, but doing the right things the wrong way is still wrong, no matter how you slice it.
I would neither agree with or promote what RA is doing, no matter how "correct" he sounds
Click to expand...
Paul would disagree with you.
Philippians 1:
15It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16The latter do so in love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel.c 17The former, however, preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can add to the distress of my chains. 18What then is the issue?d Just this: that in every way, whether by false motives or true, Christ is preached. And in this I rejoice.
 
XavierJesusLovesIndia

XavierJesusLovesIndia

Banned
#796
Nov 26, 2021
1,125
545
113
India
#796
I think Pentecostalism's origin was the Azusa Street Revival:

"The Azusa Street Revival was a historic series of revival meetings that took place in Los Angeles, California.[1] It was led by William J. Seymour, an African-American preacher. The revival began on April 9, 1906, and continued until roughly 1915. On the night of April 9, 1906, Seymour and seven men were waiting on God on Bonnie Brae Street, "when suddenly, as though hit by a bolt of lightning, they were knocked from their chairs to the floor," and the other seven men began to speak in tongues and shout out loud praising God. The news quickly spread; the city was stirred; crowds gathered; and a few days later Seymour himself received the Holy Spirit; services were moved outside to accommodate the crowds who came from all around; people fell down under the power of God as they approached; people were baptized in the Holy Spirit and the sick were healed and sinners received salvation.[2] The testimony of those who attended the Azusa Street Revival was "I am saved, sanctified, and filled with the Holy Ghost" in reference to the three works of grace of Holiness Pentecostals, the original branch of Pentecostalism.[3]

To further accommodate the crowds, an old dilapidated, two-story frame building at 312 Azusa Street in the industrial section of the city was secured. This building, originally built for an African Methodist Episcopal (AME) church, had more recently been used as a livery stable, storage building and tenement house. In this humble Azusa Street mission, a continuous three-year revival occurred and became known around the world. Stanley H. Frodsham, in his book, With Signs Following, quotes an eye-witness description of the scene: The revival was characterized by spiritual experiences accompanied with testimonies of physical healing miracles,[4] worship services, and speaking in tongues. The participants were criticized by some secular media and Christian theologians for behaviors considered to be outrageous and unorthodox, especially at the time. Today, the revival is considered by historians to be the primary catalyst for the spread of Pentecostalism in the 20th century."

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azusa_Street_Revival
 
shittim

shittim

Senior Member
#797
Dec 16, 2016
13,749
7,751
113
#797
The Day of Pentecost was the first where Holy Spirit came to be available to all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.