Pentecostalism's sketchy origins

[Amanuensis]

No, that is not what I said, so this is your false conclusion about it.

Men speaking to God fits with the Acts 2 narrative. They were speaking the mighty things of God, but they were speaking to God. The fact that men heard (and understood) what they were speaking doesn't mean they were speaking to men. So Paul says in 1 Cor that they speak to God. But they are speaking mysteries because no one in the congregation understands what is being said. It means that the tongues are not interpreted or translated. "Mysteries" simply means "not understood." It does not mean something mysterious that no man can understand (even if translated).



It just seems to me that you find things wrong with what I say just because you're looking for something wrong (even if it's not there).

I think you have done a great job or explaining your view here. I can see this as a possible interpretation. It is at least is in the credible category.

 

[TDidymas]

You and i are, most likely out of the PC churches because we both see error = 'you must speak in tongues'.

However, the Gift of Speaking in Tongues is of the Holy Spirit and never call it "unholy" as some do to their judgment.

Definitely know and believe Gospel of John, Acts 1 Corinthians as well as Genesis thru Revelation.

We are approaching the LORD'S Second Coming and the Baptism of the importance of being filled with Holy Spirit is spoken of in Matthew 23:1-13 and Acts and 1 Cor and 1 John

So then, are you trying to tell me that someone who doesn't speak in tongues is not filled with the Holy Spirit?

 

[TDidymas]

Your human reasoning is stands on 'sand' and cannot be found in Scripture.

Scripture is the only Holy Ground upon which we are to remove the man-made covering of our feet and stand upon.
Do you understand why this is???

I gave the scripture reference, and am describing it the same as the Acts 2 narrative. Yet you call it "human reasoning." So my reasoning is "human" and yours is "spiritual"? You don't think that's a double standard? If you think my reasoning is wrong, then quote scripture and explain it to prove so. I answered your question and gave explanation of scripture matching the Acts 2 narrative. But your response is that it's "human reasoning." You need to explain how, exactly.

 

[TDidymas]

I said step off it!! You don't know me personally, you don't know my testimony. Leave it alone!

I'm merely responding to you, answering your objections. If you want me to leave it alone, then you leave it alone.

Nor would I expect it from you.

You're contradicting yourself, since your earlier response showed that you did expect it.

Then why argue till you're blue in the face. It's a non issue. Drop it.

I'm merely answering your objections. If you want me to drop it, then you drop it.

 

[Amanuensis]

On the contrary these, foreign languages WERE absolutely identified in Acts 2. The Holy Spirit actually compiled a specific list to remove all doubt that what was heard were real living languages, foreign to Israel, commonly spoken at that period of time.

Parthians Medes Elamites Mesopotamia Cappadocia Pontus Asia Phrygia Pamphylia Egypt Libya Cyrene Rome Cretes Arabians

Can anyone doubt that this is an actual list of foreign languages? Spoken by foreigners?

Furthermore, in 1Cor 14, Paul clearly specifies these tongues as foreign languages. And in chapters 12 and 14 he begs/petitons/commands for interpreters/interpretation. The necessity of interpreters was not required in Acts 2.........because the foreign visitors (who were undoubtedly hearing their own native languages) did not need them!

All of which taken together confirms that these tongues were a miracle of SPEAKING! Not one of simply HEARING foreign languages when someone is speaking unintelligible gibberish.

I think @TDidymas just presented an interpretation that would help your case on 1 Cor 14:2 in post https://christianchat.com/threads/pentecostalisms-sketchy-origins.199418/post-4830493
I think his explanation is plausible for what Paul meant when he said they were not speaking to men, and yet it might still be a known language, however I still think that the gift of interpretation called for here is a supernatural give of the Holy Spirit therefore, if the interpreter is giving an interpretation it would be a case where they had never learned that language.

The only problem I have with this is that Paul had not identtified his language after 20 years of speaking more than them all. If he had been speaking a known language all that time wouldn't he have identified a few words? And then his understanding would have become fruitful after 20 years. This seems to suggest that he spoke in a tongue that was never identified. 1 Cor 14:14

 

[DavidTree]

Our paths diverge, because I say it right back to you. I have no doubt you strongly believe in what you're doing. But your advice-giving is rather hypocritical, because you won't take my advice either, even though it was merely an answer to your question.

There is no 'advice' that is equal to the Scripture unless it bows it's knee and confesses with it's tongue that JESUS is LORD.

Hypocrisy is making a claim that you believe the LORD but then deny Him and His words, which a person does when they speak against the Baptism of the Holy Spirit as "it is Written."

 

[DavidTree]

So then, are you trying to tell me that someone who doesn't speak in tongues is not filled with the Holy Spirit?

No, that is what you are saying.

 

[DavidTree]

I gave the scripture reference, and am describing it the same as the Acts 2 narrative. Yet you call it "human reasoning." So my reasoning is "human" and yours is "spiritual"? You don't think that's a double standard? If you think my reasoning is wrong, then quote scripture and explain it to prove so. I answered your question and gave explanation of scripture matching the Acts 2 narrative. But your response is that it's "human reasoning." You need to explain how, exactly.

i keep saying to you what you need to study = Genesis, Gospel of John, Acts, 1 Corinthians, 1 John

Human reasoning is when a person does not understand the Scripture and refutes what the Scripture plainly teaches and expresses.

 

[TDidymas]

For what I am told by CPs on this thread, nowadays, tongues are ONLY spoken by and understood by CP's EXCLUSEVLY. And ONLY occur within the cloistered confines of a CP Church building/Church assembly. And that tongues ALWAYS have been and always will be incoherent, unintelligible gibberish and NEVER were a commonly USED language. And tongues today NEVER need to be interpreted that's no longer even necessary or useful. And that if you do NOT speak tongues you are somehow "missing out", and that you might not even be indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Some even say that you absolutely must speak tongues as a confirmation of your salvation.

And most bizarre of all, that tongues were NEVER meant to have UTILITY (and never did) to proclaim the Gospel.

In terms of what the Bible says, I find this CP tongues doctrine far too difficult to swallow. Pardon the pun.

I've found that this subject is far more controversial and divisive than almost anything else. It is a poorly understood issue, because it was assumed from the git-go that it was of God because of its mysterious nature. Even respected evangelical theologians are being persuaded to accept it.

But even though mainstream Christians don't believe the P/C movement is a cult, it has cult-like behaviors. P/C Christians in general do exhibit the fruit of the Spirit, but what is deceptive is that they get their behaviors from scripture, not from "speaking in tongues" as they think. The cult-like behaviors and thinking are things like calling themselves "Spirit-filled," as if no one outside the movement is Spirit-filled, and thinking they have something other Christians don't have, and their misuse of scripture, twisted to fit their experience is another.

However, I need to say that the very nature of controversies is all about opinion and dividing of opinionated people. It's the reason we have so many divisions and denominations in the churches. Yet, it's a minor issue, because the majors about who Jesus is and what He has done for us is the unifying factor. But in general, people are both prideful and fearful, and the reason why they don't want to be corrected.

 

[TDidymas]

Ample evidence has been collected and shown that the gift does not originate from any region of the brain associated with speech.
Anyonw who sincerely wishes to learn His ways would know this.

I saw that test. The reason it's not associated with speech is because IT'S NOT LANGUAGE, and therefore CONVEYS NO MESSAGE. It's merely gibberish, random syllables. It's a human phenomenon, which has been done since before B.C. in pagan religions.

 

[TDidymas]

i keep saying to you what you need to study = Genesis, Gospel of John, Acts, 1 Corinthians, 1 John

Human reasoning is when a person does not understand the Scripture and refutes what the Scripture plainly teaches and expresses.

I could say the same thing about you. I could say to you - "study the Bible!" but such statements go nowhere. Get to specifics. Quote a verse you think contradicts what I'm saying, and then let me respond as to why it doesn't contradict what I'm saying. Is an intelligent conversation possible between us? (Not if you have a closed mind and keep on with ad hominem attacks).

 

[TDidymas]

If it is not a foreign language that can be identified 1 Cor 14:2, 14 how would your test work? No recording necessary if that is your test. We don't believe the scriptures teach that is must be a foreign language so that is your

And if someone has the real gift and is Spirit led they would tell you to get lost because the Spirit does not indulge skeptics like that, so if someone went along with the stupid test that won't work that would make them suspect as well.

1 Thes. 5:21 "But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good."
For you to suggest that your 'gift' cannot be examined tells me that you have a sacred cow.

And I know that your tongues is not a human language, since I was in the P/C movement for 25 years, and that's what they teach. But in following Biblical precedence of Acts 2, all other places that mention tongues indicate it's human languages. And IMO that's the only way it can be verified as a bonified miracle. Someone speaks some known language that he hasn't learned, and someone else understands the intelligible message spoken.

But modern tongues is not that. It's unintelligible because it's not language. It's the same kind of gibberish spoken since B.C. in which they claimed it was "language of the gods."

But here's how the test would work: Someone claimed that a person speaking in tongues spoke Lebanese. I know someone from Lebanon who could properly identify it. Such a thing would prove (or disprove) that modern tongues is the same thing as they got in Acts 2, at least for that case. But in all the various tongues posted on youtube, not a single one has been identified. If anyone in the P/C movement was able to identify even one single tongue as a real language, it would be prolifically blasted all through the internet. But so far, there have been no takers. It leads me to believe that P/Cs have a vested interest in keeping it in the realm of the mysterious, very possibly because they are afraid that it will be exposed as fraudulent (like so far all the ones on youtube).

 

[TDidymas]

The only problem I have with this is that Paul had not identtified his language after 20 years of speaking more than them all. If he had been speaking a known language all that time wouldn't he have identified a few words? And then his understanding would have become fruitful after 20 years. This seems to suggest that he spoke in a tongue that was never identified. 1 Cor 14:14

Sorry to butt in on your response to CV5, but I felt a need to answer this. I thought I explained this earlier, but I'll say it differently.

Paul did not say his mind was unfruitful for 20 years, that's conjecture. But he said if he speaks in an unknown tongue with no interpreter, his mind is unfruitful. This was a point he was making to rebuke the Corinthians about what they were doing. Yet, he said "I will pray with the Spirit, and pray with the understanding also." This implies that Paul's mind was indeed fruitful, because this statement was his practice. He wasn't saying that as some ideal he hadn't reached. He was saying it because it was his experience.

So, why did he not identify the language? Simply because he was making general statements about how the Corinthians needed correction. Therefore what language he spoke (or languages) was irrelevant to his argument.

 

[TDidymas]

There is no 'advice' that is equal to the Scripture unless it bows it's knee and confesses with it's tongue that JESUS is LORD.

Hypocrisy is making a claim that you believe the LORD but then deny Him and His words, which a person does when they speak against the Baptism of the Holy Spirit as "it is Written."

Blah, blah. You still aren't quoting the scripture, and your words prove nothing. Either modern tongues is of God as it was in Acts 2, or it's not. You say it is, I say it isn't.

 

[TDidymas]

No, that is what you are saying.

No, that is what you said by implication. Let me quote what you said:

We are approaching the LORD'S Second Coming and the Baptism of the importance of being filled with Holy Spirit is spoken of in Matthew 23:1-13 and Acts and 1 Cor and 1 John

The conversation we are having is about modern tongues, whether or not it is of God. In this context, you are trying to promote it with the words "filled with the Holy Spirit" - are you not doing this? If not, then please explain what you mean, since I assumed you meant the same thing that P/C dogma teaches. I'm trying to understand exactly what you're saying.

 

[TDidymas]

i keep saying to you what you need to study = Genesis, Gospel of John, Acts, 1 Corinthians, 1 John

Human reasoning is when a person does not understand the Scripture and refutes what the Scripture plainly teaches and expresses.

You're not saying anything here. Quote scripture you think I don't understand!!

 

[DavidTree]

No, that is what you said by implication. Let me quote what you said:


The conversation we are having is about modern tongues, whether or not it is of God. In this context, you are trying to promote it with the words "filled with the Holy Spirit" - are you not doing this? If not, then please explain what you mean, since I assumed you meant the same thing that P/C dogma teaches. I'm trying to understand exactly what you're saying.

Notice i did not say you must speak in tongues, neither does Matt 25:1-13 but it does say being filled with Oil which is symbolic of the Holy Spirit and the first place we see NT Saints "filled with oil/Holy Spirit" is in Acts.

 

[Amanuensis]

Sorry to butt in on your response to CV5, but I felt a need to answer this. I thought I explained this earlier, but I'll say it differently.

Paul did not say his mind was unfruitful for 20 years, that's conjecture. But he said if he speaks in an unknown tongue with no interpreter, his mind is unfruitful. This was a point he was making to rebuke the Corinthians about what they were doing. Yet, he said "I will pray with the Spirit, and pray with the understanding also." This implies that Paul's mind was indeed fruitful, because this statement was his practice. He wasn't saying that as some ideal he hadn't reached. He was saying it because it was his experience.

So, why did he not identify the language? Simply because he was making general statements about how the Corinthians needed correction. Therefore what language he spoke (or languages) was irrelevant to his argument.

By adding that he sang in the spirit and sang with his understanding also, he adds another detail that points toward his intended meaning be that of a personal devotion a praying and singing in the spirit between himself and God.

 

[cv5]

Sorry to butt in on your response to CV5, but I felt a need to answer this. I thought I explained this earlier, but I'll say it differently.

Paul did not say his mind was unfruitful for 20 years, that's conjecture. But he said if he speaks in an unknown tongue with no interpreter, his mind is unfruitful. This was a point he was making to rebuke the Corinthians about what they were doing. Yet, he said "I will pray with the Spirit, and pray with the understanding also." This implies that Paul's mind was indeed fruitful, because this statement was his practice. He wasn't saying that as some ideal he hadn't reached. He was saying it because it was his experience.

So, why did he not identify the language? Simply because he was making general statements about how the Corinthians needed correction. Therefore what language he spoke (or languages) was irrelevant to his argument.

The whole sweep of 1 Corinthians 14 simply indicates that "foreign language tongues", spoken without an interpreter, are not profitable in that they do not edify and build up the Church. Essentially Paul is saying that they are wasting valuable time and effort, which would much better be directed toward prophecy. Because prophecy is exceedingly profitable for both believer and unbeliever alike. Un-interpreted tongues.....not so much.

Paul is also calling to their attention that since everyone was speaking "foreign language tongues" without order, neither with an interpreter, the service was incorrigibly chaotic.

We should be mindful of the fact that vv. 10 and 11 (and preceeding verses) are extraordinarily explicit in stating that what they were dealing with was real, existing foreign languages. I mean that is the literal description Paul used. And the congregation had absolutely no idea of the meaning because they did not have an interpreter, or simply failed to follow up with an interpretation. Therefore making a whole escapade a waste of breath.

This chapter is very simple and very easy to understand. I have no idea why confusion reigns within the CP crowd.

 

[shittim]

I saw that test. The reason it's not associated with speech is because IT'S NOT LANGUAGE, and therefore CONVEYS NO MESSAGE. It's merely gibberish, random syllables. It's a human phenomenon, which has been done since before B.C. in pagan religions.

not true, and will not share with you the evidence of this as it would be a pearls before swine situation.