Speaking in tongues
- Thread starter blessedafrican
- 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.
Wrong again. You can't even track your own posts (and your latter sentence is nonsensical... again).
Here is what you wrote...
Nothing about Thomas in there. Nothing about Thomas in the post to which you were responding. Nothing about Thomas in the post to which I was responding either. Three strikes, as you say.
Instead of owning your words and your errors, you insult my intelligence by claiming that it "flew over my head". Get some integrity.
We already discussed this. You think everything is prophecy; I don't. Not going there again.
Here is what you wrote...
Nothing about Thomas in there. Nothing about Thomas in the post to which you were responding. Nothing about Thomas in the post to which I was responding either. Three strikes, as you say.
Instead of owning your words and your errors, you insult my intelligence by claiming that it "flew over my head". Get some integrity.
We already discussed this. You think everything is prophecy; I don't. Not going there again.
You said the word of God prophecy cannot be reckoned as a parable.
It would seem you are going above that which is written .
Do you really think its just a coincident that both Dan and Judas that are missing from the twelve used to represent the bride of Christ in Revelation in order to represent those who fall backward (no salvation)?
A question? Who or what caused the rider to fall backward?
Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward.Genesis 49:17
Have you been slain in the spirit and fell backward because someone put a hand on your forehead as evidence of being filled (not full ) of the Holy Spirit?
How many times must one be slain in the spirt before they receive the fullness of the spirit?
Who pushed the whole crowd backward ?
Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye?They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground. John 18:
Coincident ?
A late response to a few posts –
RickyZ – post 1,893
Yes – what you describe is the ‘experience’ and, as mentioned, no argument there – when glossolalia is used as the tool that it is, the results can be very real and very powerful.
Don’t laugh – Google translate will pick up on the first word it can identify in any language and go from there. I’ve tried it. Depending on where you start the playback in a recording determines what it will ‘translate’ for you. The results are pretty funky.
That’s actually a very good question, i.e. “does it have to be a human language?” I guess it depends on how you approach it. As far as sounds themselves go; no, it does not need to be a human language, but with that said, a human (unless imitating the sound of an animal) will essentially only produce sounds found in human languages (anything from really odd sounding vowels to the clicks found in some African languages), i.e. only those which the human vocal tract is capable of producing. No, it doesn’t need to be a language spoken on earth; but, it needs to be language; something modern tongues is not (for an in-depth discussion on why tongues are not language see: https://christianchat.com/blogs/why-“tongues”-are-not-language-part-1-of-2.176664/ and https://christianchat.com/blogs/why-“tongues”-are-not-language-part-2-of-2.176665/ )
Granted, a ‘spiritual language’ may not need to have the same limits and constraints as human language, but again, it must be ‘language’. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen the movie “Arrival” at all, but with respect to how linguists might look at a language which transcends human ideas of language (okay, in the case of the movie, an alien one), it’s pretty interesting how we’d need to rethink some of our concepts of ‘language’ with respect to how it works.
But again, no matter where a language may be spoken, and no matter by whom it may be spoken, it must first meet universal criteria for being “language”. Modern tongues just does not meet any of those criteria.
I do believe that there is some form of language/communication in the spiritual realm, but I don’t think it’s accomplished by anything that resembles a human vocal tract.
Splagna (post 1,908)
You just need to research the history of the movement particularly the doctrine of tongues pre-1906 and then post-1907 to see the complete change from the original thought/theory of xenoglossy (speaking a real rational language) to the concept of "prayer language" (speaking something that is not a real, rational language). – after the fail of Parham’s missionaries, the doctrine needed to either be redefined, since xenoglossy obviously wasn't what was being produced/done, or the movement needed to admit that they were wrong about tongues (being xenoglossy). They chose the former and redefined it.
I know I have more references somewhere – If I can find them, I’ll post them, but for now – here’s a few from one source:
https://charlesasullivan.com/4350/a-new-kind-of-tongues/
https://charlesasullivan.com/tag/philip-schaff/
https://charlesasullivan.com/9179/early-pentecostal-tongues-part-2/
https://charlesasullivan.com/9604/early-pentecostal-tongues-part-3/
RickyZ – post 1,893
Yes – what you describe is the ‘experience’ and, as mentioned, no argument there – when glossolalia is used as the tool that it is, the results can be very real and very powerful.
Don’t laugh – Google translate will pick up on the first word it can identify in any language and go from there. I’ve tried it. Depending on where you start the playback in a recording determines what it will ‘translate’ for you. The results are pretty funky.
That’s actually a very good question, i.e. “does it have to be a human language?” I guess it depends on how you approach it. As far as sounds themselves go; no, it does not need to be a human language, but with that said, a human (unless imitating the sound of an animal) will essentially only produce sounds found in human languages (anything from really odd sounding vowels to the clicks found in some African languages), i.e. only those which the human vocal tract is capable of producing. No, it doesn’t need to be a language spoken on earth; but, it needs to be language; something modern tongues is not (for an in-depth discussion on why tongues are not language see: https://christianchat.com/blogs/why-“tongues”-are-not-language-part-1-of-2.176664/ and https://christianchat.com/blogs/why-“tongues”-are-not-language-part-2-of-2.176665/ )
Granted, a ‘spiritual language’ may not need to have the same limits and constraints as human language, but again, it must be ‘language’. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen the movie “Arrival” at all, but with respect to how linguists might look at a language which transcends human ideas of language (okay, in the case of the movie, an alien one), it’s pretty interesting how we’d need to rethink some of our concepts of ‘language’ with respect to how it works.
But again, no matter where a language may be spoken, and no matter by whom it may be spoken, it must first meet universal criteria for being “language”. Modern tongues just does not meet any of those criteria.
I do believe that there is some form of language/communication in the spiritual realm, but I don’t think it’s accomplished by anything that resembles a human vocal tract.
Splagna (post 1,908)
You just need to research the history of the movement particularly the doctrine of tongues pre-1906 and then post-1907 to see the complete change from the original thought/theory of xenoglossy (speaking a real rational language) to the concept of "prayer language" (speaking something that is not a real, rational language). – after the fail of Parham’s missionaries, the doctrine needed to either be redefined, since xenoglossy obviously wasn't what was being produced/done, or the movement needed to admit that they were wrong about tongues (being xenoglossy). They chose the former and redefined it.
I know I have more references somewhere – If I can find them, I’ll post them, but for now – here’s a few from one source:
https://charlesasullivan.com/4350/a-new-kind-of-tongues/
https://charlesasullivan.com/tag/philip-schaff/
https://charlesasullivan.com/9179/early-pentecostal-tongues-part-2/
https://charlesasullivan.com/9604/early-pentecostal-tongues-part-3/
Though you quote my words, your paraphrase garbles them, making your accusations irrelevant.
Ephraim is missing too. Where did he fall backward? That Judas is not listed is irrelevant, because none of the disciples are listed.
Dan didn't fall backward. The rider on the horse did. Dan is the serpent, not the rider. The horse rearing up causes the rider to fall backward. This has nothing to do with your other examples.
Scripture doesn't tell us. Period. This event is the fulfillment of a specific prophecy given twice, in Psalm 40:14 and 70:2.
Ephraim is missing too. Where did he fall backward? That Judas is not listed is irrelevant, because none of the disciples are listed.
Dan didn't fall backward. The rider on the horse did. Dan is the serpent, not the rider. The horse rearing up causes the rider to fall backward. This has nothing to do with your other examples.
Scripture doesn't tell us. Period. This event is the fulfillment of a specific prophecy given twice, in Psalm 40:14 and 70:2.
Why was the tribe of Dan removed from the book of Revelation?
Ephraim is represented by Manasseh the other half.
Dan represents the serpent in that parable. The sepent represents poison. Poison represent the oral traditions of men that make prophecy (the word of God) without effect. as lies of the father of lies ,The father of lies is represented by the serpent .Round and round we go according to the law of circular reasons and not the philosophical theories of men.
Ephraim is represented by Manasseh the other half.
Dan represents the serpent in that parable. The sepent represents poison. Poison represent the oral traditions of men that make prophecy (the word of God) without effect. as lies of the father of lies ,The father of lies is represented by the serpent .Round and round we go according to the law of circular reasons and not the philosophical theories of men.
He wasn't removed. To be removed, he would have to have been there.
No, the serpent represents Dan. The verse says, "Dan shall be a serpent by the way...". Word order really does matter.
Although you correctly read that the serpent is connected with poison, from there on you are speculating, adding to the text, and "going above what is written".
No, the serpent represents Dan. The verse says, "Dan shall be a serpent by the way...". Word order really does matter.
Although you correctly read that the serpent is connected with poison, from there on you are speculating, adding to the text, and "going above what is written".
NO THAT IS NOT TRUE 
and I know this very well. those who attack and name call others who hold to the Doctrine of the trinity are the ones who have been banned as have others. There are members here now who do not have the concept of the trinity as something they agree with. Clearly you have not seen where it has been said many times NO ONE can fully understand the Divine Nature of God. We are limited. Both Trintiarians and those other doctrines canot full know all about the Nature of God. So, do not assume I know "D" well because you do not know what what I know of those here on this site as we speak. CC is and will always be long suffering.
Thank you ,
and I know this very well. those who attack and name call others who hold to the Doctrine of the trinity are the ones who have been banned as have others. There are members here now who do not have the concept of the trinity as something they agree with. Clearly you have not seen where it has been said many times NO ONE can fully understand the Divine Nature of God. We are limited. Both Trintiarians and those other doctrines canot full know all about the Nature of God. So, do not assume I know "D" well because you do not know what what I know of those here on this site as we speak. CC is and will always be long suffering. Thank you ,