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.
You want research, I can give you PAGES of it.
I noted that your abuse of the early father's writings were so egregious that they did not warrant any response.
But if you really want pages and pages I can give you their ACTUAL quotes.
Whom shall I start with?
I noted that your abuse of the early father's writings were so egregious that they did not warrant any response.
But if you really want pages and pages I can give you their ACTUAL quotes.
Whom shall I start with?
-
1
-
1
-
1
- Show all
actually Clement IS mentioned in the bible
Philippians 4:3
Yes, I beg you also, true yokefellow, help these women, for they labored with me in the Good News, with Clement also, and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.
Philippians 4:3
Yes, I beg you also, true yokefellow, help these women, for they labored with me in the Good News, with Clement also, and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
You want research, I can give you PAGES of it.
I noted that your abuse of the early father's writings were so egregious that they did not warrant any response.
But if you really want pages and pages I can give you their ACTUAL quotes.
Whom shall I start with?
I noted that your abuse of the early father's writings were so egregious that they did not warrant any response.
But if you really want pages and pages I can give you their ACTUAL quotes.
Whom shall I start with?
Way too long for a forum, but I will post a couple in separate posts......you can see the rest on the web site.
HE TESTIMONY OF CHRYSOSTOM
The last Church Father to be considered is the
able exegete and outstanding preacher, Chrysostom. After
studying and ministering around the city of Antioch he
became the patriarch of Constantinople. As the
religious leader in the great city of
Constantinople, he surely was in contact with Christians and churches
from all over the empire. As he approaches his message
on spiritual gifts in I Corinthians, he confesses that
the “whole place is very obscure,” and goes on to add: “
but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the
facts referred to and by their cessation,
being such as then used to occur, but now no longer take place” (50).
Here is the clear statement by a well-versed exegete and
religious leader of the fourth century stating that
tongues are no longer practiced in his da
y. Far from being the normal occurrence in Christian circles, the gift
of tongues is rather unknown! The
stature and position of Chrysostom make his testimony extremely
important. Evidently, at least by this time, the gift of tongues had died out.
HE TESTIMONY OF CHRYSOSTOM
The last Church Father to be considered is the
able exegete and outstanding preacher, Chrysostom. After
studying and ministering around the city of Antioch he
became the patriarch of Constantinople. As the
religious leader in the great city of
Constantinople, he surely was in contact with Christians and churches
from all over the empire. As he approaches his message
on spiritual gifts in I Corinthians, he confesses that
the “whole place is very obscure,” and goes on to add: “
but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the
facts referred to and by their cessation,
being such as then used to occur, but now no longer take place” (50).
Here is the clear statement by a well-versed exegete and
religious leader of the fourth century stating that
tongues are no longer practiced in his da
y. Far from being the normal occurrence in Christian circles, the gift
of tongues is rather unknown! The
stature and position of Chrysostom make his testimony extremely
important. Evidently, at least by this time, the gift of tongues had died out.
Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians that those who “choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation,
can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth” (12). However, Polycarp nowhere
indicates that tongues are a part of the normal characterof Christianity; in fact, he does not even touch on the subject of tongues.
From these observations, it is clear that the silence of
the Apostolic Fathers cannot simply be dismissed asbeing of no consequence.
THE TESTIMONY OF JUSTIN MARTYR
Justin Martyr, who was born around A.D. 100 and wasmartyred somewhere between A.D. 163 and 167 (13),
traveled widely in the Roman Empire and should havecome into contact with the phenomena of speaking in
tongues. He was born in Samaria, converted in Ephesus, and traveled over the empire as a Christian teacher
(14). In spite of this extensive traveling and teaching,
Justin has nothing to say regarding the gift of tongues.There is, however, one section in his work
Dialogue with Trypho which might give rise to the idea that Justin
knew of tongues. In arguing that the prophetical gifts ofthe Jews are now transferred to Christians, he says:
“For the prophetical gifts remain with us, even to
the present time. And hence you ought to understand the[the gifts] formerly among your nation have been transf
erred to us”(15). However, Jackson remarks that “it
is not certain that speaking in tongues is here intended”(16). There are a number of things which support this
and make it almost certain that Justin did not have the gi
ft of tongues in mind. First, Justin statesthat the giftshe is speaking of were formerly among the people of Israel. This certainly would not apply to this gift for it
is only used in connection with the church (17). Second, when Justin speaks of gifts he mentions seven, but
the gift of tongues is not included (18). In light of thes
e facts it is very evident that Justin did not have the
gift of tongues in mind.
Just as the silence of the Apostolic Fathers was signifi
cant, so the silence of Justin Martyr is important,
especially in the light of certain facts. The fact that
Justin traveled widely yet makes no reference to tongues
would show that either he had never encountered the
phenomena or that he was unimpressed by the gift if he
did. Another fact is that though he was a teacher of the Christian faith, his silence that the gift was not an
integral or important part of Christia
n doctrine is significant. If the gift were prominent, why did a man of his
stature fail to give any notice to it? Still another fact le
nding weight to Justin’s silence is the nature of his
writings. In his
Dialogue with Trypho
, he shows the superiority of Christianity over Judaism and it would
have been an excellent opportunity to
point to the gift of tongues as proof of his thesis (19). When he writes
his
Hortatory Address to the Greeks
, he states explicitly that he is goi
ng to examine accurately Christianity
and heathen religion. By comparing the teachings of the tw
o he states he will demonstrate that Christianity is
the true religion (20). One of the str
ongest things he could have used would have been the gift of tongues,
but he did not even mention them.
THE TESTI
can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth” (12). However, Polycarp nowhere
indicates that tongues are a part of the normal characterof Christianity; in fact, he does not even touch on the subject of tongues.
From these observations, it is clear that the silence of
the Apostolic Fathers cannot simply be dismissed asbeing of no consequence.
THE TESTIMONY OF JUSTIN MARTYR
Justin Martyr, who was born around A.D. 100 and wasmartyred somewhere between A.D. 163 and 167 (13),
traveled widely in the Roman Empire and should havecome into contact with the phenomena of speaking in
tongues. He was born in Samaria, converted in Ephesus, and traveled over the empire as a Christian teacher
(14). In spite of this extensive traveling and teaching,
Justin has nothing to say regarding the gift of tongues.There is, however, one section in his work
Dialogue with Trypho which might give rise to the idea that Justin
knew of tongues. In arguing that the prophetical gifts ofthe Jews are now transferred to Christians, he says:
“For the prophetical gifts remain with us, even to
the present time. And hence you ought to understand the[the gifts] formerly among your nation have been transf
erred to us”(15). However, Jackson remarks that “it
is not certain that speaking in tongues is here intended”(16). There are a number of things which support this
and make it almost certain that Justin did not have the gi
ft of tongues in mind. First, Justin statesthat the giftshe is speaking of were formerly among the people of Israel. This certainly would not apply to this gift for it
is only used in connection with the church (17). Second, when Justin speaks of gifts he mentions seven, but
the gift of tongues is not included (18). In light of thes
e facts it is very evident that Justin did not have the
gift of tongues in mind.
Just as the silence of the Apostolic Fathers was signifi
cant, so the silence of Justin Martyr is important,
especially in the light of certain facts. The fact that
Justin traveled widely yet makes no reference to tongues
would show that either he had never encountered the
phenomena or that he was unimpressed by the gift if he
did. Another fact is that though he was a teacher of the Christian faith, his silence that the gift was not an
integral or important part of Christia
n doctrine is significant. If the gift were prominent, why did a man of his
stature fail to give any notice to it? Still another fact le
nding weight to Justin’s silence is the nature of his
writings. In his
Dialogue with Trypho
, he shows the superiority of Christianity over Judaism and it would
have been an excellent opportunity to
point to the gift of tongues as proof of his thesis (19). When he writes
his
Hortatory Address to the Greeks
, he states explicitly that he is goi
ng to examine accurately Christianity
and heathen religion. By comparing the teachings of the tw
o he states he will demonstrate that Christianity is
the true religion (20). One of the str
ongest things he could have used would have been the gift of tongues,
but he did not even mention them.
THE TESTI
"By his time, the gift of tongues had died out."
Still fallacious. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
A consistent biblical exegesis of this situation would include an explanation of "the perfect" which was to come, what it was, and how it made a big difference in the Church. In the absence of such testimony, the message must be a cautious "We're not seeing that gift presently" rather than a certain "It has died out."
If prophesy was still active, then tongues had likely not ceased either, though they may not have been manifest. Scripture links the two, together with "knowledge" and their juxtaposition suggests that they will cease at the same time.
Still fallacious. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
A consistent biblical exegesis of this situation would include an explanation of "the perfect" which was to come, what it was, and how it made a big difference in the Church. In the absence of such testimony, the message must be a cautious "We're not seeing that gift presently" rather than a certain "It has died out."
If prophesy was still active, then tongues had likely not ceased either, though they may not have been manifest. Scripture links the two, together with "knowledge" and their juxtaposition suggests that they will cease at the same time.
-
1
- Show all
I have several other early writers if you want them here is the web site
doctrine.org/sign-gifts-valid-today
THE TESTIMONY OF CHRYSOSTOM
The last Church Father to be considered is the
able exegete and outstanding preacher, Chrysostom. After
studying and ministering around the city of Antioch he
became the patriarch of Constantinople. As the
religious leader in the great city of
Constantinople, he surely was in contact with Christians and churches
from all over the empire. As he approaches his message
on spiritual gifts in I Corinthians, he confesses that
the “whole place is very obscure,” and goes on to add: “
but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the
facts referred to and by their cessation,
being such as then used to occur, but now no longer take place” (50).
Here is the clear statement by a well-versed exegete and
religious leader of the fourth century stating that
tongues are no longer practiced in his da
y. Far from being the normal occurrence in Christian circles, the gift
of tongues is rather unknown! The
stature and position of Chrysostom make his testimony extremely
important. Evidently, at least by this time, the gift of tongues had died out.
doctrine.org/sign-gifts-valid-today
THE TESTIMONY OF CHRYSOSTOM
The last Church Father to be considered is the
able exegete and outstanding preacher, Chrysostom. After
studying and ministering around the city of Antioch he
became the patriarch of Constantinople. As the
religious leader in the great city of
Constantinople, he surely was in contact with Christians and churches
from all over the empire. As he approaches his message
on spiritual gifts in I Corinthians, he confesses that
the “whole place is very obscure,” and goes on to add: “
but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the
facts referred to and by their cessation,
being such as then used to occur, but now no longer take place” (50).
Here is the clear statement by a well-versed exegete and
religious leader of the fourth century stating that
tongues are no longer practiced in his da
y. Far from being the normal occurrence in Christian circles, the gift
of tongues is rather unknown! The
stature and position of Chrysostom make his testimony extremely
important. Evidently, at least by this time, the gift of tongues had died out.
-
1
- Show all
Very interesting.....excerpts from the links provided....
THE TESTIMONY OF MONTANUS
About the only clear statement regarding the manifestation of tongues is found in Eusebius’ description of the activity of Montanus. He writes: “So that he was carried away in spirit, and was wrought up into a certain kind of frenzy and irregular ecstasy, raving, and speaking, and uttering strange things and proclaiming what was contrary to the institutions that had prevailed in the church . . .” (40). Although the term tongues is not expressly used, it is very obvious, as Lietzmann remarks, that in the experience Montanus “showed all the manifestations of glossalalia” (41).
The significance of the testimony of Montanus is seen in the following observations. First, he was considered a heretic. He did not conform to the Scriptures and even those around him acknowledged this (42). Second, his particular heresy was in the realm of Pneumatology and his emphasis on the chrismata (43). Yet even with all this emphasis, the Montanist activity was considered to fall far short of the gifts as exercised y the apostles (44). Third, Lietzmann points out that at first this phenomena of ecstacy and glossalalia did not spread rapidly or widely (45). This would seem to indicate that their their extremes were a part of the usual Christian experience. If this had been a common practice, then it would have been more natural for many to accept this as being a part of the normal Christian life.
THE TESTIMONY OF MONTANUS
About the only clear statement regarding the manifestation of tongues is found in Eusebius’ description of the activity of Montanus. He writes: “So that he was carried away in spirit, and was wrought up into a certain kind of frenzy and irregular ecstasy, raving, and speaking, and uttering strange things and proclaiming what was contrary to the institutions that had prevailed in the church . . .” (40). Although the term tongues is not expressly used, it is very obvious, as Lietzmann remarks, that in the experience Montanus “showed all the manifestations of glossalalia” (41).
The significance of the testimony of Montanus is seen in the following observations. First, he was considered a heretic. He did not conform to the Scriptures and even those around him acknowledged this (42). Second, his particular heresy was in the realm of Pneumatology and his emphasis on the chrismata (43). Yet even with all this emphasis, the Montanist activity was considered to fall far short of the gifts as exercised y the apostles (44). Third, Lietzmann points out that at first this phenomena of ecstacy and glossalalia did not spread rapidly or widely (45). This would seem to indicate that their their extremes were a part of the usual Christian experience. If this had been a common practice, then it would have been more natural for many to accept this as being a part of the normal Christian life.
I don't want to be at loggerheads with you, or just argue. But you write in the most censorious manner. And then you write stuff like this. You accuse me of slander. Is there anything I wrote toward you that isn't true? But look at your post here. What do Charismatics, even the most theologically 'off' ones out there, have to do with Marcus' teaching? Did you read any of the three chapters in Ireneaus' book about this? Maybe there is something else out there about Marcus? I think I read I read about him and the use of wine in Eusebius, probably quotes from Ireneaus. But I did not come across any reference to music or singing in Ireneaus section on him. I have never heard a Charismatic teach on aeons or the adoptionist teachings of Marcus.
Marcus also had a really bizaar belief system according to Ireneaus, which involved dividing God up into various elements and letters of the Greek alphabet.
Irenaeus indicates that he had sex with female converts. He comes off as some kind of sex cult leader who taught himself as some kind of instrument of grace.
I would have to guess here that you are talking about Matthew 7, and that you are referring to speaking in tongues as 'gibberish.' If you are referring to Matthew 7, where do you get that the passage has anything to do with music? You have a really nice handle, but where is the grace in what you write, and where is the regard for truth?
Honestly, you seem to have little regard for truth in what you write. I quoted from Ireneaus because you did not believe he supported speaking in tongues. I showed that he was a continuationist, not a cessationist, and he wrote about his own time about brethren speaking in tongues. Then you said I had found 'some website that supports the sign gifts.' Well, any collection of early writings that get dubbed as the writings of 'the early church fathers' by those who use such titles is going to contain writings that are continuationist in nature, because many of them were continuationist both in belief and experience. The reason for that is that the Bible does not teach these gifts ceased, and many of them had experiences that go along with that. Basically, the framework for your cessationist ideas had not been created yet. Why would anyone believe in a doctrine that is not taught in scripture and did not really exist yet? You may be able to find a few quotes from certain church leaders who did not experience certain gifts of the Spirit and tried to come up with theological explanations for that, that later got cobbled into what you believe.
Back to Matthew 7, if that is what you are referring to. Based on what authority do you say this has to do with 'musical prophesyings' or saying 'Hallelujah, Hallelujah' over again? That is actually a Hebrew word, and if it is worthy of being included in the Bible as a word to praise God, why do you not hold it in higher regard? Is repetition evil? Are the four living creatures who cry out 'holy, holy, holy' wrong to do so? I did not see a rebuke at them for doing so in the book of Revelation.
Where is your regard for the truth? You constantly make false assertions about things you know little about. I show you Biblical or historical evidence that debunks your claim, and then you write that you don't read my post, call my quoting the actual historical documents 'egregious', claim they were from a site that supported sign gifts, and then complain about it being a Roman Catholic site. You are free to look for differences at the ethereal library if you like. Chances are slim that you will find anything substantial.
If you are wrong about something, why not just admit it and say, "I did not know that." If you are wrong and then insult the information or the bringer of the information that proves you wrong, and try to discount it with some lame excuse, and then go on to spout falsehoods, with a condescending attitude. People may think you are stupid and arrogant, and if you want to persuade people, that is not a very good method. You are currently establishing yourself as someone whose quotes you have to look up because she is not accurate with her references.
Thinking about posting in response to you the verse about casting pearls to swine comes to mind. I realize there are other posters here, though, that may benefit. But how does it make you feel when other posters on a forum think of posting to you as casting pearls before swine? I would really like, and I actually pray, that you won't act like a pig in the parable. Instead, I would hope that you would value both scripture and other useful information, like history, even be humble and admit when you are wrong, and show respect for scripture and truth? I am not trying to crush your feelings or anything, but being forthright like this is the way I know how to deal with the censorious attitude combined with spouting false information. Why don't you pray about whether you are being arrogant and condescending and whether you are lacking respect for the truth of God's word, mainly, and also history? And then you can ask God for grace to interact with others in a gracious and edifying manner. I'll pray the same.
Btw, in the section on Marcus, Irenaeus again affirms his believe in the contemporary functioning of the gift of prophecy. I have found nothing in his section on Marcus about speaking in tongues.
I quote below from the ccel dot org version of ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus
Chapter XIII.
Marcus also had a really bizaar belief system according to Ireneaus, which involved dividing God up into various elements and letters of the Greek alphabet.
Irenaeus indicates that he had sex with female converts. He comes off as some kind of sex cult leader who taught himself as some kind of instrument of grace.
I would have to guess here that you are talking about Matthew 7, and that you are referring to speaking in tongues as 'gibberish.' If you are referring to Matthew 7, where do you get that the passage has anything to do with music? You have a really nice handle, but where is the grace in what you write, and where is the regard for truth?
Honestly, you seem to have little regard for truth in what you write. I quoted from Ireneaus because you did not believe he supported speaking in tongues. I showed that he was a continuationist, not a cessationist, and he wrote about his own time about brethren speaking in tongues. Then you said I had found 'some website that supports the sign gifts.' Well, any collection of early writings that get dubbed as the writings of 'the early church fathers' by those who use such titles is going to contain writings that are continuationist in nature, because many of them were continuationist both in belief and experience. The reason for that is that the Bible does not teach these gifts ceased, and many of them had experiences that go along with that. Basically, the framework for your cessationist ideas had not been created yet. Why would anyone believe in a doctrine that is not taught in scripture and did not really exist yet? You may be able to find a few quotes from certain church leaders who did not experience certain gifts of the Spirit and tried to come up with theological explanations for that, that later got cobbled into what you believe.
Back to Matthew 7, if that is what you are referring to. Based on what authority do you say this has to do with 'musical prophesyings' or saying 'Hallelujah, Hallelujah' over again? That is actually a Hebrew word, and if it is worthy of being included in the Bible as a word to praise God, why do you not hold it in higher regard? Is repetition evil? Are the four living creatures who cry out 'holy, holy, holy' wrong to do so? I did not see a rebuke at them for doing so in the book of Revelation.
Where is your regard for the truth? You constantly make false assertions about things you know little about. I show you Biblical or historical evidence that debunks your claim, and then you write that you don't read my post, call my quoting the actual historical documents 'egregious', claim they were from a site that supported sign gifts, and then complain about it being a Roman Catholic site. You are free to look for differences at the ethereal library if you like. Chances are slim that you will find anything substantial.
If you are wrong about something, why not just admit it and say, "I did not know that." If you are wrong and then insult the information or the bringer of the information that proves you wrong, and try to discount it with some lame excuse, and then go on to spout falsehoods, with a condescending attitude. People may think you are stupid and arrogant, and if you want to persuade people, that is not a very good method. You are currently establishing yourself as someone whose quotes you have to look up because she is not accurate with her references.
Thinking about posting in response to you the verse about casting pearls to swine comes to mind. I realize there are other posters here, though, that may benefit. But how does it make you feel when other posters on a forum think of posting to you as casting pearls before swine? I would really like, and I actually pray, that you won't act like a pig in the parable. Instead, I would hope that you would value both scripture and other useful information, like history, even be humble and admit when you are wrong, and show respect for scripture and truth? I am not trying to crush your feelings or anything, but being forthright like this is the way I know how to deal with the censorious attitude combined with spouting false information. Why don't you pray about whether you are being arrogant and condescending and whether you are lacking respect for the truth of God's word, mainly, and also history? And then you can ask God for grace to interact with others in a gracious and edifying manner. I'll pray the same.
Btw, in the section on Marcus, Irenaeus again affirms his believe in the contemporary functioning of the gift of prophecy. I have found nothing in his section on Marcus about speaking in tongues.
I quote below from the ccel dot org version of ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus
Chapter XIII.
-
1
- Show all
That's a pretty lame argument. What showed up before that? That's not the only reference to tongues among these early church writers. And I believe the very same book by Eusebius' mentions brethren speaking in tongues by quoting the writings of Ireneaus.
Eusebius' treatment of Montanism is continuationist and not cessationist. He quotes from several sources that show that the church leaders back then who opposed Montanism affirmed the gift of prophecy as being for the church, but did not accept Montanus' version of it-- which was apparently quite ecstatic-- as being legitimate. One quote even mentioned two people-- Amnia and Quadratus-- if I recall corrected, who were accepted as prophets.
Montanus and/or his followers were credited with such things as proclaiming that the New Jerusalem would descend in Phrygia and with teaching against widows and widowers remarrying. Tertullian defended that doctrine. He is the first person known to have used the term 'Trinity' in his writings, and his Apology is interesting (and also affirms that Christians cast out demons, which pagans considered to be gods, but acted like they had the lower rank of demons when Christians cast them out.) Terullian became an advocate of Montanism later in his life. Montanism found some support from the church in Rome, and Montanists may not have actually been treated like a heresy/church split in North Africa like it was in the east.
Eusebius records a debate between a Montanist, after Montanus died, who believed that prophecy ceased with Montanus and his two prophetesses, while the member of the church argued that the apostle taught that prophecy would continue until the Lord returned. I have read (in a secondary source, and I am not sure the primary source or whether this is an inference or from a quote) that the Montanists might have believed that Montanus or his teachings were regarded as 'that which is perfect', and considered prophecy to have ceased after he died. It's ironic if Montanists were actually the originators of this cessationist doctrine. The orthodox Christian in the debate Eusebius records was the continuationist.
Eusebius' treatment of Montanism is continuationist and not cessationist. He quotes from several sources that show that the church leaders back then who opposed Montanism affirmed the gift of prophecy as being for the church, but did not accept Montanus' version of it-- which was apparently quite ecstatic-- as being legitimate. One quote even mentioned two people-- Amnia and Quadratus-- if I recall corrected, who were accepted as prophets.
Montanus and/or his followers were credited with such things as proclaiming that the New Jerusalem would descend in Phrygia and with teaching against widows and widowers remarrying. Tertullian defended that doctrine. He is the first person known to have used the term 'Trinity' in his writings, and his Apology is interesting (and also affirms that Christians cast out demons, which pagans considered to be gods, but acted like they had the lower rank of demons when Christians cast them out.) Terullian became an advocate of Montanism later in his life. Montanism found some support from the church in Rome, and Montanists may not have actually been treated like a heresy/church split in North Africa like it was in the east.
Eusebius records a debate between a Montanist, after Montanus died, who believed that prophecy ceased with Montanus and his two prophetesses, while the member of the church argued that the apostle taught that prophecy would continue until the Lord returned. I have read (in a secondary source, and I am not sure the primary source or whether this is an inference or from a quote) that the Montanists might have believed that Montanus or his teachings were regarded as 'that which is perfect', and considered prophecy to have ceased after he died. It's ironic if Montanists were actually the originators of this cessationist doctrine. The orthodox Christian in the debate Eusebius records was the continuationist.
-
1
- Show all
I am not familiar with someone connecting women being uncovered in I Corinthians 11, a passage which does not mention speaking in tongues, with the Oracle of Delphi. What is your source for this? I have heard some bad eisegesis trying to use the Oracle of Delphi as an exegetical key for I Corinthians 14.
I think this comes from liberal German theologians. One would have to have a 'liberal' approach to I Corinthians 14 to take tongues in that chapter to refer to pagan babbling. One would have to believe that Paul did not know what he was talking about and was not teaching inspired, authoritative teaching to actually read that passage consistently all the way through and believe such a blasphemous viewpoint. Paul would not tell the Corinthians to interpret pagan babbling to edify the church. Yet, I have heard a sermon on YouTube in which a famous outspoken cessationist megachurch pastor parrotted such nonsense.
One reason I call this nonsense is because it is bad scholarship. Plutarch lived in the first century, and he was actually a priest at Delphi. He defended the idea that the Oracle at Delphi could give a prophecy in regular prose and that it did not have to speak in high poetry. There were legends of people not understanding the oracles prophecies about them, so the idea may have been poetic riddles. At least in the first century, there were people expecting high poetry. Poetry is considered a high intelligent form of speech, not some kind of babbling.
In any case, there is no reason to think Paul had some kind of fake tongues, some kind of pagan babbling in mind when he wrote about speaking in tongues in I Corinthians. The only reason one could arrive at that conclusion is if one believed Paul was in error as he wrote. Paul considered speaking in tongues to be a real gift and encouraged interpretations of it. He taught that the church could be edified if the tongues were interpreted.
Huh? I am wondering if your source for such bad scholarship might happen to be some of the strange abuses of the Greek concordance found on the 'piney' site, but a former (or current?) poster here who is opposed to all musical instruments? Instruments were used in the temple-- and praising the Lord with them was even commanded in Psalms 150. There is no reason to think that Paul considered instruments to be inherently evil. That is an odd lens through which to interpret I Corinthians 13.
Get your facts straight. 'Charismatic' comes from 'charismata', the plural of 'charisma.' This is the Greek word translated 'gift' or 'spiritual gift' in passages like I Corinthians 12, Romans 12, I Peter 4, and other passages.
-
1
- Show all
@presidente –
Just have a look at the map in the Wikipedia article on provential languages of the Roman Empire. There were quite a number of languages spoken. If you consider the number of dialects, there would have been quite a number of them just based on what scholars know of. Some language groups may not have left any written record, writing only in Greek, for example.
Yes, there were a lot of local languages; however, along the eastern Mediterranean basin, by the first century AD, most were in various stages of being replaced by Greek. Greek was by far the more common language spoken in the larger cities, with local languages typically being limited to rural areas. Jews living in those lands (i.e. the Western Diaspora) tended to cluster in large cities, not the rural countryside.
Whoever put together the Wikipedia map disagreed if your assertion is that no Celtic tongue was spoken in Asia Minor.
I stand corrected – Galatian seems to have been longer lasting than I had thought (possibly as late as the 500’s in some rural areas). Scholars however, are divided as to whether or not Paul wrote to Greek Galatians (which I take to mean Greeks living in Galatia) or to the Hellenized descendants of Celtic Galatians (which I take to mean Greek speaking ethnic Galatians/Celts).
Either way, one should note the following:
The Galatians themselves became Hellenized by the 2nd century AD.
Mark Janse's "Aspects of Bilingualism in the History of the Greek Language" specifically focuses part of its discussion around the central Asia area (where Galatia is/was).
He notes Hellenization was accelerated before, and then reinforced by, the "Roman annexation (17 AD)". The process was slower in the "rural areas," which maintained indigenous languages. This implies two things – (1) the rural areas became more bilingual (retaining indigenous languages), which also implies the cities moved away from those languages to Greek. Both city and countryside had varying levels of bilingual use, because regarding the regions around Galatia, "most of them are known to be bilingual in the first century AD".
So again, we’re kind of in this “in-between” stage seen in language assimilation where the larger cities (where Paul likely preached) were Greek speaking (or, worse case, possibly bilingual), but the more rural areas still retained the language.
It’s reasonable to conclude that the Galatians Paul had dealings with were Greek speakers (inhabitants of the larger cities, whether Greeks or Greek-speaking ethnic Galatians), not Galatian speakers (more rural villages/towns).
Do you think Jesus and the apostles were just like pagan shaman, too? Tertullian pointed out that Christians cast what pagans thought were gods out of people when they cast out demons. The stick Moses threw down that turned into a snake swallowed up the ones the magicians threw down.
That’s not quite what I meant, but in the strictest sense, they’re both doing the same thing. If we all followed a non-Abrahamic religion, how do you think we’d view these accounts?? I would say, probably the exact same way we view various non-Christian accounts.
In the Jewish telling of the account, or from the Jewish (and subsequently Christian) perspective, the Judeo-Christian God is going to end up being the more powerful (as your example with Moses' staff). I’m not dismissing or ‘poo-pooing’ such accounts by any means, just looking at it in a different light.
Just have a look at the map in the Wikipedia article on provential languages of the Roman Empire. There were quite a number of languages spoken. If you consider the number of dialects, there would have been quite a number of them just based on what scholars know of. Some language groups may not have left any written record, writing only in Greek, for example.
Yes, there were a lot of local languages; however, along the eastern Mediterranean basin, by the first century AD, most were in various stages of being replaced by Greek. Greek was by far the more common language spoken in the larger cities, with local languages typically being limited to rural areas. Jews living in those lands (i.e. the Western Diaspora) tended to cluster in large cities, not the rural countryside.
Whoever put together the Wikipedia map disagreed if your assertion is that no Celtic tongue was spoken in Asia Minor.
I stand corrected – Galatian seems to have been longer lasting than I had thought (possibly as late as the 500’s in some rural areas). Scholars however, are divided as to whether or not Paul wrote to Greek Galatians (which I take to mean Greeks living in Galatia) or to the Hellenized descendants of Celtic Galatians (which I take to mean Greek speaking ethnic Galatians/Celts).
Either way, one should note the following:
The Galatians themselves became Hellenized by the 2nd century AD.
Mark Janse's "Aspects of Bilingualism in the History of the Greek Language" specifically focuses part of its discussion around the central Asia area (where Galatia is/was).
He notes Hellenization was accelerated before, and then reinforced by, the "Roman annexation (17 AD)". The process was slower in the "rural areas," which maintained indigenous languages. This implies two things – (1) the rural areas became more bilingual (retaining indigenous languages), which also implies the cities moved away from those languages to Greek. Both city and countryside had varying levels of bilingual use, because regarding the regions around Galatia, "most of them are known to be bilingual in the first century AD".
So again, we’re kind of in this “in-between” stage seen in language assimilation where the larger cities (where Paul likely preached) were Greek speaking (or, worse case, possibly bilingual), but the more rural areas still retained the language.
It’s reasonable to conclude that the Galatians Paul had dealings with were Greek speakers (inhabitants of the larger cities, whether Greeks or Greek-speaking ethnic Galatians), not Galatian speakers (more rural villages/towns).
Do you think Jesus and the apostles were just like pagan shaman, too? Tertullian pointed out that Christians cast what pagans thought were gods out of people when they cast out demons. The stick Moses threw down that turned into a snake swallowed up the ones the magicians threw down.
That’s not quite what I meant, but in the strictest sense, they’re both doing the same thing. If we all followed a non-Abrahamic religion, how do you think we’d view these accounts?? I would say, probably the exact same way we view various non-Christian accounts.
In the Jewish telling of the account, or from the Jewish (and subsequently Christian) perspective, the Judeo-Christian God is going to end up being the more powerful (as your example with Moses' staff). I’m not dismissing or ‘poo-pooing’ such accounts by any means, just looking at it in a different light.
-
1
- Show all