Glossolalia (speaking in tongues) and a theory on what really happened at Pentecost?

[Don Maurer]

So when I went to the Book of Acts; I already knew the apostles were speaking a foreign language that they had not learned. One aspect of what was recorded in Acts caught my attention though. The phrase "And how hear we every man in our own tongue wherein we were born". Well I went and looked up that phrase "wherein we were born" and the word "born" isn't the same Greek word such as "Jesus was born in Bethlehem". This word born means "the stock of" or "origin" of.

So I got to thinking about that and came to the hypothesis that technically I don't think this word "born" is referring to where people were birthed as much as where the "origin point" of their language came from. (Hold that thought a minute.)

I am a small student of greek. I was curious about what you say above. You might need to explain more. I looked up the passage in Matthew 2:1, Acts 2:8 and several other similar contexts. All the words went back to the same root of ginomai. I am not sure I am making any serious point here because languages do not have a word for word parallel and there is room for a domain of meanings. Both meanings you post above could be included as within the domain of the word ginomai, so I do not have any objection to your conclusions above, I merely do not understand the process by which you got there. Can you point to the specific text that does not have the root ginomai?

Now Acts also indicates that what the apostles were actually speaking, was not a multitude of foreign languages; but that the hearers heard language that was familiar to them. They heard their native languages. (I.E. Greek, Latin, Arabic, Persian etc.)

How would you read Acts 2:4 "and began to speak with other tongues?"

Yet some people didn't hear a language that they recognized.

How would you read the 2nd part of Acts 2:6
"because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language."

Thus they ridiculed the apostles and said they were drunk. This hearkens back to "tongues are not a sign for believers but for unbelievers" 1 Corinthians 14:22 Now the Biblical context for "sign" and "unbeliever" is "The Jews require a sign..." (1 Corinthians 1:22) Thus "speaking in tongues" (a language that foreigners understood as their native language) was a sign of judgement against the Jews. (Jesus is the Christ (Jewish Messiah) and the gospel is going to the gentiles.)

I would definitely agree here and feel this is the major point of true biblical tongues that should be stressed. 1 Corinthians 14:22 is definitional. This specific statement defines what tongues was about.

Paul, in the preceeding verse quote a passage from Isaiah 28:11 as proof of his idea that tongues is a sign gift to unbelievers. The context of Isaiah 28:11 is the Assyrian invasion of Judah. I am open to discussion on the relationship between the two passages (1 Corinthians and ISaiah 28), but my opinion is that Paul is using Isaiah 28:11 to point to the fact that Israel, the nation, has come under the curses of Deuteronomy 28:15ff to Deuteronomy 28:46. This is a long story--and I am not going to write much on this, but notice what Moses says in Deuteronomy 28:46... "They shall be a sign and a wonder against you and your offspring forever." Isaiah takes up this theme in his discussion in Isaiah 28 in the context of the "Day of the Lord." (see Isaiah 28:5 "In that day the LORD of hosts ... also 27:1; 26:1; 25:9). In Isaiah 28, when the Israelites heard foreign languages, it was to be seen as a sign that Israel was under the curses of Deuteronomy 28.

So then, in the Apostolic Church, (1) tongues was for a sign of Israel's judgement, and it was (2) also related to the "day of the Lord." (However, he careful with the concept of the Day of the Lord because 2 Thessalonians 2:2 makes it clear that we are not yet in the "Day of the Lord." This gets into the "now and then" concept of Christian eschatology. That is another long issue I am not going to write on here and now. Therer is reason # (3) for tongues I will mention below.

Now back up this idea of "origin point of language" to the Tower of Babel. All current human language is derived from what ever was spoken before the languages were divided. (Let's call it "paleo-human language".) Thus what ever it was God spoke to Adam; was a known understood language by humanity; at least up until the Tower of Babel. This "paleo-human language" was a real language. It wasn't glossolalia.

So, was the language the apostles were actually speaking; this "paleo human language"? I don't know; but that seems like a logical hypothesis based on the fact that all foreigners heard their native foreign language; but "unbelievers" couldn't' understand the apostles.

Thoughts on this hypothesis?

Are you sure that the unbelievers could not understand the language being spoken? In Acts 2:11 the text says they heard them "in their own tongue." Then after hearing the words, they mocked.

Here is reason #3 for tongues.
The concept of signs and wonders again comes up in Acts 2:43. The signs are there limited to the apostles. Is it not fascenating that Luke mentions the concept of Apostolic signs in the narrative portion of Acts and Paul mentions signs in his explaination of tongues in 1 Corintians? Apostolic signs were necessary because the Apostles were the authoritative eyewitnesses that give to the church revelation (the NT). Just as OT prophets gave signs of their authority (all the way back to Moses), so also NT apostles and prophets gave signs. Paul says in 2 Cor 12:12 "The signs of a true apostle were performed amount you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles." So then, there is another purpose for signs, to validate a revelation. Of course, being to the reformed side, and believing in sola scriptura, I reject modern day apostles, and thus modern day revelation. So then, I also reject sign gifts related to apostleship (including tongues). I think there are reasons no books of been added to the scriptures for 1900 years. There are no more apostles, and no apostolic successors. The completed scriptures, the bible is enough. The need for signs ceased with the need for apostles and prophets. The need for apostles and prophets ended with the completion of the scriptures and the bibles completed authority.

 

[The Righterzpen]

I am a small student of greek. I was curious about what you say above. You might need to explain more. I looked up the passage in Matthew 2:1, Acts 2:8 and several other similar contexts. All the words went back to the same root of ginomai. I am not sure I am making any serious point here because languages do not have a word for word parallel and there is room for a domain of meanings. Both meanings you post above could be included as within the domain of the word ginomai, so I do not have any objection to your conclusions above, I merely do not understand the process by which you got there. Can you point to the specific text that does not have the root ginomai?

Well the root word would not change even if the grammatical application of the prefix, suffix, or the words around it change. I believe the hypothesis I came to was not based on the Greek word for "language" but the phrase "where they were born". And the reason I came to that hypothesis is because the concept jived with what happened at the Tower of Babel.

In the confusion of the languages; the geographical scattering came after the event of the confusing of the languages. So it does make logical sense (plus having connection to another event in the Bible) that the events in Acts would represent the reverse of that. (All languages flowed out of their common origin point.) So thus the reverse of the gospel uniting the understanding of all languages because Christ is the only mediator between God and man. Remember the languages were scattered in the first place because humans were trying to attain to the status of God. So all languages being united in the gospel; (the reverse of Babel.) makes contextual sense too.

Besides the point of "out of the mouth of two or three witnesses, let all things be established". So if the "2nd witness" to what was happening in the Corinthian church is the event in Acts; then it's fair to ask: where the 3rd witness? There's no other place in the New Testament that gives more definitive information as to what "speaking in tongues" actually was. We just have snippets of other verses that state this phenomena happened. But other than Acts, there is no explicit definition of what it is.

So, I don't know if that answers your question; seeing how the hypothesis is based on gathering of comparative historical events and not solely grammatical exegesis of the Greek sentence structure.

How would you read Acts 2:4 "and began to speak with other tongues?"

Well initially I didn't look that verse up. In Acts there are 10 geographical locations named. Those locations range from the areas around the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea to the approximate boarder of India. (Which wasn't particularly well defined in the 1st century.) Yet across the breadth of that area, would have been more than 10 languages represented, that would have been functioning in those areas. So thus at that time, there would have been more languages represented than apostles speaking.

Also the context of the passage is saying "they speak" and "we hear in all these languages". It's not saying "I the Egyptian (for example) heard some of the words they spoke in Egyptian". No to the Egyptian, every word they spoke was Egyptian. Same with the Greek, the Persian, the Arab etc. The entire message each foreigner received in their language.

So the miracle wasn't that suddenly these men could speak 25 different languages; but that every language heard what was being said in only their language. It's not particularly miraculous for one individual to be multilingual. But to hear not just Egyptian, but Egyptian in 5 or so different dialects. (And on and on with all the rest of the languages.)

Now take into consideration that Corinthians denotes the need for interpreters when..... we're assuming a language being spoken isn't understood by the speaker. But anyone who is multilingual does by default understand what they are saying. And this is true because the actual construction of our thoughts is based in language.

So the apostle formulating in their mind what they intend to say would still have an understanding of what's intended to be communicated. This was noted in one of the videos I'd posted; related to this thread. When someone prays in a known language the language centers in both the temporal lobe and the frontal lobe "light up". And this remains the same in the frontal lobe when someone is meditating, but not verbally expressing their thoughts. (The temporal lobe is where the physical act of language formation (which includes word recall and sentence formation which comes out of the process of thinking itself.)

To know what one is thinking is a product of how the brain functions related to language. Language is the medium wherewith we organize our thoughts. We can't think without the medium of language to be able to utilize. How would one know their thoughts if there was no language to communicate in? Thus why the language centers in the brain go inactive when engaging in glossolalia. There's no thought process to that act. They are just nonsense sounds.

Which developmentally, glossolalia is even different than baby babble. Little children trying to learn how to talk are engaging in a learning process, which obviously requires them to think. The same thing happens in learning another language. The language centers of the brain are being engaged because the speaker is utilizing memory and syntax and word order to be able to communicate effectively, so the speaker of the language being learned can understand them. All of this very much requires thought.

And we actually know these things about the development of language, because of the difference of how the visual cortex part of the brain stores the communication information within the deaf population. That's something that's able to be studied now through brain imaging technology.

People who are born deaf, think differently in Sign Language than people who can hear. Hearing people think in words. Profoundly deaf people think in pictures. Deafness runs on a spectrum. Very few people can't hear anything. But when there's not adequate enough hearing to be able to formulate language; the medium of their language learned is 100% visual for those born deaf.

This is why it's a lot harder for hearing people to read sign when the signer can't speak, then it is for the hearing person to sign to the deaf person. Because to read sign, one has to learn how to think in sign. And because sign isn't a auditory verbal language, it's a visual one; it's harder for hearing people to read sign. There's a couple of reasons for that. One is the need to translate between visual language and auditory language. Also, sign language has its own syntax and "sentence" structure. Which is not the same as spoken language.

Now deaf people are at a certain advantage in a multifaceted ability to communicate; because they are still taught how to read verbal languages. Yet hearing people aren't taught how to read sign language. And verbal and sign language pattern in the brain differently because the medium of linguistic input is different. One is audio, the other visual. In a computer, you need a graphics card to display visual data and a sound card to display audio data. Which obviously is true of the human brain too. And fortunately the plasticity of our brains can take visual information and turn it into a means of communication for people who can't hear.

Now why do I bring up this difference in the language patterning of deaf and hearing people?

This is because this is the only thing that makes sense of needing an interpreter for a language that's technically "extinct". (As with Biblical "speaking in tongues". Thus the concept of "speaking with the tongues of men and angels." The "tongues of men" are contemporary to the era those men are living in. The "tongues of angels" though; assuming (hypothesizing) this means the tongue God first spoke to creation in. This "tongue of angels" would be like unto the visual of sign language needing to be translated into verbal speech. Or in other words; the subtenant voice of God that created the material world. That voice that spoke the world into existence, would still need to be conveyed to the creatures in a verbal presentation. I.E. the patterning of language in the brain in order to communicate ideas.

So, I'm not sure how much what I'm saying makes sense to you? But, it "fits better" to say what they are communicating is being received in multiple language; not that they are speaking multiple languages.

I'll come back and answer the rest of this later. But right now, I'm having a hard time staying awake. So I'm going to have to finish this later.

 

[The Righterzpen]

I went back this morning (after waking up) and corrected / contextualized what I'd posted last night. So if you read the last post before I corrected it; hopefully it will make more sense now.

How would you read the 2nd part of Acts 2:6
"because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language."

So thus consequentially, you question here is actually answered in the previous post. Their "beginning to speak with other tongues" doesn't appear to be the same process as a multi linguistic person would use. They are speaking one language that's being received in multiple languages. They are not speaking multiple languages.

I would definitely agree here and feel this is the major point of true biblical tongues that should be stressed. 1 Corinthians 14:22 is definitional. This specific statement defines what tongues was about.

Yes, correct. Acts defines what "speaking in tongues is". And this is also the context of 1 Corinthians 14:21. This is the fulfillment of prophecy because the unbelieving of the recipients of the revelation of OT Scripture were hard hearted against God. Thus men of other tongues and other nations destroyed them, because they went abhorring after and committed both spiritual (and earthly) adultery with these other cultures.

All that is historically true. Thus also why the Roman "power system" (the "Revelation chapter 13 beast" as presented of that day) used its army to destroy the remnant of these unbelievers in the Roman Jewish wars. This is also the fulfillment of prophecy. Thus why Jesus cursed the fig tree. In all the OT references to "the fig tree". The proverbial "fig tree" only produces one fig. That "fig" is Christ. The "tree" is the material presence of the ethnic group of humanity that God had utilized to bring about the birth of the Messiah. Which "ironically" God could have turned any ethnic group into "Israel". Which He actually does because the gentiles get "grafted on" to the root of "Israel". Well, Christ is Israel because he is the seed of Abraham. (Galatians 3:16)

Which you are correct; what you stated below is the fulfillment of this prophecy:

Paul, in the preceeding verse quote a passage from Isaiah 28:11 as proof of his idea that tongues is a sign gift to unbelievers. The context of Isaiah 28:11 is the Assyrian invasion of Judah. I am open to discussion on the relationship between the two passages (1 Corinthians and ISaiah 28), but my opinion is that Paul is using Isaiah 28:11 to point to the fact that Israel, the nation, has come under the curses of Deuteronomy 28:15ff to Deuteronomy 28:46. This is a long story--and I am not going to write much on this, but notice what Moses says in Deuteronomy 28:46... "They shall be a sign and a wonder against you and your offspring forever." Isaiah takes up this theme in his discussion in Isaiah 28 in the context of the "Day of the Lord." (see Isaiah 28:5 "In that day the LORD of hosts ... also 27:1; 26:1; 25:9). In Isaiah 28, when the Israelites heard foreign languages, it was to be seen as a sign that Israel was under the curses of Deuteronomy 28.

So then, in the Apostolic Church, (1) tongues was for a sign of Israel's judgement, and it was (2) also related to the "day of the Lord." (However, he careful with the concept of the Day of the Lord because 2 Thessalonians 2:2 makes it clear that we are not yet in the "Day of the Lord." This gets into the "now and then" concept of Christian eschatology. That is another long issue I am not going to write on here and now. Therer is reason # (3) for tongues I will mention below.

I don't think I talked about "Day of the Lord" in the OP? (I just went back and looked and that's not covered in this OP); but you are correct that "the Day of the Lord" as a declaration of judgement has a "foreshadow" (the Cross) and "an end end" (The recreation of the heavens and the earth following "the final judgement".

The atonement (which culminated in Christ's death) was the judgement of God upon Christ for the sake of the elect. That was just as much "a Judgement Day" as "Judgment Day" will be upon the totality of the created cosmos. So in that sense I think we could say that "the Day of the Lord" commenced with the atonement and will conclude with the final judgment.

Are you sure that the unbelievers could not understand the language being spoken? In Acts 2:11 the text says they heard them "in their own tongue." Then after hearing the words, they mocked.

You make a good point here that I hadn't thought about before. Did they actually hear the apostles in the.... "theological equivalent" of what would come to be understood later in history as Masoretic Hebrew; (despite we assume they would have been born into households that were Aramaic or Greek speaking)?

That's an interesting question! Because through history; Judaism has had it's own language subset of what ever languages or combination of languages was present in the larger culture. Today, Yiddish is a subset of Germanic language that is intentionally employed for "religious instructional purposes". Someone who understands German can at least "get the gist of" Yiddish, just as they could get the gist of the Pennsylvania Dutch that most Amish speak. Both languages serve the same purpose. They are "coded" against the backdrop of the language of the larger culture. And this type of phenomena is done so "the unbelievers (goy) can't understand us".

Clearly it may have been true, that what they heard was their "1st century religious instruction" tongue; which the Holy Spirit's ability to convey to them in that tongue, would certainly NOT have been in alignment with their religious / political agenda.

That's an interesting take on this! (Good catch!)

I just looked up the verses in Acts 2:13-15 Which also renders some interesting possibilities in and of themselves!

The accusers use the phrase "new wine" and Peter uses the word "drunk". The phrase "new wine" is also used by Jesus in context of "new wine in old bottles"; Which I'm sure is some sort of metaphoric reference of the relationship of Christianity to Judaism. (Or at least of the incongruence of what had been relayed to Moses had morphed into. (This system that no longer represented what God had instructed to Moses.)

This also fits into the context of the prophecy of tongues and "the Jews require a sign".

The term "drunk" Peter uses also shows up in context of 1 Thessalonians 5:7, Revelation 17:2-6 and Revelation 18:3 as "spiritual drunkenness".

Also the word "suppose" in Acts 2:15 comes from the root verb "to receive". Which also supports your proposal that the unbelievers did not think they were literally drunk. (Another good catch!)

Which I just went back and looked up the phrase Peter uses: "....but the 3rd hour of the day...". The phrase "third hour" shows up in 3 other places in the NT:

1. = The laborers who come at the "third hour" are paid the same as those who come at the ninth hour. (Matthew 20:1-16)
2. = Jesus is crucified about "the third hour" of the day. (Mark 15:25)
3. = Current passage in Acts 2
4. = The Roman authorities who are assigned to go pick up Paul to bring him to Felix the governor are sent from Caesarea starting "the third hour". (Acts 23:22-24)




So could this be a Scriptural confirmation that yes "the Day of the Lord" commenced "at the 3rd hour"? And could this represent the end of the OT system as Paul is removed from Jerusalem..... by the gentiles to boot! (As Paul is the "apostle to the gentiles" (uncircumcised). Peter was "the apostle to the circumcised".

I often wondered why Paul felt he "NEEDED" to go to Jerusalem; specifically when the Holy Spirit told him not to. (Acts 21:4). If Pete was "The apostle to the circumcised."; who'd been in Jerusalem all this time. Then....where was Peter? I suspect by Jesus's prophecy of how Pete would die; that Paul wanted to go to Jerusalem because Peter was now dead; having been martyred by the Jews. Of whom Paul thought (of the flesh of his emotional connection to the institution of Pharisee(ism) = he'd "gone to school" with all these people) he could "reason" with them. (In the cultural backdrop of Hellenism came the Greek philosophers and the concept of the place of public square debate.)

We have this problem in society today. One can't speak freely without the "political constraint" of "offending" some "favored group". (Welcome to Orwell's 1984!)

Here is reason #3 for tongues.
The concept of signs and wonders again comes up in Acts 2:43. The signs are there limited to the apostles. Is it not fascenating that Luke mentions the concept of Apostolic signs in the narrative portion of Acts and Paul mentions signs in his explaination of tongues in 1 Corintians? Apostolic signs were necessary because the Apostles were the authoritative eyewitnesses that give to the church revelation (the NT). Just as OT prophets gave signs of their authority (all the way back to Moses), so also NT apostles and prophets gave signs. Paul says in 2 Cor 12:12 "The signs of a true apostle were performed amount you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles." So then, there is another purpose for signs, to validate a revelation. Of course, being to the reformed side, and believing in sola scriptura, I reject modern day apostles, and thus modern day revelation. So then, I also reject sign gifts related to apostleship (including tongues). I think there are reasons no books of been added to the scriptures for 1900 years. There are no more apostles, and no apostolic successors. The completed scriptures, the bible is enough. The need for signs ceased with the need for apostles and prophets. The need for apostles and prophets ended with the completion of the scriptures and the bibles completed authority.

Yes, I agree with you here too.

Which brings us to the parallel of today's church pentecostal movement being just a religious comparison to.... Disney's Frozen "on ice"?



There's a lot..... to everything that's going on today; both in the church as well as the world!

"I'm gonna pull the whole thing down. I'm gonna bring the whole f--- diseased, corrupt temple down on your head. It's going to be Biblical!" (Law Abiding Citizen - 2009) (movie line)



We live in interesting times!

 

[ARBITER01]

I went back this morning (after waking up) and corrected / contextualized what I'd posted last night. So if you read the last post before I corrected it; hopefully it will make more sense now.


So thus consequentially, you question here is actually answered in the previous post. Their "beginning to speak with other tongues" doesn't appear to be the same process as a multi linguistic person would use. They are speaking one language that's being received in multiple languages. They are not speaking multiple languages.


Yes, correct. Acts defines what "speaking in tongues is". And this is also the context of 1 Corinthians 14:21. This is the fulfillment of prophecy because the unbelieving of the recipients of the revelation of OT Scripture were hard hearted against God. Thus men of other tongues and other nations destroyed them, because they went abhorring after and committed both spiritual (and earthly) adultery with these other cultures.

All that is historically true. Thus also why the Roman "power system" (the "Revelation chapter 13 beast" as presented of that day) used its army to destroy the remnant of these unbelievers in the Roman Jewish wars. This is also the fulfillment of prophecy. Thus why Jesus cursed the fig tree. In all the OT references to "the fig tree". The proverbial "fig tree" only produces one fig. That "fig" is Christ. The "tree" is the material presence of the ethnic group of humanity that God had utilized to bring about the birth of the Messiah. Which "ironically" God could have turned any ethnic group into "Israel". Which He actually does because the gentiles get "grafted on" to the root of "Israel". Well, Christ is Israel because he is the seed of Abraham. (Galatians 3:16)

Which you are correct; what you stated below is the fulfillment of this prophecy:


I don't think I talked about "Day of the Lord" in the OP? (I just went back and looked and that's not covered in this OP); but you are correct that "the Day of the Lord" as a declaration of judgement has a "foreshadow" (the Cross) and "an end end" (The recreation of the heavens and the earth following "the final judgement".

The atonement (which culminated in Christ's death) was the judgement of God upon Christ for the sake of the elect. That was just as much "a Judgement Day" as "Judgment Day" will be upon the totality of the created cosmos. So in that sense I think we could say that "the Day of the Lord" commenced with the atonement and will conclude with the final judgment.

You make a good point here that I hadn't thought about before. Did they actually hear the apostles in the.... "theological equivalent" of what would come to be understood later in history as Masoretic Hebrew; (despite we assume they would have been born into households that were Aramaic or Greek speaking)?

That's an interesting question! Because through history; Judaism has had it's own language subset of what ever languages or combination of languages was present in the larger culture. Today, Yiddish is a subset of Germanic language that is intentionally employed for "religious instructional purposes". Someone who understands German can at least "get the gist of" Yiddish, just as they could get the gist of the Pennsylvania Dutch that most Amish speak. Both languages serve the same purpose. They are "coded" against the backdrop of the language of the larger culture. And this type of phenomena is done so "the unbelievers (goy) can't understand us".

Clearly it may have been true, that what they heard was their "1st century religious instruction" tongue; which the Holy Spirit's ability to convey to them in that tongue, would certainly NOT have been in alignment with their religious / political agenda.

That's an interesting take on this! (Good catch!)

I just looked up the verses in Acts 2:13-15 Which also renders some interesting possibilities in and of themselves!

The accusers use the phrase "new wine" and Peter uses the word "drunk". The phrase "new wine" is also used by Jesus in context of "new wine in old bottles"; Which I'm sure is some sort of metaphoric reference of the relationship of Christianity to Judaism. (Or at least of the incongruence of what had been relayed to Moses had morphed into. (This system that no longer represented what God had instructed to Moses.)

This also fits into the context of the prophecy of tongues and "the Jews require a sign".

The term "drunk" Peter uses also shows up in context of 1 Thessalonians 5:7, Revelation 17:2-6 and Revelation 18:3 as "spiritual drunkenness".

Also the word "suppose" in Acts 2:15 comes from the root verb "to receive". Which also supports your proposal that the unbelievers did not think they were literally drunk. (Another good catch!)

Which I just went back and looked up the phrase Peter uses: "....but the 3rd hour of the day...". The phrase "third hour" shows up in 3 other places in the NT:

1. = The laborers who come at the "third hour" are paid the same as those who come at the ninth hour. (Matthew 20:1-16)
2. = Jesus is crucified about "the third hour" of the day. (Mark 15:25)
3. = Current passage in Acts 2
4. = The Roman authorities who are assigned to go pick up Paul to bring him to Felix the governor are sent from Caesarea starting "the third hour". (Acts 23:22-24)




So could this be a Scriptural confirmation that yes "the Day of the Lord" commenced "at the 3rd hour"? And could this represent the end of the OT system as Paul is removed from Jerusalem..... by the gentiles to boot! (As Paul is the "apostle to the gentiles" (uncircumcised). Peter was "the apostle to the circumcised".

I often wondered why Paul felt he "NEEDED" to go to Jerusalem; specifically when the Holy Spirit told him not to. (Acts 21:4). If Pete was "The apostle to the circumcised."; who'd been in Jerusalem all this time. Then....where was Peter? I suspect by Jesus's prophecy of how Pete would die; that Paul wanted to go to Jerusalem because Peter was now dead; having been martyred by the Jews. Of whom Paul thought (of the flesh of his emotional connection to the institution of Pharisee(ism) = he'd "gone to school" with all these people) he could "reason" with them. (In the cultural backdrop of Hellenism came the Greek philosophers and the concept of the place of public square debate.)

We have this problem in society today. One can't speak freely without the "political constraint" of "offending" some "favored group". (Welcome to Orwell's 1984!)



Yes, I agree with you here too.

Which brings us to the parallel of today's church pentecostal movement being just a religious comparison to.... Disney's Frozen "on ice"?



There's a lot..... to everything that's going on today; both in the church as well as the world!

"I'm gonna pull the whole thing down. I'm gonna bring the whole f--- diseased, corrupt temple down on your head. It's going to be Biblical!" (Law Abiding Citizen - 2009) (movie line)



We live in interesting times!

My friend,..... you're all over the place with your ideas.

I'm a 30 some year Assemblies of GOD Pentecostal,.... if you really want to know about the gifts (and not just the gift of tongues either), and you can put away your preconceived ideas for a while, I might be able to help you learn something about them.

 

[The Righterzpen]

My friend,..... you're all over the place with your ideas.

I'm a 30 some year Assemblies of GOD Pentecostal,.... if you really want to know about the gifts (and not just the gift of tongues either), and you can put away your preconceived ideas for a while, I might be able to help you learn something about them.

You told me you no longer wanted to engage in this conversation for fear of violating the forum rules of Semper Reformada.

Do you understand what Cessationism is and why Cessationists oppose the modern pentecostal movement?

This conversation (and the reason I posted this thread in the forum that I did) is not about what you think the gifts are, or what you think they mean. This conversation is about what Scripture says on the subject.

Now if you are willing to learn why we believe what we believe; OK. But the purpose of this OP is not for you to air your experiences. And you can "put away your preconceived ideas for a while"!

 

[ARBITER01]

You told me you no longer wanted to engage in this conversation for fear of violating the forum rules of Semper Reformada.

Do you understand what Cessationism is and why Cessationists oppose the modern pentecostal movement?

This conversation (and the reason I posted this thread in the forum that I did) is not about what you think the gifts are, or what you think they mean. This conversation is about what Scripture says on the subject.

Now if you are willing to learn why we believe what we believe; OK. But the purpose of this OP is not for you to air your experiences. And you can "put away your preconceived ideas for a while"!

There's no need to get upset brother.

I'm willing to help you with some of the basic understandings of the gifts if you want, and it would absolutely be scriptural. From what I can tell, you have a whole heap of misunderstandings about the gifts, especially the gift of tongues, and it seems you have a chip on your shoulder with us Pentecostals for some reason. Why not let me help?

The only thing I ask is that you would just ask 1 question at a time so we don't have a quote war happen.

 

[The Righterzpen]

There's no need to get upset brother.

I'm willing to help you with some of the basic understandings of the gifts if you want, and it would absolutely be scriptural. From what I can tell, you have a whole heap of misunderstandings about the gifts, especially the gift of tongues, and it seems you have a chip on your shoulder with us Pentecostals for some reason. Why not let me help?

The only thing I ask is that you would just ask 1 question at a time so we don't have a quote war happen.

Tongues in the Book of acts is clearly defined as having heard by men in earthly foreign languages. That is not what's happening in your church. You are not speaking foreign languages. You are speaking gibberish that has no linguistic context. And because it has no linguistic context wherewith one exercises thoughts through; it's merely mindless noise. Science can prove this. (Thus the videos on the results of brain imaging scans.)

The analysis of what you call "speaking in tongues" is proved by computer programs that translate language; to not actually be a language. Glossolalia is not a language.

All sorts of religions participate in Glossolalia. Is it the Holy Spirit who's giving this "gift" to practitioners of Voodoo in Africa? How about Muslim "whirling Dervish" practices? Is that also the "gift" of the Holy Spirit?

Your first problem is; what's going on in your churches is not what happened in Acts or the Corinthian church. I know you want to believe it is; but it's not.

And since this is the fundamental #1 issue we have here; what is it you pose to teach me about a non-Scriptural practice?

 

[ARBITER01]

The analysis of what you call "speaking in tongues" is proved by computer programs that translate language; to not actually be a language. Glossolalia is not a language.

You're exactly correct, congratulations!

The gift of tongues is not a human language, and it seems your "science" proves that to be, hence why we have such passages as this,...

1Co 14:13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in a tongue pray that he may interpret.
1Co 14:14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

The gift of tongues requires the gift of interpretation to understand what was said,...because it is not a human language.

 

[The Righterzpen]

You're exactly correct, congratulations!

The gift of tongues is not a human language, and it seems your "science" proves that to be, hence why we have such passages as this,...

1Co 14:13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in a tongue pray that he may interpret.
1Co 14:14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

The gift of tongues requires the gift of interpretation to understand what was said,...because it is not a human language.

And in order to be interpretable it has to be a language. Glossarial is not a language! No where in Scripture does it ever say tongues was not a "human language"! When angels spoke to men; they always spoke in languages both understood. When God spoke to any human, He spoke in a language they understood.

Your belief here is not substantiated by Scripture!

 

[ARBITER01]

And in order to be interpretable it has to be a language.

I think you've presented an unbiblical fact my friend, unless you can find a place in our bibles that states or teaches such a thing. Interpretation is not translation, and the Greek is quite specific on it being interpretation.

Let me provide another "witness" to the requirement of the gift of interpretation,...

1Co 14:2 For he that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God; for no man understandeth; but by the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

Here we see the same understanding as the scripture section I already posted. The gift of tongues is not understandable to the human mind because it is not a human language. That "spiritual" language must first be interpreted into a human language to be understood. It's the sole reason for the gift of interpretation. It suits no other purpose.

 

[The Righterzpen]

1Co 14:13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in a tongue pray that he may interpret.
1Co 14:14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

These passages aren't talking about speaking gibberish that can not be translated. For one's "understanding to be unfruitful" does not automatically translate into one can not understand the verbalizations they are producing. I know enough German to be able to read a German newspaper that a German hearer would understand what I'm saying; although I don't necessarily understand what I'm reading. (or at least the whole of what I'm reading). If I read a prayer out of a German book. Yes my understanding is unfruitful; but my spirit (having enough cognition to understand that prayers are what I'm reading) yes; my "spirit prays".

Your other issue is: who's to say what you're claiming as an "interpreter" isn't just making up a translation to what is being vocalized; when it can be proven that what is vocalized isn't a real language.

If one is in a setting speaking the gospel to someone who doesn't understand the language being spoken and another could suddenly speak their native tongue to them; could they explain to the other people participating (possibly in a 3rd language) what had been said to them! That's what interpretation of tongues was. It wasn't someone making it up as they went along. Record someone "speaking in tongues" and run it through a computer program to find patterns consistent in language. You won't; because that does't exist in glossolalia.

Even made up languages (like Klingon) has a vocabulary, syntax, sentence structure etc. Matter of fact; I think Klingon is actually officially classified as a language now. There are people who carry on conversations in Klingon.

The closest neurologically that humans produces in the realm of sound is notes on a scale. One can make up random music notes and neurologically produce the same results. But when one sings a prescribed melody, harmony or refrain; That does fire the memory, cognition aspects of the brain. There is intended thought in non random singing.

 

[The Righterzpen]

I think you've presented an unbiblical fact my friend, unless you can find a place in our bibles that states or teaches such a thing. Interpretation is not translation, and the Greek is quite specific on it being interpretation.

Let me provide another "witness" to the requirement of the gift of interpretation,...

1Co 14:2 For he that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God; for no man understandeth; but by the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

Here we see the same understanding as the scripture section I already posted. The gift of tongues is not understandable to the human mind because it is not a human language. That "spiritual" language must first be interpreted into a human language to be understood. It's the sole reason for the gift of interpretation. It suits no other purpose.

What I'm speaking to you is a mystery to you; though technically we are speaking in a language we both understand.

The context of the word "interpreter" in 1 Corinthians14:28 comes from the word "to speak". Which is attached to another Greek word for "divine". Which means one is "speaking for God". When the prophets in the OT spoke to the people; the people didn't necessarily understand what the prophecy meant. (Some times they did.) But no where in any of those utterances was it ever a language that could not be deciphered.

When the apostles expounded upon the doctrines of Christ; that's what that meant. They expound upon what had been spoken (by God to them). That's what it meant post fulfillment of prophecy to "declare prophesy".

In the OT if you claimed to speak for God and what you said didn't come to pass; 100% OF THE TIME! You were declared a false prophet and you were to be put to death.

Your modern pentecostal version of "prophecy" doesn't hold to that standard!

 

[ARBITER01]

Your other issue is: who's to say what you're claiming as an "interpreter" isn't just making up a translation to what is being vocalized; when it can be proven that what is vocalized isn't a real language.

I'm not sure I completely understand your statement. I think you're questioning whether the person with the gift of interpretation is correctly interpreting or not? Whether it is The Holy Spirit providing utterance or the person?

I've never seen that as a problem yet. Utterances by The Holy Spirit provide edification, exhortation, and comfort. And if there is no edification, then it is not The Holy Spirit.

Let me provide a 3rd witness to the use of the gift of interpretation,...

1Co 14:27 If any man speaketh in a tongue, let it be by two, or at the most three, and that in turn; and let one interpret:
1Co 14:28 but if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

Again we see that the gift of interpretation is intertwined with the gift of tongues in these passages. The tongues message requires the interpretation into human languages. If there is no one to interpret the message, the person is not to speak in the church,...... because it won't be understood, and it would be unfruitful.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Here we see the same understanding as the scripture section I already posted. The gift of tongues is not understandable to the human mind because it is not a human language. That "spiritual" language must first be interpreted into a human language to be understood. It's the sole reason for the gift of interpretation. It suits no other purpose.

No where in Scripture did this happen. When a message was to be conveyed; it was translated by someone.

 

[ARBITER01]

What I'm speaking to you is a mystery to you; though technically we are speaking in a language we both understand.

The context of the word "interpreter" in 1 Corinthians14:28 comes from the word "to speak". Which is attached to another Greek word for "divine". Which means one is "speaking for God". When the prophets in the OT spoke to the people; the people didn't necessarily understand what the prophecy meant. (Some times they did.) But no where in any of those utterances was it ever a language that could not be deciphered.

When the apostles expounded upon the doctrines of Christ; that's what that meant. They expound upon what had been spoken (by God to them). That's what it meant post fulfillment of prophecy to "declare prophesy".

In the OT if you claimed to speak for God and what you said didn't come to pass; 100% OF THE TIME! You were declared a false prophet and you were to be put to death.

Your modern pentecostal version of "prophecy" doesn't hold to that standard!

I don't think we have come to discussing the gift of prophesying yet. We could get there, but we still have things to hash out with the other two gifts first.

 

[The Righterzpen]

'm not sure I completely understand your statement.

No you don't understand what I'm saying because you are going off a preconceived notion based on what you were taught.
Find anywhere in Scripture where what God communicated; was not explained to people in a decipherable language.

 

[ARBITER01]

No where in Scripture did this happen.

Why did Peter quote Joel over in acts?

 

[The Righterzpen]

I don't think we have come to discussing the gift of prophesying yet. We could get there, but we still have things to hash out with the other two gifts first.

When people go through Bible passages and "the light bulb goes off"; where with they expound and explain to another person what this means. That is "interpretation of tongues" as expressed in post written Scripture era. The gift of interpreting what God is saying hasn't disappeared. Just the ability to miraculously proclaim in a foreign language has.

People are still declaring the gospel in foreign languages. Just now the precursor is they have to learn that language.

My son has epilepsy and one of the consequences of his seizures is that he has problems with language pattering and memory. Now when I go to explain anything to him; I have to explain to him in a manner he understands. I can't take for granted that his understanding of a particular word is the same as mine. Thus instructing him is a very labor intensive activity. The instruction has to be geared to his specific language patterning; which has been permanently altered by the affects of the progression of his disease process. He has refractory epilepsy. His seizures are not fully controlled by medication and he is not a candidate for surgery.

Thus another example of "interpreting a tongue" for him.

 

[ARBITER01]

When people go through Bible passages and "the light bulb goes off"; where with they expound and explain to another person what this means. That is "interpretation of tongues".

That's not even a biblical truth friend.

We can't run on opinions and ideas, we have to rightly divide the truth. Whether you or I think the gifts are operable or not currently is not the issue, it's whether we understand "how" they operate, and we should be able to show that with scripture.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Why did Peter quote Joel over in acts?

Because it was the fulfillment of the prophecy that warned Israel that they would be judged by a nation whose tongue they did not understand.

@Don Maurer explained this quite well:

Paul, in the preceeding verse quote a passage from Isaiah 28:11 as proof of his idea that tongues is a sign gift to unbelievers. The context of Isaiah 28:11 is the Assyrian invasion of Judah. I am open to discussion on the relationship between the two passages (1 Corinthians and ISaiah 28), but my opinion is that Paul is using Isaiah 28:11 to point to the fact that Israel, the nation, has come under the curses of Deuteronomy 28:15ff to Deuteronomy 28:46. This is a long story--and I am not going to write much on this, but notice what Moses says in Deuteronomy 28:46... "They shall be a sign and a wonder against you and your offspring forever." Isaiah takes up this theme in his discussion in Isaiah 28 in the context of the "Day of the Lord." (see Isaiah 28:5 "In that day the LORD of hosts ... also 27:1; 26:1; 25:9). In Isaiah 28, when the Israelites heard foreign languages, it was to be seen as a sign that Israel was under the curses of Deuteronomy 28.