Tongues, a different view.

[Dave L]

Forget 1 Corinthians 13. Where did you get the theory that the language spoken by the gift of tongues is angelic.

“For he that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God; for no man understandeth; but in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.” (1 Corinthians 14:2)



I didn't say it was angelic.

 

[1stcenturylady]

“For he that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God; for no man understandeth; but in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.” (1 Corinthians 14:2)



I didn't say it was angelic.

So you are saying that a heavenly tongue is not angelic? Not even the angels understand it.

 

[Dave L]

So you are saying that a heavenly tongue is not angelic? Not even the angels understand it.

I think Paul is using "angles" to prove a point about love, He probably could have used Seraphims or Cherubims just as easily.

 

[1stcenturylady]

I think Paul is using "angles" to prove a point about love, He probably could have used Seraphims or Cherubims just as easily.

Back out of 1 Corinthians 13 please. Go back to 1 Corinthians 14:2. Do angels understand that heavenly language? And where did you get "heavenly language."

 

[Dave L]

Back out of 1 Corinthians 13 please. Go back to 1 Corinthians 14:2. Do angels understand that heavenly language? And where did you get "heavenly language."

I assume angles talk to each other.

 

[1stcenturylady]

I assume angles talk to each other.

What language?

 

[Dave L]

What language?

You might google it....

 

[1stcenturylady]

You might google it....

Can angels understand tongues?

 

[Richard T]

Acts 1:15 suggests there were as many as 120 people in the Upper Room. I think some spoke in heavenly languages, while some spoke in earthly languages that were not their own. Sometimes the latter happens in modern times as there are examples of people that have spoken in foreign languages that they did not know to others that could understand. According to
"The literature from the charismatic movement does report a number of cases of T-speech (tongues) in nonrecalled foreign languages.18 But these cases do not display the completeness of documentation that linguists would like. In many cases the reports are vague and other explanations are possible. But in a few cases the evidence is difficult to evade. These cases will be rejected only by those whose theological or philosophical presuppositions require them to exclude such a possibility.19 https://frame-poythress.org/linguis...speaking-their-contributions-and-limitations/

 

[Dave L]

Can angels understand tongues?

Who knows?

 

[1stcenturylady]

Who knows?

You are bored, I see. And here I thought you were a fellow scholar. I'm never bored in learning.

I think you may be right in that it is a heavenly language that neither men nor angels know, only God. In other words, no created beings understand tongues. Therefore, they must be interpreted. Though I'm not throwing out 1 Corinthians 13 as showing that tongues are actual languages of men and of angels just yet, just not understood by anyone present. But the first theory is more plausible. As soon as we think we know it all, we stop learning and get bored.

As for your interpretation of verse 21-23, it is all in the type. It is not about 70 A.D., especially now after the fact.

 

[Saint Steven]

No. But they did in the early church.

How did you arrive at that conclusion?
That when the early church spoke in tongues they understood it?
And why would that not be true today? What changed?

 

[Dave L]

How did you arrive at that conclusion?
That when the early church spoke in tongues they understood it?
And why would that not be true today? What changed?

Understanding what was said was the basis for Edification. Paul said people who speak in tongues edify themselves. But unless they interpret (translate) others are not edified. But this was twofold. We read scripture and know what it says, but many times we do not know what it means unless we interpret. Or first translate it. Interpret carries both definitions in Greek.

 

[Kiterius]

I'm not aware of any so far.

Then I am not continuing the discussion with you.

 

[1stcenturylady]

How did you arrive at that conclusion?
That when the early church spoke in tongues they understood it?
And why would that not be true today? What changed?

This is what I wrote him and he told me it was predicting the 70 A.D. destruction of Jerusalem.

When 1 Corinthians 14:2 says that no man understand, it means the speaker also. Your theory that because the speaker is "edified" he must understand what he is saying is totally shot down by 13 Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.

In what natural way is that edifying? It edifies our spirit, not our mind.

So now that 70 A.D. is past, what is it predicting now?

 

[Dave L]

This is what I wrote him and he told me it was predicting the 70 A.D. destruction of Jerusalem.

When 1 Corinthians 14:2 says that no man understand, it means the speaker also. Your theory that because the speaker is "edified" he must understand what he is saying is totally shot down by 13 Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.

In what natural way is that edifying? It edifies our spirit, not our mind.

So now that 70 A.D. is past, what is it predicting now?

Paul was in the third heaven and understood spiritually what his mind did not. The basis for edification is knowing what was said. So all who spoke in tongues knew what they were saying at a spiritual level even if the flesh/mind did not.

 

[Saint Steven]

Understanding what was said was the basis for Edification. Paul said people who speak in tongues edify themselves. But unless they interpret (translate) others are not edified. But this was twofold. We read scripture and know what it says, but many times we do not know what it means unless we interpret. Or first translate it. Interpret carries both definitions in Greek.

If we put all that together, wouldn't we have to conclude that tongues are NOT edifying today?

I can't speak for you, but I'm not comfortable with that conclusion at all.
Am I missing something?

 

[Dave L]

If we put all that together, wouldn't we have to conclude that tongues are NOT edifying today?

I can't speak for you, but I'm not comfortable with that conclusion at all.
Am I missing something?

I think it is between you and the Lord. It would be good to study the cessationist views as well as the continuationist views. I can see both. I've spent years speaking in tongues but do not notice any lessening of my spirituality when I do not.

 

[Saint Steven]

This is what I wrote him and he told me it was predicting the 70 A.D. destruction of Jerusalem.

When 1 Corinthians 14:2 says that no man understand, it means the speaker also. Your theory that because the speaker is "edified" he must understand what he is saying is totally shot down by 13 Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.

In what natural way is that edifying? It edifies our spirit, not our mind.

So now that 70 A.D. is past, what is it predicting now?

I halfway agree with what the thread starter is saying about Acts chapter 2,
but I am not onboard with either the basis in 1 Corinthians 14 or the extension of
that idea in general tongue speaking or the conclusion about today.

He is basing the definition of tongues on a single verse.
What else does the Apostles, and the whole NT for that matter, say about tongues?
How else is it defined? I think someone else raised this example earlier.

1 Corinthians 13:1
If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love,
I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.

 

[Saint Steven]

I think it is between you and the Lord. It would be good to study the cessationist views as well as the continuationist views. I can see both. I've spent years speaking in tongues but do not notice any lessening of my spirituality when I do not.

As you may already know, I'm not a big fan of the Cessationist views.
(currently posted part 12 of 18 posts against them)