Did Jesus speak in tongues?

[TheScottsMen]

How is it you say Jesus did not speak in various tongues, I thought he knew both Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew. Are you saying that he spoke in no tongues at all? Was he mute?

I'm thinking you have know idea what Pentecostals/Charismatic mean by the gift of tongues? If so, wouldn't your comment be better used as a question, rather than debating which you are not allowed to do if you are not Charismatic/Pentecostal? The only person you are making look unknowledgeable with your response, is yourself.

 

[Big Mouth Nana]

I'm thinking you have know idea what Pentecostals/Charismatic mean by the gift of tongues? If so, wouldn't your comment be better used as a question, rather than debating which you are not allowed to do if you are not Charismatic/Pentecostal? The only person you are making look unknowledgeable with your response, is yourself.

WHOA....I'm outta here, lol.

 

[on fire 4 christ]

IT WAS HEAVANLY LANGUAGE SO I THINK HE DID IF IT CAME FROM HEAVAN

IT CAME FROM GODS MOUTH THEN CUASE WHATEVER HE SAYS WILL COME TO

PAST

 

[Flavius]

G-d spoke to the Israel and the stranger from a fire on the day of Pentacost when he gave the law and everyman heard his voice.The people said {don't let G-d speak to us again}.The day of Pentacost in Yeshuah's day was no different,G-d hovered in toungues above the desciples heads and this time he didn't speak to the people but the desciples spoke for him and everyone heard in their own native tounges.

I spoke in toungues for 25 years but I quit a few years ago when I learned of the first Pentacost and when I learned how corrinthians was written.

Paul quoted what the corrinthians said and then he rebuked them on many accounts just like he did about the rule where women shouldn't speak in church.He quoted what the corrinthians wrote to him in a letter and then he rebuked them for it.

He did the same thing about tounges but everyone takes it like they are all Paul's words and their not.

Cor 14-2 for he who speaks in a toungue does not speak to men but to G-d

Cor 14-21-With men and other toungues and other lips I will speak to this people.

See the contradictions? There are many in Corrinthians and I don't understand it all but I see the contradictions and I know how the book was written.

Look back at chapter 7 where he says,Now concerning the things you wrote unto me.The problem is figuring out where Paul is quoting them and where he starts rebuking them for what they wrote.

Look in corrinthians and find the {WHAT? 's}

Look at where he speaks of women saying they should stay home and ask their husbands for it is shamefull for women to speak in church,the next verse says-WHAT? Did the word of G-d come originally from you?

 

[Father Rick]

Flavius...

I don't know where you got that from, but that is WAY off base buddy.

If for no other reason than you are ignoring several other places where Paul addresses this. In one place he says "I thank God I speak in tongues more than you all, but in the church I had rather speak 5 words with understand that I might be able to teach.." Another place he says "Let every one of you... have a tongue, have a revelation..." etc, etc.

Paul was commending speaking in tongues, both privately (more than you all) and with restriction in the corporate meeting...

p.s. I do agree with you however about tongues of fire appearing at Sinai... there is a brief allusion to it in the scripture (the people SAW thunders, and lightnings and the sounding of the trumpet-- notice, they saw thunder?!?! ) and the Midrashic writings describe 70 tongues of fire setting on the Israelites-- at that time there were 70 known languages/70 tongues of fire, at the time of Pentecost there were 120 known languages/120 tongues of fire-- interesting, huh?

 

[Jim B]

G-d spoke to the Israel and the stranger from a fire on the day of Pentacost when he gave the law and everyman heard his voice.The people said {don't let G-d speak to us again}.The day of Pentacost in Yeshuah's day was no different,G-d hovered in toungues above the desciples heads and this time he didn't speak to the people but the desciples spoke for him and everyone heard in their own native tounges.

I spoke in toungues for 25 years but I quit a few years ago when I learned of the first Pentacost and when I learned how corrinthians was written.

Paul quoted what the corrinthians said and then he rebuked them on many accounts just like he did about the rule where women shouldn't speak in church.He quoted what the corrinthians wrote to him in a letter and then he rebuked them for it.

He did the same thing about tounges but everyone takes it like they are all Paul's words and their not.

Cor 14-2 for he who speaks in a toungue does not speak to men but to G-d

Cor 14-21-With men and other toungues and other lips I will speak to this people.

See the contradictions? There are many in Corrinthians and I don't understand it all but I see the contradictions and I know how the book was written.

Look back at chapter 7 where he says,Now concerning the things you wrote unto me.The problem is figuring out where Paul is quoting them and where he starts rebuking them for what they wrote.

Look in corrinthians and find the {WHAT? 's}

Look at where he speaks of women saying they should stay home and ask their husbands for it is shamefull for women to speak in church,the next verse says-WHAT? Did the word of G-d come originally from you?

Huh?



Jim
\o/

 

[Flavius]

Flavius...

I don't know where you got that from, but that is WAY off base buddy.

If for no other reason than you are ignoring several other places where Paul addresses this. In one place he says "I thank God I speak in tongues more than you all, but in the church I had rather speak 5 words with understand that I might be able to teach.." Another place he says "Let every one of you... have a tongue, have a revelation..." etc, etc.

Paul was commending speaking in tongues, both privately (more than you all) and with restriction in the corporate meeting...

p.s. I do agree with you however about tongues of fire appearing at Sinai... there is a brief allusion to it in the scripture (the people SAW thunders, and lightnings and the sounding of the trumpet-- notice, they saw thunder?!?! ) and the Midrashic writings describe 70 tongues of fire setting on the Israelites-- at that time there were 70 known languages/70 tongues of fire, at the time of Pentecost there were 120 known languages/120 tongues of fire-- interesting, huh?

I understand your frustration of what I wrote but the facts remain that many places Paul quotes their rules and then he rebukes them for it.

1st cor 11-22 WHAT? have you not houses to eat and drink in? or despise ye the church of G-d and shame them that have not.

look at this verse{22} and explain to me excactly what verses above it was Paul refering to.Paul just got through quoting the Corrinthian rules.

1st cor 11-15. But if a women have long hair,it is a glory to her for her hair is givin to her for a covering,
look at the contradiction right above this verse.

Like I said before,I don't understand it all but I see alot of contradictions and you can't tell where Paul is spaeking or where he is quoting the corrinthians before he rebukes them but let's you and I try to agree one at a time.

1 cor 14-35,and if they learn anything let them ask their husbands at home for it is a shame for a woman to speak in church,verse 36-What? did the word of G-d come origanly from you and to you only?

This is real clear to me that the corrinthians didn't allow women to speak in church and Paul quoted them and then rebuked them.If that is true then when did Paul begin quoting them? there is no warning or seperation.

My question to you is - Did Paul rebuke them in verse 36? Did Paul quote what they said about women and then rebuke them? If not then you must believe that women have no right to speak in church.

I am convinced Paul was rebuking them for saying that about women.If you agree also then where is our warning? How can you decyfer where Paul is speaking and when he is Quoting?

 

[Father Rick]

I understand your frustration of what I wrote but the facts remain that many places Paul quotes their rules and then he rebukes them for it.

1st cor 11-22 WHAT? have you not houses to eat and drink in? or despise ye the church of G-d and shame them that have not.

look at this verse{22} and explain to me excactly what verses above it was Paul refering to.Paul just got through quoting the Corrinthian rules.

1st cor 11-15. But if a women have long hair,it is a glory to her for her hair is givin to her for a covering,
look at the contradiction right above this verse.

Like I said before,I don't understand it all but I see alot of contradictions and you can't tell where Paul is spaeking or where he is quoting the corrinthians before he rebukes them but let's you and I try to agree one at a time.

1 cor 14-35,and if they learn anything let them ask their husbands at home for it is a shame for a woman to speak in church,verse 36-What? did the word of G-d come origanly from you and to you only?

This is real clear to me that the corrinthians didn't allow women to speak in church and Paul quoted them and then rebuked them.If that is true then when did Paul begin quoting them? there is no warning or seperation.

My question to you is - Did Paul rebuke them in verse 36? Did Paul quote what they said about women and then rebuke them? If not then you must believe that women have no right to speak in church.

I am convinced Paul was rebuking them for saying that about women.If you agree also then where is our warning? How can you decyfer where Paul is speaking and when he is Quoting?

I don't know where you 'learned' how Paul wrote Corinthians, but that interpretation of this chapter has never been held by any major scholars at any time throughout Church history that I am aware of.

One of the first rules of Biblical interpretation is to look at the face value of the text first, before trying to find any 'deeper' meanings. If Paul was truly just being sarcastic through this whole book as you say then you are right-- you can't tell what he really meant or not. Why would he deliberately write something that would not be clear-- especially when he was not know to mince words. This sarcasm also would not be consist with his other writings in all the other N.T. books-- in other words, it just wasn't his style. Yes, he sometimes addressed actions (not rules) such as the Chapter 11 passage where he states:"when you get together...one is hungry, another is drunk" Then brings correction. There is no sarcasm at all in this passage-- he is actually very plain spoken with what he means.

Back to the tongues issue though-- in Chapter 14, Paul is not quoting their rules then ridiculing them. The problem was that there were no rules so he was laying some down for the first time. And in doing so he makes it clear "I would that you all spoke with tongues" (vs 5) but that in the general assembly it was better to speak where others could understand so that everyone could be edified not just the speaker (vs 4). The exception is when there is an interpreter because when one speaks in tongues then it is interpretted, everyone now understands and are edified. For this reason he says that he who speaks in tongues should pray that he may interpret (vs 13). He does not say that he who speaks in tongues should stop doing do-- rather that it should be done in a way to edify the Body. He then continues to say he will pray both ways, with the Spirit and with his understanding (vs 14-15).

I think whoever was trying to 'help' you interpret this passage tried to take a lot of little pieces out of context and tear them apart bit by bit instead of looking at the big picture.

As to the women issue-- that has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads. His answer not to talk was not quoting rules, but rather establishing guidelines about not disrupting a service by talking out loud and asking questions across the room while someone else is speaking. (Something right in line with his other teachings here about letting things be done 'decently and in order')

 

[Svt4Him]

Runs out and checks what room he's in....runs back in and rereads the posts...runs out again not to return today...

 

[Trish1947]

Did Jesus speak in Tongues? I have no idea.. There is nothing saying that he did. He had the Spirit without measure given to Him, so it probably was not necessary. Did He say we would, after the Holy Spirit was given to us? Yes.

On the day of Penticost, the Apostles were marveling what was taking place. They apparently had not heard this before. This was new, the Holy Spirit coming to fill all believers that day. If they had heard Jesus speaking in tongues other than his "known" tongues, I think they would have wrote that down somewhere in scripture.

 

[Flavius]

I don't know where you 'learned' how Paul wrote Corinthians, but that interpretation of this chapter has never been held by any major scholars at any time throughout Church history that I am aware of.

I think whoever was trying to 'help' you interpret this passage tried to take a lot of little pieces out of context and tear them apart bit by bit instead of looking at the big picture.

QUOTE]

Unfortunatly most of my beliefs aren't held by any scholars that I know of because I have never heard anyone interpret what Paul says about women or about the toungues.That's my own understanding as I studied it and I don't feel a need to agree with anyone on the subject.I mean I believe what I believe but if you disagree it's cause your own conscience leads you that way.

Why do you think it is that all the sudden Paul just blurts out{WHAT?} Did the word of G-d originate from you and you only? I havn't talked or read about Corrinthians in a couple years cause I studied it night and day for years trying to figure it out and the reasons for the contradictions in it because the word of G-d should have no contradiction but 1st Corrinthians does and there inlies my frustration.I listed a few to you in the last post but thats not all there is.

I guess we can clock it up to us disagreeing on the subject.I still don't understand where you stand on that woman issue because as you say Paul doesnt mince words but he states that women aren't allowed to speak in church and thats very clear if you take that as a rule of Paul.I have seen many people try and explain it as to give women a right to speak but it seems black and white to me.A yes or no question.either they do or they don't have the right and if thats true it kinda builds a foundation of the general attitude we all as christians should look upon women.If I beleieved that Paul said women had no right to speak in church,I would have to say that women have no right to even talk about G-d on here because I would stand by what he said.

 

[Father Rick]

Unfortunatly most of my beliefs aren't held by any scholars that I know of because I have never heard anyone interpret what Paul says about women or about the toungues.That's my own understanding as I studied it and I don't feel a need to agree with anyone on the subject.I mean I believe what I believe but if you disagree it's cause your own conscience leads you that way.

2 Peter 1 says:

19 So F11 we have the R48 prophetic word made more sure, R49 to which you do well to pay attention as to a R50 lamp shining in a dark place, until the day R51 dawns and the morning R52 star arises in R53 your hearts. 20 But know R54 this first of all, that no R55 prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 for no R56 prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved R57 by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

It is incorrect to just 'decide' what you want scripture to think. That is exactly the problem being addressed here. You are deciding on your own what you think scripture should say, but your interpretation is causing problems and 'contradictions'.

This is one of the reasons that God designed it so that the Body of Christ needs each other. So that we can keep each other 'in check'. One of the best ways to do that is to read/study those who are trained in biblical interpretaton and gain insights from them.

As to the issue of women-- we can discuss that in a different thread. This one is far enough off topic as it is.

 

[accurate]

I'm thinking you have know idea what Pentecostals/Charismatic mean by the gift of tongues? If so, wouldn't your comment be better used as a question, rather than debating which you are not allowed to do if you are not Charismatic/Pentecostal? The only person you are making look unknowledgeable with your response, is yourself.

My comments were in the form of a question and it does not matter anyways. I am charismatic, all people of the Spirit are. Yes, I do know what charismatic people mean by the gift of tongues. It is exemplified in Acts 2:6 & 11, "every man heard them speak in his own language. . . . we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God". Not all charismatic people acknowledge the truth of Acts 2:6,11;11:15.

You, being charismatic, do you believe that the purpose of this gift of tongues is outlined in Acts 1:8, where it says, "But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. ", also being the sign to unbelievers in knowledge of the Isa 28:11 prophecy as it had its effect on the Judeans, both Jews and Proselytes, in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost?

Fulfillment of Isa 28:11 - "But he will speak to this nation . . ."
Act 2:11 ". . . we hear them speaking in our languages the mighty works of God!"

Fulfillment of Isa 28:12 - ". . . yet they would not hear"
Act 2:13 Others, mocking, said, "They are filled with new wine."

If your charismatic teachings are in agreement with the charismatic teachings of scripture shown above, I see no problems.

 

[Flavius]

2 Peter 1 says:

It is incorrect to just 'decide' what you want scripture to think. That is exactly the problem being addressed here. You are deciding on your own what you think scripture should say, but your interpretation is causing problems and 'contradictions'.

This is one of the reasons that God designed it so that the Body of Christ needs each other. So that we can keep each other 'in check'. One of the best ways to do that is to read/study those who are trained in biblical interpretaton and gain insights from them.

As to the issue of women-- we can discuss that in a different thread. This one is far enough off topic as it is.

Father rick,You dismissed me without any debate in a broad manner.You didnt address what I said but you said I decided what I wanted scripture to be when in fact the scripture contradicts itself.You said I decided what scripture should say without debating what the actual scripture means in a general sense.You said we should keep each other in check but in fact you wont adress the questions I asked.You said my interpretation is causing problems and contradictions when in fact the scripture itself causes contradictions.

I ask you again,one more time about corrinthians,does Paaul state that women shouldnt speak in church or not? thats the question.

All of 1st corrinthians is in question.Do you take it literally or not?

Paul said women should not speak in church,what say you?

I say that Paul in fact did not say that women shouldnt speak in church but he rebuked the corrinthian church for saying so.

What is your answer,You say this doesn't have anything to do with speaking in toungues but it has everything to do with speaking in tounges.

The question is-where does Paul speak and where does Paul quote the corrinthians?

 

[Father Rick]

Flavius...

As to the women issue-- that has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads. His answer not to talk was not quoting rules, but rather establishing guidelines about not disrupting a service by talking out loud and asking questions across the room while someone else is speaking. (Something right in line with his other teachings here about letting things be done 'decently and in order')

I did answer your question about women--see above-- but that is not the point of THIS thread. As said before, I will be happy to discuss that... this is just not the correct thread.

As to not debating the issue...

One of the first rules of Biblical interpretation is to look at the face value of the text first, before trying to find any 'deeper' meanings. If Paul was truly just being sarcastic through this whole book as you say then you are right-- you can't tell what he really meant or not. Why would he deliberately write something that would not be clear-- especially when he was not know to mince words. This sarcasm also would not be consist with his other writings in all the other N.T. books-- in other words, it just wasn't his style. Yes, he sometimes addressed actions (not rules) such as the Chapter 11 passage where he states:"when you get together...one is hungry, another is drunk" Then brings correction. There is no sarcasm at all in this passage-- he is actually very plain spoken with what he means.

Back to the tongues issue though-- in Chapter 14, Paul is not quoting their rules then ridiculing them. The problem was that there were no rules so he was laying some down for the first time. And in doing so he makes it clear "I would that you all spoke with tongues" (vs 5) but that in the general assembly it was better to speak where others could understand so that everyone could be edified not just the speaker (vs 4). The exception is when there is an interpreter because when one speaks in tongues then it is interpretted, everyone now understands and are edified. For this reason he says that he who speaks in tongues should pray that he may interpret (vs 13). He does not say that he who speaks in tongues should stop doing do-- rather that it should be done in a way to edify the Body. He then continues to say he will pray both ways, with the Spirit and with his understanding (vs 14-15).

I think you will see I did answer/debate the issues regarding tongues, as well as the issue of the method of interpretation you are using. I don't know what else you would like... but again, this thread is specifically about Jesus/tongues, not about women talking in church, women's hair, etc that you are trying to bring into the discussion.

I guess you are saying that the issue is the manner in which Paul is writing (using sarcasm), yet you readily admit that this is an interpretation you came up with on your own and is not/has not been the teaching of the Church at any time in history. I will be happy to discuss those issues with you, just in a different thread so that this one is not sidetracked any more than it already has been.

 

[theflounder]

I don't think you could have said that any better, Father Rick.

 

[Svt4Him]

What's happened to this thread?

 

[Father Rick]

What's happened to this thread?

:topic: :topic: :topic: :topic: :topic:

That's what's happened... we got WWWAAAAAYYYYYY off topic...

 

[Jim B]

:topic: :topic: :topic: :topic: :topic:

That's what's happened... we got WWWAAAAAYYYYYY off topic...

These threads do that?

Sigh.

\o/

 

[Flavius]

That's what's happened... we got WWWAAAAAYYYYYY off topic...

You say it got off topic but it didn't,I'm not gonna post here anymore but my proof about toungues has everything to do with women speaking in church and the other problems I stated because its all related.To build a foundation about toungues,I was trying to relate how corrinthians was written and the only way I could do that is to show the contradition in that chapter and how you can't always tell where Paul is speaking or where he is quoting.The contradictions are there,to say that there not is kinda silly,I was just looking for an answer for them.