Do Pentecostals really speak in Languages? The Research

[Alithis]

Tongues "other" than their own. Tongues which were "new" to them.

doesn't say only new "to them " just said other tongues and new tongues .
thus fully possible as new to all mankind .

 

[LaSorcia]

this is so ridiculously missing the point and the context it was given in as a reply to another post

I don't think so. You stated that the Hail Mary prayer was vain repetition. I was quoting the whole bible verse to say that the prayer wasn't inherently wrong due to being repetitive. I also can't stand to see Protestant bashing of Catholics, and Catholic bashing of Protestants.

If I've missed something else that you were trying to say, please tell me. I (almost) always seek unity and common ground over debate.

 

[swordsman1]

doesn't say only new "to them " just said other tongues and new tongues .
thus fully possible as new to all mankind .

It says the disciples began to "speak in other tongues". Then it tells you precisely what those other tongues were: "Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs"

There was nothing "new" about those languages, apart from being new to the disciples.

 

[Widlast]

and the language of the holy Spirit who has no physical form being that he is "SPIRIT ' .. is his language "real" ?

Name 1 time in all of scripture that God the Father, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit has ever spoken to anyone in a manner they could not understand. The whole point of communication is the transfer of ideas. Speaking what can't be understood is a complete and utter waste of time.

 

[Jezmeyah]

In Acts 2:4-11 the disciples spoke in foreign human languages at Pentecost. I don't see anywhere in scripture where tongues is redefined as something else.

I agree. The various foreign countries are mentioned in verses 9-10.

Backing up to Acts 2:4, And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other G2087 [heteros] tongues G1100 [glossa], as the Spirit gave them utterance.

The Greek word [heteros] is not used in any other verse where the believers are said to speak in tongues, but only the Greek word [glossa].

Clearly that indicates (1) a unique occurrence of the gathering hearing the various human languages, in contrast with the indicated uniqueness in all instances after that day of (2) those who speak with glossa that is not of any human language.

(1) The gathered people in Acts 2:4 on the day of Pentecost heard the Galileans speak in the varieties of the foreign languages represented.

(2) In the following examples, the word [heteros] is not used.

Acts 10:46 They were hearing them speaking in tongues G1100 [glossa] and exalting God. Acts 10:45 The gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles.

It didn't say that they were hearing them speaking in foreign human languages.

1 Cor.14:18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues G1100 [glossa] more than ye all.

1 Cor.13:1 Though I speak with the tongues G1100 [glossa] of men and of angels..

Surely speaking the glossa of men, and the glossa of angels is not comparable with speaking a known foreign human language.

The same word appears in Acts 9:36 "Now in Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha (which translated in Greek is called Dorcas)"

Acts 9:36 is a fine example of the writer translating a Hebrew name to Greek for benefit of the readers.

By your use of Acts 9:36, your position is that the use of the word interpretation concerning a way of knowing what is said by those who speak in tongues, is no more than translation G1329 [Diermeneuo] by natural means.

The word 'interpret' in relation to tongues in 1 Corinthians is the greek word diermēneuō, which in the context of languages means to translate.

I have done a search in the Blue Letter Bible tools to find that you are mistaken.

For instance, in 1 Cor.12:10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another, divers kinds of tongues G1100 [glossa]; to another the interpretation G2058 [hermēneia] of tongues G1100 [glossa].

Clearly the Holy Spirit does not give the ability to translate [Diermeneuo] foreign [heteros] languages.. not when translating one human language to another can be learned by natural means.

It would be impossible for any translator of known languages to translate by natural means the glossalia spoken by those who speak in tongues by utterance of the Holy Spirit.
Only a person born again, and filled with the Holy Spirit can be given the ability.

The word 'interpretation' is used rather than the word 'translation' to indicate the divine function involved. It shows that God does for the believers, what cannot be done by natural means because the divinely given utterance cannot etymologically be examined, studied and translated in the manner that the writer of Acts 9:36 translated by natural knowledge, the Hebrew name for the Greek speaking audience.

 

[ViaCrucis]

As Apostle Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 13:1:

"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal."

the language that Christians speak when they are speaking in tongues can be either earthly languages or heavenly languages; and if it's heavenly; then it's no wonder that linguists can't find any "earthly" understanding of them.

This tends to be the key proof text latched on to for "heavenly languages", the problem is that doing so is a bit like taking the statement Paul makes about baptism for the dead and attempting to construct a brand new theological idea from it.

The only examples of glossolalia in use in Scripture are human languages; and given the fact that Paul isn't teaching here that there is a "tongues ... of angels" but highlighting the supremacy of love--the more excellent way and the greatest charism there is--then it suffices that Paul is using such things as an example of something that would no doubt be very amazing, but it wouldn't compare to love.

I have further questions as well: What use do angels, lacking bodily members including a tongue, a larynx, etc have for language; specifically the construction of audible phonemes strung together into meaningful structures in order to communicate concepts and ideas?

Frankly, I think pivoting to the idea that modern glossolalia is in fact a "heavenly language" to largely be an ad hoc defense of the practice in the face of valid concern and criticism, a means of establishing a non-falsifiable claim to avoid scrutiny.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Alithis]

Name 1 time in all of scripture that God the Father, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit has ever spoken to anyone in a manner they could not understand. The whole point of communication is the transfer of ideas. Speaking what can't be understood is a complete and utter waste of time.

obviously a lot he said you have not been able to understand ..

 

[Alithis]

act

It says the disciples began to "speak in other tongues". Then it tells you precisely what those other tongues were: "Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs"

There was nothing "new" about those languages, apart from being new to the disciples.

actualy it says men of those languages heard them speaking in thier own language..so 3 men of 3 different languages could hear one man speaking thier own language... but that would be a miricle a sign and a wonder .

.......

 

[Alithis]

s

This tends to be the key proof text latched on to for "heavenly languages", the problem is that doing so is a bit like taking the statement Paul makes about baptism for the dead and attempting to construct a brand new theological idea from it.

The only examples of glossolalia in use in Scripture are human languages; and given the fact that Paul isn't teaching here that there is a "tongues ... of angels" but highlighting the supremacy of love--the more excellent way and the greatest charism there is--then it suffices that Paul is using such things as an example of something that would no doubt be very amazing, but it wouldn't compare to love.

I have further questions as well: What use do angels, lacking bodily members including a tongue, a larynx, etc have for language; specifically the construction of audible phonemes strung together into meaningful structures in order to communicate concepts and ideas?

Frankly, I think pivoting to the idea that modern glossolalia is in fact a "heavenly language" to largely be an ad hoc defense of the practice in the face of valid concern and criticism, a means of establishing a non-falsifiable claim to avoid scrutiny.

-CryptoLutheran

scrutinize all you want..just be aware that when your done doing so to men..it is The Holy Spirit your scrutinizing...

 

[Alithis]

Name 1 time in all of scripture that God the Father, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit has ever spoken to anyone in a manner they could not understand. The whole point of communication is the transfer of ideas. Speaking what can't be understood is a complete and utter waste of time.

the question i asked you is
...and the language of the holy Spirit who has no physical form being that he is "SPIRIT ' .. is his language "real" ?
.. answer that first

 

[SteveCaruso]

scrutinize all you want..just be aware that when your done doing so to men..it is The Holy Spirit your scrutinizing...

"You're"

 

[Alithis]

"You're"

Haha ..yes sorry... You're...

 

[swordsman1]

I agree. The various foreign countries are mentioned in verses 9-10.

Backing up to Acts 2:4, And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other G2087 [heteros] tongues G1100 [glossa], as the Spirit gave them utterance.

The Greek word [heteros] is not used in any other verse where the believers are said to speak in tongues, but only the Greek word [glossa].

Clearly that indicates (1) a unique occurrence of the gathering hearing the various human languages, in contrast with the indicated uniqueness in all instances after that day of (2) those who speak with glossa that is not of any human language.

(1) The gathered people in Acts 2:4 on the day of Pentecost heard the Galileans speak in the varieties of the foreign languages represented.

(2) In the following examples, the word [heteros] is not used.

Acts 10:46 They were hearing them speaking in tongues G1100 [glossa] and exalting God. Acts 10:45 The gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles.

It didn't say that they were hearing them speaking in foreign human languages.

1 Cor.14:18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues G1100 [glossa] more than ye all.

1 Cor.13:1 Though I speak with the tongues G1100 [glossa] of men and of angels..

Surely speaking the glossa of men, and the glossa of angels is not comparable with speaking a known foreign human language.

So, in your mind, "other tongues" means speaking foreign languages, but the word "tongues" on it's own means a non-human language? I must admit, it all my years, I have never come across this novel theory before.

So when the foreigners said "we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!”, it doesn't mean 'our own native languages', it means our own non-human languages?

And when Paul said in 1 Cor 13:1 "If a speak with the tongues of men...", he wasn't referring to the languages of men? Despite 'language' being the meaning of the word glossa in this context:

glóssa: the tongue, a language
Original Word: γλῶσσα, ης, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: glóssa
Phonetic Spelling: (gloce-sah')
Short Definition: the tongue, a language, nation
Definition: the tongue, a language, a nation (usually distinguished by their speech).​

Acts 9:36 is a fine example of the writer translating a Hebrew name to Greek for benefit of the readers.

By your use of Acts 9:36, your position is that the use of the word interpretation concerning a way of knowing what is said by those who speak in tongues, is no more than translation G1329 [Diermeneuo] by natural means.

I have done a search in the Blue Letter Bible tools to find that you are mistaken.

For instance, in 1 Cor.12:10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another, divers kinds of tongues G1100 [glossa]; to another the interpretation G2058 [hermēneia] of tongues G1100 [glossa].

1 Cor 14:5 "The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets [diermēneuō], so that the church may be edified.

1 Cor 14:13 "For this reason the one who speaks in a tongue should pray that they may interpret [diermēneuō] what they say."

1 Cor 14:27 "If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret [diermēneuō]."

1 Cor 14:28 " If there is no interpreter [diermēneutēs], the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God."​

The same word that appears in:

Acts 9:36 "Now in Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha (which translated [diermēneuō] in Greek is called Dorcas)"​

It would be impossible for any translator of known languages to translate by natural means the glossalia spoken by those who speak in tongues by utterance of the Holy Spirit.
Only a person born again, and filled with the Holy Spirit can be given the ability.

Why not? If someone miraculously spoke in Persian, and there was someone else present who knew Persian, then they would be able to interpret.

The word 'interpretation' is used rather than the word 'translation' to indicate the divine function involved. It shows that God does for the believers, what cannot be done by natural means because the divinely given utterance cannot etymologically be examined, studied and translated in the manner that the writer of Acts 9:36 translated by natural knowledge, the Hebrew name for the Greek speaking audience.

The words are synonymous in the context of languages:

interpret
ɪnˈtəːprɪt/Submit
verb
1. explain the meaning of (information or actions).
"the evidence is difficult to interpret"
synonyms: explain, elucidate, expound, explicate, clarify, make clear, make plain, illuminate, shed light on, throw light on; More
2. translate orally or into sign language the words of a person speaking a different language.
"I agreed to interpret for Jean-Claude"
synonyms: translate, transcribe, transliterate, rewrite, convert; paraphrase
"the book was interpreted for English-speaking readers"​

 

[swordsman1]

act

actualy it says men of those languages heard them speaking in thier own language..so 3 men of 3 different languages could hear one man speaking thier own language... but that would be a miricle a sign and a wonder .

.......

So the miracle was not in the speaking of the disciples, but in the hearing of the crowd? The Holy Spirit fell on the crowd and caused them to miraculously have the gift of interpretation in their ears? And not a hint in the Acts 2 narrative of such an amazing miracle of interpretation taking place? Rather it says:

"All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them."

"And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language"​

 

[Alithis]

So the miracle was not in the speaking of the disciples, but in the hearing of the crowd? The Holy Spirit fell on the crowd and caused them to miraculously have the gift of interpretation in their ears? And not a hint in the Acts 2 narrative of such an amazing miracle of interpretation taking place? Rather it says:

"All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them."

"And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language"​

exactly just like it says ..the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language"..

it was a sign and a wonder . amazing aint it

 

[swordsman1]

exactly just like it says ..the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language"..

it was a sign and a wonder . amazing aint it

Yes it was a sign and a wonder. I too would be amazed if someone started to miraculously speak a foreign language they never learned.

 

[Alithis]

Yes it was a sign and a wonder. I too would be amazed if someone started to miraculously speak a foreign language they never learned.

they were in a foreign country ..hearing some one speak in a foreign language is nothing new nor amazing .
they did not personally know the people speaking ,so how could they know the person had not learned the language ? there is nothing astounding about that at all ..
what IS astounding is when the person next to you hears the same guy speaking their language while you hear that same guy speaking yours .. now that's amazing .. and the text does say .. a crowd came together at the noise and they were BEWILDERED .. because what they were hearing was impossible

 

[swordsman1]

they were in a foreign country ..hearing some one speak in a foreign language is nothing new nor amazing .
they did not personally know the people speaking ,so how could they know the person had not learned the language ? there is nothing astounding about that at all ..

The foreigners knew the disciples were uneducated Galileans: "Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans?" They clearly spoke with them afterwards (in Hebrew) and discovered this fact together with the fact that they didn't know their language but were speaking it miraculously.

what IS astounding is when the person next to you hears the same guy speaking their language while you hear that same guy speaking yours .. now that's amazing .. and the text does say .. a crowd came together at the noise and they were BEWILDERED .. because what they were hearing was impossible

That is not what the text says happened. You are reading something into the passage that isn't there. There is no mention of miraculous interpretation taking place in the passage. Only miraculous speaking:

All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.​

 

[Postvieww]

Although Jesus blew on the disciples, it doesn't say they received the Holy Spirit at that point. In John 7:39 and John 16:7 Jesus specifically says the disciples would not receive the Holy Spirit while He was with them, but that He would send the Spirit only after he had departed to be with the Father. If they received the Spirit when Jesus blew on them, then Jesus was lying. No, Jesus was simply giving them a visual illustration and a future command in preparation for Pentecost.

swordsman1 said:

Although Jesus blew on the disciples, it doesn't say they received the Holy Spirit at that point.

Then I could counter, it does not say they did not so I guess we must look deeper.


In John 7:39 and John 16:7 Jesus specifically says the disciples would not receive the Holy Spirit while He was with them, but that He would send the Spirit only after he had departed to be with the Father.


John 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)


To use your method of interpretation this passage does not say “the disciples would not receive the Holy Spirit while He was with them, but that He would send the Spirit only after he had departed to be with the Father” It does say the Holy Spirit was not yet given ;because that Jesus was not yet glorified.


I submit to you in John 20 Jesus was already risen and glorified. He had already been to heaven and returned. Proved by the fact He told Mary in John 20:17 not to touch him yet because He had not yet ascended and He allowed Thomas to touch Him in Jon 20:27, I believe that shows between the time He spoke to Mary and Thomas Jesus ascended to heaven and returned, which is another topic.


John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you


Does this passage mean the Holy Spirit could in no way be here until after Jesus left or does it mean that the Holy Spirit would come in a new way with a new mission after Jesus left. I believe scripture shows it is the later.


I believe if you had said He would send the Holy Spirit for the empowering of the church after He left that would have been more accurate.


The Holy Spirit was here while Jesus was here as well as before Jesus became flesh.


Matthew 1:18, Matthew 3:16, Luke 1:15, Luke 1:41, Luke 1:67, Luke 2:25-26, Luke 3:22, Luke 4:1

If they received the Spirit when Jesus blew on them, then Jesus was lying.

I don’t think so. Those are strong words, I do not believe scripture backs your point. It should be obvious that John 16:7 does not mean the spirit could be here in no way until Jesus left.

No, Jesus was simply giving them a visual illustration and a future command in preparation for Pentecost.

In my opinion you have reverse engineered that conclusion. You have started with your theory on what happened in Acts 2 and determined what happened in John 20 was just a “visual illustration” with no basis in the reality of what happened, because it didn’t fit your scenario.


The question you and I are really disagreeing on is when were the disciple actually born again under the new covenant. The scripture doesn’t just come right out and say it plainly to support either one of our theories. I believe the evidence is substantial for that happening in John 20.


I will in detail explain my position in a separate post just to keep this post from being any longer than it already is.

 

[Postvieww]

Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

According to Paul this is the way of salvation. It matters not that Paul wrote these words long after the event we are discussing, the way of salvation was acted upon by thousands of people before Paul wrote it down. My point is to show the disciples fulfilled all of these requirements in John 20 and did not have to wait for the promise to be endued with power to be born again.

John 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.

3 Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre.

4 So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.

5 And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.

6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,

7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

8 Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.

Note the “other disciple” “believed”. Words mean things are in scripture for a reason.

9 For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.

10 Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.

11 But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre,

12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

13 And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.

14 And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.

15 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.

16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.

Do you think Mary believed God had raised Him from the dead at this point? I sure do.

17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

18 Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her.

19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

20 And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.

Do you believe the rest of the disciples minus Thomas believe God had rased Him from the dead at this point? It sure looks that way to me.

21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

Your claim this is just an illustration and nothing actually happened at this point. I’ll just ask you to provide a corroborating example from scripture where Jesus spoke the words for something to happen and acted as He did by breathing on them and nothing actually happen. This passage does not say nothing happed at this point or does it say this was an object lesson for future reference. When Jesus spoke things happened, we will just have to agree to disagree on this point. In my opinion something very significant happened here.

23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

The verse is further evidence some happen here they were given authority .

24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

It is quite clear Thomas did not believe God had raised Jesus from the dead at this point. It is my contention he was not yet born again nor had he received the authority given to the others as yet.

26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

Notice Jesus said he was faithless and admonished him to believe.

28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

Do you think Thomas believed God had raised Jesus from the dead at this point? I sure do.

29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

This verse in my opinion solidly shows Jesus tied the prior event to salvation.

30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

We are not given every small detail of what transpired but we are given enough to understand what happened.

31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

If after reading verse 31 you still have doubts the above passage describes the salvation experience of the disciples there’s nothing else I can say.