praying in tongues glossolia

[Major1]

So you agree with points 1 and 2?

Those people were speaking in there own language but the hears heard WHAT WAS SAID IN their own LANGUAGE.

1 Corinthians 1:22......
"For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:"

God has throughout the history of Israel always used signs to speak His Word to them. All those who heard the Gospel on the Day of Pentecost were Jews or Jewish proselytes. They believed because they witnessed the unmistaken sign miracle of hearing men who had not learned their language speaking to them in their native tongue.

This was the reason that God used this method to tell them of the Messiah and the reason for using the sign gift of tongues. The Bible says that tongues was accompanied by three supernatural acts, the sound of the mighty rushing wind, the appearance of cloven tongues of fire and the speaking the Gospel in a language the men had not learned. The first two are conspicuously absent from what is practiced as tongues today.

Would you like to explain that fact?

 

[Major1]

Is it wrong to pray for yourself?



Prophecy is not mystical? Really? What is your definition of mystical?



You didn't answer the questions though. You are giving thanks well. It is not edifying the church, but you are giving thanks well. And don't forbid doing it either.

From the start you've had a problem with self-edification which does not really make sense. How is one to bless others if he is exhausted and spiritually weak? We take a moment and with our spirit we worship God, thank Him and praise Him.

I hope that you do not think that I am arguing with you. I am not arguing. I respect your opinion.

I am trying to give options and the ability to think and understand to you and to those who read what we say back and forth. A lot of people read comments but do not post anything.

To them may I ask you to consider something which is found in the Bible. When we 1st read about and see "tongues" spoken there was preceding that that event "A mighty rushing wind with cloven tongues of fire."

Now having been in many Pentacostal tongue talking services, there is has never been sign of a mighty rushing wind or cloven tongues of fire.

Why do you think that so many people support tongue talking but no one has ever experienced the requirements that precede it????

THat being the case, wouldn't the logical thinking, Bible reading person then conclude that the tongues as described by the Word of God on the day of Pentecost is not what is seen happening today.

There are only three examples in Scripture that describes tongues and they each are identical with the first occurrence. There is no example in the Bible of tongues being used as a prayer language or anything different than what happen on the Day of Pentecost and the two other recorded occurrences.

Please, please read for yourselves and rely on the Holy Spirit
of God to teach you instead of an internet website.

 

[Goatee]

I hope that you do not think that I am arguing with you. I am not arguing. I respect your opinion.

I am trying to give options and the ability to think and understand to you and to those who read what we say back and forth. A lot of people read comments but do not post anything.

To them may I ask you to consider something which is found in the Bible. When we 1st read about and see "tongues" spoken there was preceding that that event "A mighty rushing wind with cloven tongues of fire."

Now having been in many Pentacostal tongue talking services, there is has never been sign of a mighty rushing wind or cloven tongues of fire.

Why do you think that so many people support tongue talking but no one has ever experienced the requirements that precede it????

THat being the case, wouldn't the logical thinking, Bible reading person then conclude that the tongues as described by the Word of God on the day of Pentecost is not what is seen happening today.

There are only three examples in Scripture that describes tongues and they each are identical with the first occurrence. There is no example in the Bible of tongues being used as a prayer language or anything different than what happen on the Day of Pentecost and the two other recorded occurrences.

Please, please read for yourselves and rely on the Holy Spirit
of God to teach you instead of an internet website.

100% truth. You post eloquently friend.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Those people were speaking in there own language but the hears heard WHAT WAS SAID IN their own LANGUAGE.

1 Corinthians 1:22......
"For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:"

God has throughout the history of Israel always used signs to speak His Word to them. All those who heard the Gospel on the Day of Pentecost were Jews or Jewish proselytes. They believed because they witnessed the unmistaken sign miracle of hearing men who had not learned their language speaking to them in their native tongue.

This was the reason that God used this method to tell them of the Messiah and the reason for using the sign gift of tongues. The Bible says that tongues was accompanied by three supernatural acts, the sound of the mighty rushing wind, the appearance of cloven tongues of fire and the speaking the Gospel in a language the men had not learned. The first two are conspicuously absent from what is practiced as tongues today.

Would you like to explain that fact?

You agree then with points 1 and 2? (You haven't written anything that disagrees).

 

[Major1]

You agree then with points 1 and 2? (You haven't written anything that disagrees).

Tongues were spoken from Jews to Jews about a Jew. So in essecense, yes the purpose would be to verify the gospel message to those Jews who heard the gospel from the Jews who told it too them.

Does it strengthen the church??? How can anything that is false doctrine strengthen the church.

1 Corth. 14:8-9...........
"So with yourselves; if you in a tongue utter speech that is not intelligible,[in a language that no one understands] how will any one know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air."

Now you can disagree with me all day long as I am not the expert and I am not a judge. All I can do is ask that you read and understand the Scriptures. Then after doing so you still think that speaking in a gibberish unintelligible noise is what you WANT to do.....go right ahead.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Tongues were spoken from Jews to Jews about a Jew. So in essecense, yes the purpose would be to verify the gospel message to those Jews who heard the gospel from the Jews who told it too them.

Does it strengthen the church??? How can anything that is false doctrine strengthen the church.

1 Corth. 14:8-9...........
"So with yourselves; if you in a tongue utter speech that is not intelligible,[in a language that no one understands] how will any one know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air."

Now you can disagree with me all day long as I am not the expert and I am not a judge. All I can do is ask that you read and understand the Scriptures. Then after doing so you still think that speaking in a gibberish unintelligible noise is what you WANT to do.....go right ahead.

So you agree with point 1 but you believe tongues doesn't strengthen the church?

 

[Major1]

So you agree with point 1 but you believe tongues doesn't strengthen the church?

1 Corth. 14:22......
"Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers."

1 Corth. 14:4.......
"The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies (teaches) builds up the church.".

I had asked you about responding to the events on tongues in Acts 2.


I had asked............
"When we 1st read about and see "tongues" spoken there was preceding that that event "A mighty rushing wind with cloven tongues of fire."

Now having been in many Pentacostal tongue talking services, there is has never been sign of a mighty rushing wind or cloven tongues of fire.

Why do you think that so many people support tongue talking but no one has ever experienced the requirements that precede it????"

Can you take a moment and respond to that question?

 

[YouAreAwesome]

1 Corth. 14:22......
"Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers."

1 Corth. 14:4.......
"The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies (teaches) builds up the church.".

I had asked you about responding to the events on tongues in Acts 2.


I had asked............
"When we 1st read about and see "tongues" spoken there was preceding that that event "A mighty rushing wind with cloven tongues of fire."

Now having been in many Pentacostal tongue talking services, there is has never been sign of a mighty rushing wind or cloven tongues of fire.

Why do you think that so many people support tongue talking but no one has ever experienced the requirements that precede it????"

Can you take a moment and respond to that question?

So you don't believe tongues strengthens the church. Interesting. I have not come across that view before.

And you are confused by why God would send tongues of fire and a sound like a rushing wind only once? There are a lot of miracles that only occurred one time. Paul was saved by Jesus Himself, must we all have this experience for salvation? I hope you understand my point, one miraculous event does not necessarily create a blue print for all remaining similar events.

 

[Biblicist]

My dear friend, when I use the word "gibberish", I am trying to be nice to you.

If you have been in a meeting where tongues are spoken, you know very well that what is uttered can not be translated as it is NOT a Language at all that can be translated.

Having now been back a couple of days after a very pleasant 7 day break throughout Western Victoria, this means that it is time to jump back into the fray!

Being that our heavenly tongue, which in itself is a language, that it cannot be understood by mere man; and why should the Heavenly hosts be compelled to communicate to one another in one of the languages of those who are a part of the Creation? Though the creation certainly does have a frequent tendency to try and pull down the Creator to its own level of understanding, which means that your point becomes moot as those who were created can never understand the language of the Creator.

Likewise, when some is speaking to you in Spanish, or German or French, you know it is a language but you just can not understand it. But someone who knows the language can tell you what is being said.

Last weekend I met a family from Belgium where the parents spoke superb English but when they spoke to their very young children it was in a form of communication that I did not recognise. When I asked them what language they were speaking in (and it did appear to be language like), they informed me that it was in the Flemish language, which was something that I cannot ever recall hearing as it did not sound anything like what I have heard before.

But the tongues we see in church meetings to day are in no way like that. What it seems to me you are trying to do is to make the utterings and gibberish on the same level as a known language and it is not.

Why should the Holy Spirit be compelled to outwork through the Believer in a manner that is contrary to the Word of God - it makes no sense. I can understand that the role of the Holy Spirit within the New Covenant stands against your world view, but here's the problem, it is a world view that in itself stands square against the Scriptures. As the Spirit will only ever communicate to the Father through an inarticulate form of communication (the heavenly tongue), then the conditions that you have establised have absolutely no bearing on congregational worship.

The noises and gibberish is al "faked" in my opinion. If it was truly a gift given by God.......
why in the world then are there classes given and training on how to speak in this gibberish??????

Well, if those who for various unknown reasons choose to stubbornly hold onto hardcore-cessationism, where they are unable to grasp the simple Biblical principles behind how the Children of God can worship the Father in the Spirit, where we can both petition the Father and magnify his name within the Eschatological downpayment of our heavenly language, then I hardly think that if they were being coached that this would be of any help to them.

Though maybe repeating over and over something along the following lines might be of some assistance;

"Forget human traditions and listen to the Spirit by hearing the Word of God . . .Forget human traditions and listen to the Spirit by hearing the Word of God . . .Forget human traditions and listen to the Spirit by hearing the Word of God"​

 

[Biblicist]

1 Cor 14:2 is not a redefinition of Acts 2 tongues. You are ignoring the context of the chapter 14., which is church meetings.

Even though First Corinthians 12, 13 & 14 is primarily addressing the setting of each local congregation, these chapters still apply across the broader Christian experience particularly when it comes to prayer, as even Paul says in (NRSV) 1Cor 14:18,19

I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you; nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.
​

Paul has now told us that "outside of the congregational meeting" that he speaks in tongues more than any of the Corinthians, so how can you attempt to try and isolate tongues to the congregational meeting alone?

Paul was addressing the problem in the Corinthian house churches which was that some people in their small congrations apoke in a language that no one understood. That doesn't mean it was a non-human language.If someone was speaking say Persian in a small Greek congregation it is not surprising that no one understood. What was said would have been a mystery to them. Only God, who knows all languages, would have understood what was said.

Even though most of the "Corinthian" congregations throughout the Peloponnese (except for the Corinthian Isthmus) would have spoken in Greek, the seaport 'suburbs' of Lechaion, Isthmia and Cenchrae would have employed a mixture of Latin and Greek along with the various other Mediterranean languages that regularly passed through these very busy ports.

As for the Roman City of Corinth which was the Roman capital of the region of Archaea, things become a bit more complicated. Though Corinth was a Roman City, for those who were Roman citizens their primary language, while within Corinth, would have been Latin as this was not only the language of the Roman Empire but it was certainly the language of Roman government and commerce. When it comes to the population of slaves, who could have made up anywhere between 10 to 30% of the population of Corinth, besides learning either or both Latin and Greek, they would have also retained their native tongues which means that the various congregations within Corinth would have contained many languages found within the Empire.

So if someone within a congregation within Corinth were to "supposedly" speak in a language from within the regions of the Mediterranean or Asia, then there would have been a strong likelyhood that there would have been a number present who would have understood what could have been "supposedly" said.

But you position is of course speculative as Paul has already told us in (NRSV) 1Cor 14:2 for nobody understands them, since they are speaking mysteries in the Spirit. Paul did not say, "maybe some could not", "on the odd occassion some will" but he said οὐδεὶς oudeis which means NONE will understand.

And nor is 1 Cor 12:10 a redefinition of tongues. 'Kinds' (genos) means family or species, not class or type. The same word is used in 1 Cor 14:10 "There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning"

As the Greek word for “many kinds of sounds” in 1Cor 14:10 is φωνῶν phonon, which is something that you have been told on numerous occasions, then I suppose only you can say why you choose to continue to falsely claim that this is the same Greek word in 1Cor 12:10, when you already know full well that 12:10 uses the Greek γένη gene.

So I will ask the question again. Where in 1 Corinthians does Paul redefine the gift of tongues to be a non-human language?

As the question you pose is merely a contrived meaning by those who are still hardcore-cessationists, then there is no reason to provide an answer.

 

[Biblicist]

Consider the context - no one [in the congregation] understands.

"mysteries" doesn't mean something mystical. The word means something that is hidden.

mustérion
STRONGS NT 3466: μυστήριον
1. a hidden or secret thing, not obvious to the understanding: 1 Corinthians 13:2; 1 Corinthians 14:2; (of the secret rites of the Gentiles, Wis. 14:15, 23).
​

Check out the usage of the same word elsewhere in scripture. Rom. 16:25-26; 1 Cor 2:7 Col. 1:25-27; Eph. 3:4-7; Matt. 13:11; 1 Tim. 3:16

For those who are copying down the references that I regularly provide in this thread, they should find the following information on the Greek word mysterion to be of interest:

1. NIV Romans 11:25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in,
2. NIV Romans 16:25 Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past,
3. NIV 1 Corinthians 2:7 No, we declare God's wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.
4. NIV 1 Corinthians 4:1 This, then, is how you ought to regard us: as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the mysteries God has revealed.
5. NIV 1 Corinthians 13:2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
6. NIV 1 Corinthians 14:2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit.
7. NIV 1 Corinthians 15:51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed--
8. NIV Ephesians 1:9 he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ,
9. NIV Ephesians 3:3 that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly.
10. NIV Ephesians 3:4 In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ,
11. NIV Ephesians 3:6 This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.
12. NIV Ephesians 3:9 and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.
13. NIV Ephesians 5:32 This is a profound mystery-- but I am talking about Christ and the church.
14. NIV Ephesians 6:19 Pray also for me, that whenever I speak, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel,
15. NIV Colossians 1:26 the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the Lord's people.
16. NIV Colossians 1:27 To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.
17. NIV Colossians 2:2 My goal is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ,
18. NIV Colossians 4:3 And pray for us, too, that God may open a door for our message, so that we may proclaim the mystery of Christ, for which I am in chains.
19. NIV 1 Timothy 3:16 Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great: He appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.
20. NIV Revelation 1:20 The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and of the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.
21. NIV Revelation 10:7 But in the days when the seventh angel is about to sound his trumpet, the mystery of God will be accomplished, just as he announced to his servants the prophets."
22. NIV Revelation 17:5 The name written on her forehead was a mystery: BABYLON THE GREAT THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
23. NIV Revelation 17:7 Then the angel said to me: "Why are you astonished? I will explain to you the mystery of the woman and of the beast she rides, which has the seven heads and ten horns.

Louw-NIda Lexicon

28.77 μυστήριον, ου n: the content of that which has not been known before but which has been revealed to an in-group or restricted constituency - 'secret, mystery.' ὑμῖν δέδοται γνῶναι τὰ μυστήρια τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν 'the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you' Mt 13.11. There is a serious problem involved in translating μυστήριον by a word which is equivalent to the English expression 'mystery,' for this term in English refers to a secret which people have tried to uncover but which they have failed to understand. In many instances μυστήριον is translated by a phrase meaning 'that which was not known before,' with the implication of its being revealed at least to some persons.​

Friberg Lexicon

18793 μυστήριον, ου, τό mystery, secret; (1) as a religious technical term in the cults of the Greco-Roman world, a religious secret confided only to the initiated, secret rite, not used in the NT; (2) in the NT; (a) as what can be known only through revelation mediated from God what was not known before (MT 13.11); (b) as a supreme redemptive revelation of God through the gospel of Christ mystery (RO 16.25; EP 3.9); (c) as the hidden meaning of a symbol with metaphorical significance mystery (EP 5.32)​

LSJ Lexicon

29043 μυστήριον
μυστήριον, τό, (μύστης) a mystery or secret doctrine; in pl., τὰ μ. the mysteries of the Cabiri in Samothrace, Hdt.; of Demeter at Eleusis, Aesch., etc.
2. any mystery or secret, Plat.
3. mystic implements, Eur., Ar.
4. in N.T. a mystery, a divine secret, something above human intelligence.​

Gingrich Lexicon

4359 μυστήριον
μυστήριον, ου, τό secret, secret teaching, mystery with reference to something previously unknown but now revealed Mk 4:11; Ro 11:25 ; 1 Cor 2:7; 13:2; 15:51; Eph 3:3f, 9; Col 1:26f; 4:3; Rv 10:7. Secret truths 1 Cor 14:2. Allegorical significance Rv 1:20; 17:7. τὸ τ. εὐσεβείας μ. the Christian religion 1 Ti 3:16. [mystery] [pg 130]​

What was spoken was hidden from the congregation - it was a mystery.

Although the congregation didn't understand the foreign language, God did - because he knows all languages.

So tell me again. Where in 1 Corinthians does Paul redefine the gift of tongues to be a non-human language?

As Paul has made it about as plain as he could that when the Spirit speaks to the Father that it is always in a form of communication that 14:2 "no one can understand" and that the Spirit will always direct his inarticulate communications to the Father and never to man - then what's your point? Why do you bother to continue arguing for a contrived position that was laid to rest decades ago, which is why most Evangelicals who are not Charismatic have at least given up defending a now dead worldview with precepts that belong to the realm of humanist rationalism.

Yes it is wrong. Spiritual gifts are for the benefit of others, not self. (1 Pet 4:10, 1 Cor 12:7). That includes tongues: 1 Cor 14:9, 16, 17, 19, 26. There is no mention in scripture of speaking in tongues on your own.

I seriously doubt that even you believe this very dated old wives tale.

 

[swordsman1]

Even though First Corinthians 12, 13 & 14 is primarily addressing the setting of each local congregation, these chapters still apply across the broader Christian experience particularly when it comes to prayer, as even Paul says in (NRSV) 1Cor 14:18,19
I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you; nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.
Paul has now told us that "outside of the congregational meeting" that he speaks in tongues more than any of the Corinthians, so how can you attempt to try and isolate tongues to the congregational meeting alone?

You are clearly unfamiliar with the basic principles of bible interpretation (or deliberately ignoring them). The hermemeutical rule regarding context is that the closest context takes priority. The context surrounding verse 2 is that of tongues not edifying "the church" v4. You don't apply a context from another completely unrelated verse half a chapter away.

Even though most of the "Corinthian" congregations throughout the Peloponnese (except for the Corinthian Isthmus) would have spoken in Greek, the seaport 'suburbs' of Lechaion, Isthmia and Cenchrae would have employed a mixture of Latin and Greek along with the various other Mediterranean languages that regularly passed through these very busy ports.

As for the Roman City of Corinth which was the Roman capital of the region of Archaea, things become a bit more complicated. Though Corinth was a Roman City, for those who were Roman citizens their primary language, while within Corinth, would have been Latin as this was not only the language of the Roman Empire but it was certainly the language of Roman government and commerce. When it comes to the population of slaves, who could have made up anywhere between 10 to 30% of the population of Corinth, besides learning either or both Latin and Greek, they would have also retained their native tongues which means that the various congregations within Corinth would have contained many languages found within the Empire.

So if someone within a congregation within Corinth were to "supposedly" speak in a language from within the regions of the Mediterranean or Asia, then there would have been a strong likelyhood that there would have been a number present who would have understood what could have been "supposedly" said.

But we are not talking about the wider population of Corinth, the are talking about the individual congregations in the Corinthian house churches. The city may well have had a minority of foreigners passing through the port which was some distance away from the town itself. But the individual congregations, consisting of around 30-40 people, are highly unlikely to have even 1 or 2 visiting foreigners among them, let alone a broad cross section of the world's nations to be able to recognize the foreign tongue spoken.

As for the locals themselves they would have been predominately Greek and, to a lesser degree, Italian origin. The town was founded in 44 bc as a colony of freedmen slaves and Jews from Rome. Generally slaves in Italy were indigenous Italians. By the time Paul wrote his epistle some 100 years later the original colonists would have died off, leaving their descendants and the influx of local Greeks to make up the population.

But you position is of course speculative as Paul has already told us in (NRSV) 1Cor 14:2 for nobody understands them, since they are speaking mysteries in the Spirit. Paul did not say, "maybe some could not", "on the odd occassion some will" but he said οὐδεὶς oudeis which means NONE will understand.

If you hadn't noticed, Paul is primarily addressing the problem in Corinth in this chapter and indeed the whole epistle. The report had obviously reached Paul that some one in the congregation was speaking in a languag that nobody knew. So all he is doing in verse 2 is pointing out the obvious problematic situation - 'Anyone (in the congregation) who speaks in an (untranslated) tongue doesn't speak to people but to God (who understands all languages). No one (in the congregation) understands them'. It's not rocket science to see what Paul means here.

As the Greek word for “many kinds of sounds” in 1Cor 14:10 is φωνῶν phonon, which is something that you have been told on numerous occasions, then I suppose only you can say why you choose to continue to falsely claim that this is the same Greek word in 1Cor 12:10, when you already know full well that 12:10 uses the Greek γένη gene.

You are wrong.

1 Cor 14:10 kinds = γένη genē
1 Cor 12:10 kinds = γένη genē

Look it up in an interlinear.

then there is no reason to provide an answer.

More to the truth is you cannot provide an answer

For those who are copying down the references that I regularly provide in this thread, they should find the following information on the Greek word mysterion to be of interest:

1. NIV Romans 11:25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in,
2. NIV Romans 16:25 Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past,
3. NIV 1 Corinthians 2:7 No, we declare God's wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.
4. NIV 1 Corinthians 4:1 This, then, is how you ought to regard us: as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the mysteries God has revealed.
5. NIV 1 Corinthians 13:2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
6. NIV 1 Corinthians 14:2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit.
7. NIV 1 Corinthians 15:51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed--
8. NIV Ephesians 1:9 he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ,
9. NIV Ephesians 3:3 that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly.
10. NIV Ephesians 3:4 In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ,
11. NIV Ephesians 3:6 This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.
12. NIV Ephesians 3:9 and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.
13. NIV Ephesians 5:32 This is a profound mystery-- but I am talking about Christ and the church.
14. NIV Ephesians 6:19 Pray also for me, that whenever I speak, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel,
15. NIV Colossians 1:26 the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the Lord's people.
16. NIV Colossians 1:27 To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.
17. NIV Colossians 2:2 My goal is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ,
18. NIV Colossians 4:3 And pray for us, too, that God may open a door for our message, so that we may proclaim the mystery of Christ, for which I am in chains.
19. NIV 1 Timothy 3:16 Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great: He appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.
20. NIV Revelation 1:20 The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and of the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.
21. NIV Revelation 10:7 But in the days when the seventh angel is about to sound his trumpet, the mystery of God will be accomplished, just as he announced to his servants the prophets."
22. NIV Revelation 17:5 The name written on her forehead was a mystery: BABYLON THE GREAT THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
23. NIV Revelation 17:7 Then the angel said to me: "Why are you astonished? I will explain to you the mystery of the woman and of the beast she rides, which has the seven heads and ten horns.

Louw-NIda Lexicon
28.77 μυστήριον, ου n: the content of that which has not been known before but which has been revealed to an in-group or restricted constituency - 'secret, mystery.' ὑμῖν δέδοται γνῶναι τὰ μυστήρια τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν 'the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you' Mt 13.11. There is a serious problem involved in translating μυστήριον by a word which is equivalent to the English expression 'mystery,' for this term in English refers to a secret which people have tried to uncover but which they have failed to understand. In many instances μυστήριον is translated by a phrase meaning 'that which was not known before,' with the implication of its being revealed at least to some persons.
Friberg Lexicon
18793 μυστήριον, ου, τό mystery, secret; (1) as a religious technical term in the cults of the Greco-Roman world, a religious secret confided only to the initiated, secret rite, not used in the NT; (2) in the NT; (a) as what can be known only through revelation mediated from God what was not known before (MT 13.11); (b) as a supreme redemptive revelation of God through the gospel of Christ mystery (RO 16.25; EP 3.9); (c) as the hidden meaning of a symbol with metaphorical significance mystery (EP 5.32)
LSJ Lexicon
29043 μυστήριον
μυστήριον, τό, (μύστης) a mystery or secret doctrine; in pl., τὰ μ. the mysteries of the Cabiri in Samothrace, Hdt.; of Demeter at Eleusis, Aesch., etc.
2. any mystery or secret, Plat.
3. mystic implements, Eur., Ar.
4. in N.T. a mystery, a divine secret, something above human intelligence.
Gingrich Lexicon
4359 μυστήριον
μυστήριον, ου, τό secret, secret teaching, mystery with reference to something previously unknown but now revealed Mk 4:11; Ro 11:25 ; 1 Cor 2:7; 13:2; 15:51; Eph 3:3f, 9; Col 1:26f; 4:3; Rv 10:7. Secret truths 1 Cor 14:2. Allegorical significance Rv 1:20; 17:7. τὸ τ. εὐσεβείας μ. the Christian religion 1 Ti 3:16. [mystery] [pg 130]

Yup, as I said, mustérion means something hidden, a secret - not something mystical.

Why do you bother to continue arguing for a contrived position that was laid to rest decades ago, which is why most Evangelicals who are not Charismatic have at least given up defending a now dead worldview with precepts that belong to the realm of humanist rationalism.

I think we can all see your ploy here with your ad hominem slurs and insults - throw enough mud at cessationists and hope that some of it sticks.

I seriously doubt that even you believe this very dated old wives tale.

You regard Paul's clear words as an old wives tale?! Sad, but then not totally unexpected.

 

[Biblicist]

You are clearly unfamiliar with the basic principles of bible interpretation (or deliberately ignoring them). The hermemeutical rule regarding context is that the closest context takes priority. The context surrounding verse 2 is that of tongues not edifying "the church" v4. You don't apply a context from another completely unrelated verse half a chapter away.

Wow. . . a whole half chapter away, what was I thinking!!

It always bemuses me with how the hardcore-cessationist mindset produces "rules" that nobody has ever heard of, or at least, with how they turn certain hermeneutical principles to suit their agendas; but to be fair, this is a trait that is also found outside of the cessationist worldview. When hardcore-cessationists try and employ hermeneutics their exegesis is akin to an instructor walking into a class on explosive detonators, where the instructor says to his class, “Just tap the detonator real hard on the desk until you get the result you want”, where the end result is usually much the same for both the poor hardcore-cessationist and the hapless explosives student – things quickly blow up in their faces!

When it comes to the context of 1 Corinthians 12, 13 & 14 this begins with Paul’s “Now about spiritual matters brothers” back in 12:1. Whatever follows after this verse up until 14:40 is the context of whatever Paul speaks of within these particular chapters.

As for the setting of 1Cor 14:2 which begins with “ὁ γὰρ” (For), this connects ‘all the way back’ to the previous verse of 14:1 “Pursue love, yet desire earnestly the spiritual things…”, where this verse is a summary of the entirety of chapter 13, which itself is a continuation of 12:31 “But you are earnestly desiring the greater graces and now I will show you the more excellent way”.

Of course I should not have to point out that our chapter and verse numbers were unknown to the early church; this means that context is not defined by our very helpful chapter and verse delineations but by grammar.

But we are not talking about the wider population of Corinth, the are talking about the individual congregations in the Corinthian house churches. The city may well have had a minority of foreigners passing through the port which was some distance away from the town itself. But the individual congregations, consisting of around 30-40 people, are highly unlikely to have even 1 or 2 visiting foreigners among them, let alone a broad cross section of the world's nations to be able to recognize the foreign tongue spoken.

Oh, we are definitely “talking about the wider population of Corinth” as this large and diverse multicultural society was spread across the entirety of the Corinthian Isthmus. When Paul sent his followup Epistle to First Corinthians it began with 2Cor 1:1 “To the church of God which is at Corinth with all the saints who are throughout Achaia” which broadens this even further to include the entirety of the Peloponnese Peninsula and with the regions north of the Isthmus which would also include the city of Athens. In Rom 16:1 Paul also refers to “our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea”, where Cenchrea was one of the two eastern sea gateways to Corinth.

As for the western approach to Corinth from Italy, being the port suburb of Lechaeum, this port was enclosed within the two walls that led from Corinth (and the Acro-Corinth) to the Gulf of Corinth.

Even though we have absolutely no idea as to the size of the various congregations that were either in or surrounding Corinth, the size of these congregations would have ranged from maybe only a couple of dozen to upwards of 150 if they were meeting in the home of a wealthy home owner such as Erastus who was the financial or works officer of Corinth. As for the number of congregations within Corinth and its surrounding areas, this could number anywhere from maybe 50 or more and if we include the churches of Achaia that Paul referred to in his followup Epistle of Second Corinthians, then the number would have been into the hundreds.

. . . are highly unlikely to have even 1 or 2 visiting foreigners among them, let alone a broad cross section of the world's nations to be able to recognize the foreign tongue spoken.

This was a rather amusing statement as Corinth including that of its Northern port suburb of Lechaion which was only a short walk from the city center of Corinth, along with the outer suburbs of Isthmia and Cenchrea to the East where Cenchrea was only a 10 Km (6m) walk from the city centre, which also served the incredibly busy boat railway of the Diolkos being the primary sea crossroad between the East and Western parts of the Roman Empire, then your comment would be akin to saying that the interconnecting LAX and JKF airports are lucky to see more than one or two visitors.

You might want to check out Youtube using the search descriptor “The Political History of Ancient Corinth” as there are many articles that discuss the history, politics, culture and religious aspects of both ancient Greek and Roman Corinth.

As fo

r the locals themselves they would have been predominately Greek and, to a lesser degree, Italian origin. The town was founded in 44 bc as a colony of freedmen slaves and Jews from Rome. Generally slaves in Italy were indigenous Italians. By the time Paul wrote his epistle some 100 years later the original colonists would have died off, leaving their descendants and the influx of local Greeks to make up the population.

As the original Greek city of Corinth was levelled to the ground and its men killed and its women and children sold into slavery, then any Greek connections to Corinth were buried with the destruction of the city and its populace. As to the establishment of Colonia Laus Iulia Corinthiensis (or Corinth), the new city of Corinth was rebuilt as a thoroughly Latin city.

​

If you hadn't noticed, Paul is primarily addressing the problem in Corinth in this chapter and indeed the whole epistle. The report had obviously reached Paul that some one in the congregation was speaking in a languag that nobody knew.

Okay, so you are saying “someone” where Paul instead says “all” in 1Cor 14:23.

So all he is doing in verse 2 is pointing out the obvious problematic situation - 'Anyone (in the congregation) who speaks in an (untranslated) tongue doesn't speak to people but to God (who understands all languages). No one (in the congregation) understands them'. It's not rocket science to see what Paul means here.

In this day and age where we have a wealth of peer-reviewed and reliable Biblical knowledge at our finger tips, it should not be hard for anyone to recognise that Paul is admonishing the Corinthians (and by proxy with much of the contemporary church) with how they were allowing the unbridled use of uninterpreted tongues during times of praise and worship. Paul has made it patently plain that as the Spirit will always speak to the Father within an inarticulate form of communication that this means that it will only end up confusing both the atheist and the cessationist visitor as both do not understand the things of the Spirit. His other concern is with intelligibility as uninterpreted tongues provide absolutely no edification benefit to the congregation as a whole.

You are wrong.

1 Cor 14:10 kinds = γένη genē
1 Cor 12:10 kinds = γένη genē

Look it up in an interlinear.

When I went back and checked what I had said in my post #650, it seems that I had referred to γένη gene in 12:10 instead of γλῶσσα glossa;

"As the Greek word for “many kinds of sounds” in 1Cor 14:10 is φωνῶν phonon, which is something that you have been told on numerous occasions, then I suppose only you can say why you choose to continue to falsely claim that this is the same Greek word in 1Cor 12:10, when you already know full well that 12:10 uses the Greek γένη gene".​

My point being is that there is no value with quoting gene as meaning what you want it to mean when Paul has qualified its use in 12:10 as referring to sounds (phone) and in 14:10 as tongues (glossa). To take this point further, as there are as many unrelated types of sounds, be they emitted by insects, animals, man, the various elements and even with a falling rock, then the use of gene when it is applied to tongues can mean any form of utterance, be it a human or angelic language.

(1Co 12:10 BNT) ἑτέρῳ γένη γλωσσῶν
(1Co 14:10 BNT) τοσαῦτα εἰ τύχοι γένη φωνῶν​

 

[swordsman1]

Wow. . . a whole half chapter away, what was I thinking!!

It always bemuses me with how the hardcore-cessationist mindset produces "rules" that nobody has ever heard of, or at least, with how they turn certain hermeneutical principles to suit their agendas;

If you had ever read a book on hermeneutics you would have known about the rule of context priority. It is one of the most basic principles of bible interpretation. It might help you if you examine this excerpt from one of the main textbooks on hermeneutics used in seminaries:

An Introduction to Biblical Interpretation: Revised and Expanded" by William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, Robert L. Hubbard, Jr.
The immediate context exerts the most important control over the meaning of a specific passage. We define the immediate context as the material presented immediately before and after the passage under study. In some instances this will be the preceding and succeeding sentences and paragraphs; in others it may be a subsection in the author's presentation, or possibly a major division of a book. The tactic of outlining a book helps the interpreter to discern its natural divisions and to establish the specific immediate context in which a passage occurs. The proximity of the materials to each other and the correlation of the materials with each other makes the immediate context a more critical indicator of meaning than either the whole book or the whole Bible."​

The immediate context surrounding verse 2 in "the church". Not a verse half a chapter away.

When hardcore-cessationists try and employ hermeneutics their exegesis is akin to an instructor walking into a class on explosive detonators, where the instructor says to his class, “Just tap the detonator real hard on the desk until you get the result you want”, where the end result is usually much the same for both the poor hardcore-cessationist and the hapless explosives student – things quickly blow up in their faces!

I will ignore your barrage of ad hominem mockery and slurs even though in this instance the boot should be on the other foot completely!

When it comes to the context of 1 Corinthians 12, 13 & 14 this begins with Paul’s “Now about spiritual matters brothers” back in 12:1. Whatever follows after this verse up until 14:40 is the context of whatever Paul speaks of within these particular chapters.

As for the setting of 1Cor 14:2 which begins with “ὁ γὰρ” (For), this connects ‘all the way back’ to the previous verse of 14:1 “Pursue love, yet desire earnestly the spiritual things…”, where this verse is a summary of the entirety of chapter 13, which itself is a continuation of 12:31 “But you are earnestly desiring the greater graces and now I will show you the more excellent way”.

Nonsense! You don't seem to have a clue about the hermeneutical principle of context. I suggest you buy the above book and study it.

It is the context that is presented closest to the verse in question that takes priority. The context presented in verse 1 is the local church, not the world. v1 "Follow the way of love and eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy". Where is prophecy to occur? v4 "the one who prophesies edifies the church". The context of the whole chapter from v1 onwards is "the church". 'No one' in verse 2 is 'no one' in the local church, not 'no one' in the world.

Even though we have absolutely no idea as to the size of the various congregations that were either in or surrounding Corinth, the size of these congregations would have ranged from maybe only a couple of dozen to upwards of 150 if they were meeting in the home of a wealthy home owner such as Erastus who was the financial or works officer of Corinth.

If Erastus had such a big house why is Paul not staying there? He is staying at Gaius's house. The roman villa at Anaploga is the biggest that has been excavated in Corinth (750m west central Corinth). The biggest rooms in the house were the triclinium (41m2) and the atrium (30m2). However much of this space would be unusable with the pool of water in the middle of the atrium, pillars, furniture, etc. It is estimated that only 30-40 people would have been able to comfortably meet in this villa.

As for the number of congregations within Corinth and its surrounding areas, this could number anywhere from maybe 50 or more and if we include the churches of Achaia that Paul referred to in his followup Epistle of Second Corinthians, then the number would have been into the hundreds.

Exactly. There were lots of little congregations meeting in peoples houses. Perhaps on average around 20 people. Is it any surprise then that nobody recognized the foreign language spoken when someone spoke in tongues?

This was a rather amusing statement as Corinth including that of its Northern port suburb of Lechaion which was only a short walk from the city center of Corinth, along with the outer suburbs of Isthmia and Cenchrea to the East where Cenchrea was only a 10 Km (6m) walk from the city centre, which also served the incredibly busy boat railway of the Diolkos being the primary sea crossroad between the East and Western parts of the Roman Empire, then your comment would be akin to saying that the interconnecting LAX and JKF airports are lucky to see more than one or two visitors.

So out of all these foreigners on this 'incredibly busy boat railway of the Diolkos' how many would would have streamed into one of the house churches 5-10km away? To make up a broad cross section of the worlds population to rule out a foreign language spoken there must have been barely been enough room to breath!

As to the establishment of Colonia Laus Iulia Corinthiensis (or Corinth), the new city of Corinth was rebuilt as a thoroughly Latin city.

That was 100 years before Paul wrote his epistle. The original colonists would have died by then with the population consisting of their descendants and the influx of Greek locals.

Okay, so you are saying “someone” where Paul instead says “all” in 1Cor 14:23.

No Paul didn't say everyone spoke in tongues. He said "IF everyone speaks in tongues".

Paul has made it patently plain that as the Spirit will always speak to the Father within an inarticulate form of communication that this means that it will only end up confusing both the atheist and the cessationist visitor as both do not understand the things of the Spirit.

Where does it say "the Spirit will always speak to the Father within an inarticulate form of communication"?

Where does it say "it will only end up confusing both the atheist and the cessationist"?

My point being is that there is no value with quoting gene as meaning what you want it to mean when Paul has qualified its use in 12:10 as referring to sounds (phone) and in 14:10 as tongues (glossa).

Of course there is. Gene means different kinds of varieties. Whether is be 'different kinds of languages' (1 Cor 14:10), 'different kinds of tongues' (same thing, 1 Cor 12:10), or different kinds of flowers. Not a different type or class as was suggested.

As for your notion that 1 Cor 14:10 should be "sounds", that is clearly your own unique pet theory. The vast majority of bible versions, including all the major ones, disagree with you. As do the lexicons:

BDAG Lexicon
③ a verbal code shared by a community to express ideas and feelings, language(Aeschyl., Hdt. et al.; Cebes 33, 6; Aelian, VH 12, 48; Herodian 5, 3, 4; Diog. L. 8, 3; SEG VIII, 548, 17 [I B.C.]; PLond I, 77, 13 p. 232 [Christ. VIII A.D.]; PGM 12, 188 πᾶσα γλῶσσα κ. πᾶσα φωνή; Gen 11:1; Dt 28:49; 2 Macc 7:8, 21, 27; 4 Macc 12:7; Jos., C. Ap. 1, 1; 50; 73 al.; Just., A I, 31, 1; Tat. 37, 1; Mel., P. 29, 199) 1 Cor 14:10f; 2 Pt 2:16​

 

[YouAreAwesome]

No Paul didn't say everyone spoke in tongues. He said "IF everyone speaks in tongues".

Heh, IF you are living on mars... well you of course you don't live on mars so why would I ever write this? Because I would only write what is reasonable and likely...

 

[Biblicist]

If you had ever read a book on hermeneutics you would have known about the rule of context priority. It is one of the most basic principles of bible interpretation. It might help you if you examine this excerpt from one of the main textbooks on hermeneutics used in seminaries:

An Introduction to Biblical Interpretation: Revised and Expanded" by William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, Robert L. Hubbard, Jr.
The immediate context exerts the most important control over the meaning of a specific passage. We define the immediate context as the material presented immediately before and after the passage under study. In some instances this will be the preceding and succeeding sentences and paragraphs; in others it may be a subsection in the author's presentation, or possibly a major division of a book. The tactic of outlining a book helps the interpreter to discern its natural divisions and to establish the specific immediate context in which a passage occurs. The proximity of the materials to each other and the correlation of the materials with each other makes the immediate context a more critical indicator of meaning than either the whole book or the whole Bible."​

The immediate context surrounding verse 2 in "the church". Not a verse half a chapter away.

I don’t know how you do it but you certainly seem to have a habit of quoting scholarly sources where these same sources reject the various positions that you are trying to defend. Even with An Introduction to Biblical Interpretation you have failed to understand what you are reading.

If you look at what YOU HAVE POSTED you will find that the context goes way beyond a verse or two, which is something that every first year Bible student would even understand; so if you go back an take a careful look at the material you posted you find that they have said the following - which is the exact opposite of what you have tried to say.

“We define the immediate context as the material presented

• immediately before and
• after the passage under study.
• In some instances this will be the preceding
• and succeeding
  • sentences
  • and paragraphs;

• in others it may be a subsection in the author's presentation,
• or possibly a major division of a book”.

I will ignore your barrage of ad hominem mockery and slurs even though in this instance the boot should be on the other foot completely!

"Ad hominem mockery and slurs" - hardly, all I was doing was to make an observation about the strange thinking of the hardcore-cessationist mindest, which is indeed very strange.

Nonsense! You don't seem to have a clue about the hermeneutical principle of context. I suggest you buy the above book and study it.

I suppose that I could be the NEW edition, but as I have been buying books on Hermeneutics and Exegesis since the early 90's then there is probably little need for me to go and buy any more.

You might want to check out the book (first edition) that is sitting on the top of my shelf of books that address Hermeneutics and Pneumatology . . . guess what the title is Swordy . . .

If you check out my Avator that will show the various commentaries that I own on First Corinthians as well; so yes, I am more than competitent with the concept of context.

If Erastus had such a big house why is Paul not staying there? He is staying at Gaius's house. The roman villa at Anaploga is the biggest that has been excavated in Corinth (750m west central Corinth). The biggest rooms in the house were the triclinium (41m2) and the atrium (30m2). However much of this space would be unusable with the pool of water in the middle of the atrium, pillars, furniture, etc. It is estimated that only 30-40 people would have been able to comfortably meet in this villa.

Who knows, maybe Erastus's wife was a poor cook or the pillows were too hard; in all probability the reason would have been that he did not want to give the false impression that Erastus was his patron/financial supporter.

Exactly. There were lots of little congregations meeting in peoples houses. Perhaps on average around 20 people. Is it any surprise then that nobody recognized the foreign language spoken when someone spoke in tongues?

On the contrary, if the various congregations of between 20-150 were meeting anywhere around the Corinthian Isthmus then they would have encountered many travellers, especially those that were based in the suburbs of Lechaion, Cenchrea and Isthmia. In addition, as many Christians would have been aware that the Paul was in Corinth then this would have attracted numerous curious visitors as well.

So out of all these foreigners on this 'incredibly busy boat railway of the Diolkos' how many would would have streamed into one of the house churches 5-10km away? To make up a broad cross section of the worlds population to rule out a foreign language spoken there must have been barely been enough room to breath!

Why do you say "5-10Km away" when many would have walked only a few hundred metres to meet a congregation in one of the three port suburbs of Corinth. And of course many would also want to arrange to visit Corinth as it was one of the leading Roman cities of the Empire. You obviously need to go back to the map that I provided in my earlier post.

That was 100 years before Paul wrote his epistle. The original colonists would have died by then with the population consisting of their descendants and the influx of Greek locals.

As Corinth was rebuilt as a Roman city under Roman Government and Law then it would hardly have wanted to be seen as a mere Greek city. If you check the archeological research you will discover that it was a Latin city where the Greek language only began to appear in the second century. For those who wanted to be someone with the Corinth of Pauls time they would eargerly desire to be seen as a Latin.

No Paul didn't say everyone spoke in tongues. He said "IF everyone speaks in tongues".

The “If” is a Greek conjunction where we could also say “When” but Paul’s use of “If” establishes a scenario whereby he is recognising that the practice is common within Corinth but it is NOT one that he allows. It would be unimaginable to find a congregation that Paul had not founded where the entirety of the adult congregation could not pray in the Spirit (tongues).

Where does it say "the Spirit will always speak to the Father within an inarticulate form of communication"?

Where does it say "it will only end up confusing both the atheist and the cessationist"?

In 1Cor 14:23 Paul refers to those who are idiōtai (our English idiots) where the Greek refers to those who are uninitiated and in this case he is referring to those are uninitiated into the things of the Spirit, where we now refer to these people as cessationists. The visitors would be those who are unsaved. We all know what can occur when a cessationist and an atheist walks into a Congregational meeting where the all are corporately (and improperly) singing and praying in the Spirit to the Father - "they will say that we are mad".

Of course there is. Gene means different kinds of varieties. Whether is be 'different kinds of languages' (1 Cor 14:10), 'different kinds of tongues' (same thing, 1 Cor 12:10), or different kinds of flowers. Not a different type or class as was suggested.

As for your notion that 1 Cor 14:10 should be "sounds", that is clearly your own unique pet theory. The vast majority of bible versions, including all the major ones, disagree with you. As do the lexicons:

BDAG Lexicon
③ a verbal code shared by a community to express ideas and feelings, language(Aeschyl., Hdt. et al.; Cebes 33, 6; Aelian, VH 12, 48; Herodian 5, 3, 4; Diog. L. 8, 3; SEG VIII, 548, 17 [I B.C.]; PLond I, 77, 13 p. 232 [Christ. VIII A.D.]; PGM 12, 188 πᾶσα γλῶσσα κ. πᾶσα φωνή; Gen 11:1; Dt 28:49; 2 Macc 7:8, 21, 27; 4 Macc 12:7; Jos., C. Ap. 1, 1; 50; 73 al.; Just., A I, 31, 1; Tat. 37, 1; Mel., P. 29, 199) 1 Cor 14:10f; 2 Pt 2:16​

Did you happen to notice that it began the third meaning of phone (not the first as you seem to be suggesting as "a verbal code shared by a community...", which is what we share in as a Full Gospel Community of Believers when we pray in the Spirit. The BDAG is correct in that it has placed language as a subset of a verbal code and of course our heavenly (angelic) tongue is a language to the Heavenly Hosts, but to us it is glossa and not dialektos.

 

[swordsman1]

I don’t know how you do it but you certainly seem to have a habit of quoting scholarly sources where these same sources reject the various positions that you are trying to defend. Even with An Introduction to Biblical Interpretation you have failed to understand what you are reading.

If you look at what YOU HAVE POSTED you will find that the context goes way beyond a verse or two, which is something that every first year Bible student would even understand; so if you go back an take a careful look at the material you posted you find that they have said the following - which is the exact opposite of what you have tried to say.

“We define the immediate context as the material presented

• immediately before and
• after the passage under study.
• In some instances this will be the preceding
• and succeeding
  • sentences
  • and paragraphs;

• in others it may be a subsection in the author's presentation,
• or possibly a major division of a book”.

I don't know if there is something wrong with your eyesight or you are simply not reading my posts properly. Read the excerpt again. The first sentence says it is the IMMEDIATE context that exerts the most important control over the meaning of a specific passage. Not another context that is further afield.

"Ad hominem mockery and slurs" - hardly, all I was doing was to make an observation about the strange thinking of the hardcore-cessationist mindest, which is indeed very strange.

And you reply with more slurs and insults? This trait of yours speaks volumes.

I suppose that I could be the NEW edition, but as I have been buying books on Hermeneutics and Exegesis since the early 90's then there is probably little need for me to go and buy any more.
You might want to check out the book (first edition) that is sitting on the top of my shelf of books that address Hermeneutics and Pneumatology . . . guess what the title is Swordy . . .

Let me give you a tip. Instead of just buying a book and putting in on your shelf, try opening the book and reading it.

in all probability the reason would have been that he did not want to give the false impression that Erastus was his patron/financial supporter.

A weak argument made from silence.

On the contrary, if the various congregations of between 20-150 were meeting anywhere around the Corinthian Isthmus then they would have encountered many travellers, especially those that were based in the suburbs of Lechaion, Cenchrea and Isthmia. In addition, as many Christians would have been aware that the Paul was in Corinth then this would have attracted numerous curious visitors as well.

There wasn't even 150 people in the entire church of Corinth, let alone 150 squeezed into one house group. Even a large villa such as the one at Anaploga, could only comfortable host a meeting of 30-40 people. How many extra visiting foreigners could they hold? To rule out the tongue not being a foreign language you would need at least a couple of dozen foreigners there, each one from a different nation.

Why do you say "5-10Km away" when many would have walked only a few hundred metres to meet a congregation in one of the three port suburbs of Corinth. And of course many would also want to arrange to visit Corinth as it was one of the leading Roman cities of the Empire. You obviously need to go back to the map that I provided in my earlier post.

Your map was the source for my claim! The nearest house church to the Doilkos, where the foreigners were were passing from one side of the isthmus to the other, was 5km away in Cenchrea. Corinth was 10km away. Most of the working sailors on the Doilkos would have been eager to get across as quickly as possible and not go on a sight seeing trip to Corinth!

As Corinth was rebuilt as a Roman city under Roman Government and Law then it would hardly have wanted to be seen as a mere Greek city. If you check the archeological research you will discover that it was a Latin city where the Greek language only began to appear in the second century. For those who wanted to be someone with the Corinth of Pauls time they would eargerly desire to be seen as a Latin.

Willet, R. (2012). Whirlwind of numbers - Demographic experiments for Roman Corinth
However, as Greeks from surrounding areas moved into the city, Greek gradually emerged as the common language. By the time Paul came to the city around the year A.D. 50, most Corinthians would have spoken Greek, the language of Paul's letters to the city's Christian community​

The “If” is a Greek conjunction where we could also say “When” but Paul’s use of “If” establishes a scenario whereby he is recognising that the practice is common within Corinth but it is NOT one that he allows. It would be unimaginable to find a congregation that Paul had not founded where the entirety of the adult congregation could not pray in the Spirit (tongues).

No, 'If' does not mean 'When'. If it did the bible translators would have put 'When', but none of them do. Every single one uses either 'if' or 'suppose'. Paul is describing a supposed situation.

In 1Cor 14:23 Paul refers to those who are idiōtai (our English idiots) where the Greek refers to those who are uninitiated and in this case he is referring to those are uninitiated into the things of the Spirit, where we now refer to these people as cessationists. The visitors would be those who are unsaved. We all know what can occur when a cessationist and an atheist walks into a Congregational meeting where the all are corporately (and improperly) singing and praying in the Spirit to the Father - "they will say that we are mad".

No, 'idiotes' does not mean cessationist. It means someone who is not familiar with a certain practice. In this case the practice of miraculously speaking a foreign language. I am a cessationist and I am very familiar with what the true gift of tongues was, as well as today's counterfeit.

Did you happen to notice that it began the third meaning of phone (not the first as you seem to be suggesting as "a verbal code shared by a community...", which is what we share in as a Full Gospel Community of Believers when we pray in the Spirit. The BDAG is correct in that it has placed language as a subset of a verbal code and of course our heavenly (angelic) tongue is a language to the Heavenly Hosts, but to us it is glossa and not dialektos.

You are clearly unfamiliar with the BDAG lexicon. It gives the gloss in bold, preceded by dictionary definition of the word. "a verbal code shared by a community..." is the dictionary definition of language.

 

[swordsman1]

Heh, IF you are living on mars... well you of course you don't live on mars so why would I ever write this? Because I would only write what is reasonable and likely...

That proves my point. Saying "If I lived on mars I would be very lonely" doesn't mean I live on mars. It means suppose I lived on mars....

 

[YouAreAwesome]

That proves my point. Saying "If I lived on mars I would be very lonely" doesn't mean I live on mars. It means suppose I lived on mars....

No one would ever say that except as a joke. Paul is not making a joke. He's saying "if you" with reference to something achievable. Not something unachievable.

 

[Biblicist]

I don't know if there is something wrong with your eyesight or you are simply not reading my posts properly. Read the excerpt again. The first sentence says it is the IMMEDIATE context that exerts the most important control over the meaning of a specific passage. Not another context that is further afield.

Let me help you out again, if you go to the book you quoted probably from Google Books Introduction to Biblical Interpretation: Revised and Expanded p.220, you will discover just as everyone else has who has read this book, that the authors “define the immediate context” as coming from not only the verse or a verse that surrounds but at times with an entire chapter and even a Book:

“We define the immediate context as the material presented immediately before and
1. after the passage under study.
2. In some instances this will be the preceding
3. and succeeding

a. sentences
b. and paragraphs;​

4. in others it may be a subsection in the author's presentation,
5. or possibly a major division of a book”.​

Let me give you a tip. Instead of just buying a book and putting in on your shelf, try opening the book and reading it.

I know . . . I know, it must have come as a bit of a shock to see the photo of most of the books that I own on Hermeneutics and Pneumatology – but I could not resist!

As you can see from the investment that I have made in these books/commentaries over the years, I treat my approach to exegesis very seriously which is why I attempt to follow the many difficult hermeneutical principles that we need to employ when undertaking serious study. Do you own a book on hermeneutics and exegesis by any chance?

My comment: in all probability the reason would have been that he did not want to give the false impression that Erastus was his patron/financial supporter.
Your followup: A weak argument made from silence.

That’s a fair comment as I tend to forget that most forum members would not be all that conversant with First Corinthians, Paul and particularly with the Roman preoccupation with patronage and status.

We know from 2Cor 11:7-15 that the Corinthians and most likely the more wealthy Corinthian Christians were not all that happy that Paul refused their patronage while he was living amongst them. The complex though very rewarding subject of patronage and status with Roman society and particular within Latin cities such as Corinth and Philippi is way beyond this post but I am sure that a good Google search should help those who are unfamiliar with these things to come up to speed easy enough.

One of the suggestions offered as to why Paul chose to stay with Gaius was that he was possibly a member of Paul’s trade fraternity which is why he choose to stay with him while plying his trade. As for Erastus who was the city treasurer, Paul probably chose not to stay with him as did not want to be seen to be acting as a free-loader on this very important city official.

There wasn't even 150 people in the entire church of Corinth, let alone 150 squeezed into one house group. Even a large villa such as the one at Anaploga, could only comfortable host a meeting of 30-40 people. How many extra visiting foreigners could they hold? To rule out the tongue not being a foreign language you would need at least a couple of dozen foreigners there, each one from a different nation.

Wow . . . as you apparently have information that no one else has regarding the size of the Christian community within Corinth and Achaia then maybe should help the academic community on this one!

I’m still stumped as to why you hold to the strange notion that there was only a single Christian congregation within Corinth, the Peloponnese and wider Achaia, which is in contrast to your earlier statement which said “There were lots of little congregations meeting in people’s houses”. So tell me, what do you mean “lots”, is that a dozen, two dozen or who many are you referring to particularly as we are talking about the sizable Province of Achaia and not just with the city of Corinth and its sea port suburbs.

You’ve touched on a good point in that whenever meeting of any kind was being held in a Roman villa the issue of favouritism often came to the head, where the more powerful and influential members of an association, be it religious or social, were often given the better seats and food at these functions. This would have also been a problem within wider Achaia as the numerous wealthy benefactors of the various congregations would undoubtedly also fall for this very human trait, which is something Paul speaks of in 1Cor 11:17-22

17 But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse.
18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that 2adivisions exist among you; and in part I believe it.
19 For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become 1evident among you.
20 Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper,
21 for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk.
22 What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you.​

Your map was the source for my claim! The nearest house church to the Doilkos, where the foreigners were were passing from one side of the isthmus to the other, was 5km away in Cenchrea. Corinth was 10km away. Most of the working sailors on the Doilkos would have been eager to get across as quickly as possible and not go on a sight seeing trip to Corinth!

The map that I produced, which was actually borrowed and heavily modified only shows the approximate location of the Corinthian seaports of Isthmia and Cenchrea. Where I have marked Isthmia, the center of the city would have only been about 500 metres from the Eastern end of the Diolkos and many ships may have offloaded their cargo and visitors at either Cenchrea further to the south or at Isthmia before proceeding along the Diolkos.

The road leading from the center of Corinth to Lechaeum has now been discovered so it was only an easy 4km walk and the roads from Isthmia and Cenchrea to Corinth are fairly flat roads as well. So it would have been very easy for visitors to depart on either the West or Eastern portions of the Isthmus and walk to Corinth and catch the same or another boat on the other side.

Willet, R. (2012). Whirlwind of numbers - Demographic experiments for Roman Corinth

However, as Greeks from surrounding areas moved into the city, Greek gradually emerged as the common language. By the time Paul came to the city around the year A.D. 50, most Corinthians would have spoken Greek, the language of Paul's letters to the city's Christian community​

​

Unfortunately the only weblinks that I could find to this book seemed to be rather dubious security wise so I decided not to log into them. As to the number of non-Latin citizens in Corinth and its surrounds, by Paul’s time Greek would certainly have been more common, though with the wealthy citizens of Corinth Latin was still be language of government and commerce. Then we have the heavy sea traffic through the three seaport suburbs surrounding Corinth and many sailors and visitors would hardly want to miss the opportunity of visiting a major Roman City such as Corinth, which means that there would have been many Christians from a wide range of people and language groups visiting as well.

As to Paul’s Epistles to Corinth, Rome and Philippi I often wonder if they were written in Latin instead of Greek or maybe in both. I could not imagine why Paul would write to the Roman church in Greek when the Western Empire (and particular Rome) spoke in Latin – but this is something that will never be settled.

No, 'If' does not mean 'When'. If it did the bible translators would have put 'When', but none of them do. Every single one uses either 'if' or 'suppose'. Paul is describing a supposed situation.

On the contrary, Paul’s use of ‘if’ is a linguistic tool that speaks of a situation that may or may not occur but where it is being referred to in a negative manner. Paul is well aware that this practice is occurring within many of the Corinthian congregations and there is no way that he will use ‘when’ as it provides an air of acceptability to the practice.

No, 'idiotes' does not mean cessationist. It means someone who is not familiar with a certain practice. In this case the practice of miraculously speaking a foreign language. I am a cessationist and I am very familiar with what the true gift of tongues was, as well as today's counterfeit.

I will try and be gentle here, but a hardcore-cessationist obviously has little understanding of the Person and Ministry of the Holy Spirit and any attempt to link our heavenly tongue with a human language is simply fraudulent and belongs to the realm of old wives tales and fairy tales. In fact it can be very hard not to observe at times that when many hardcore-cessationists speak on the Person and Ministry of the Holy Spirit that he is nothing less than their enemy.

I have no doubt that there are many on this forum who have observed firsthand the effect of a congregation that allows and even improperly encourages corporate praise and worship in tongues; many cessationists and atheists will at times walk out the door or they will sit there thinking that “we are mad”.

You are clearly unfamiliar with the BDAG lexicon. It gives the gloss in bold, preceded by dictionary definition of the word. "a verbal code shared by a community..." is the dictionary definition of language.

Actually the BDAG does not employ glosses which is something that they stopped after the earlier BADG; those who are familiar with the BADG and the BDAG would know this – tell me, why do you bother playing around with lexicons??

What the BDAG does say (summary):

1. an auditory effect, sound, tone, noise the source of which is added in the gen.: of musical instruments . . .
2. the faculty of utterance, voice (Tat. 15:3 προύχει τῶν θηρίων ὁ ἄνθρωπος κατὰ τὴν ἔναρθον φωνήν=humankind excels beasts in articulate utterance) . . .
a. gener. of sonant aspect: any form of speech or other utterance w. the voice can take place . . .
b. voice as it varies from individual to individual or fr. one mood to another . . .
c. that which the voice gives expression to: call, cry, outcry, loud or solemn declaration (Sb 7251, 21 [III/IV AD]=order, command) . . .
d. In accordance w. OT and Jewish usage gener. (s. Bousset, Rel.3 315. The Socratic δαιμόνιον [=ὁ θεός Ep. 1, 7] is called ἡ φωνή: Socrat., Ep. 1, 9 [p. 222, 34 Malherbe] τὸ δαιμόνιόν μοι, ἡ φωνή, γέγονεν, cp. Pla., Apol. 31d) ‘the voice’ oft. speaks, though the (heavenly) speaker neither appears nor is mentioned (cp. PGM 3, 119 ἐξορκίζω σε κατὰ τῆς ἑβραικῆς φωνῆς.—In most cases the divine voice is differentiated fr. the divinity:
e. special cases: ἐπέστρεψα βλέπειν τὴν φωνὴν ἥτις ἐλάλει μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ I turned around to see (to whom) the voice that was speaking to me (belonged) . . .

3. a verbal code shared by a community to express ideas and feelings, language (Aeschyl., Hdt. et al.; Cebes 33, 6; Aelian, VH 12, 48; Herodian 5, 3, 4; Diog. L. 8, 3; SEG VIII, 548, 17 [I BC]; PLond I, 77, 13 p. 232 [Christ. VIII AD]; PGM 12, 188 πᾶσα γλῶσσα κ. πᾶσα φωνή; Gen 11:1; Dt 28:49; 2 Macc 7:8, 21, 27; 4 Macc 12:7; Jos., C. Ap. 1, 1; 50; 73 al.; Just., A I, 31, 1; Tat. 37, 1; Mel., P. 29, 199) 1 Cor 14:10f; 2 Pt 2:16 (an animal w. ἀνθρώπου φ. as Appian, Bell. Civ. 4:4 §14 βοῦς φωνὴν ἀφῆκεν ἀνθρώπου; schol. on Appolon. Rhod. 2, 1146 ὁ κριὸς ἀνθρωπίνῃ χρησάμενος φωνῇ; sim. TestAbr A 3 p. 79, 19 [Stone p. 6]; sim. TestAbr B 3 p. 107, 10 [St. p. 62] a tree; ParJer 7:2 an eagle; Philo, Op. M. 156); Dg 5:1. ὁ λέων εἶπεν μιᾷ φωνῇ AcPlHa 5, 4 (on the probability that μια was misread for θεια s. the editor’s note, p. 41, 4).—B. 1248; 1260. DELG. M-M. EDNT. TW. Sv. ¶​

If you read through definition number three (which you provided earlier in isolation), you will notice that the BDAG includes examples of secular authors of old who have used phone to describe the sound that the birds and trees make. As for the use of “a verbal code…” I have used this term on a number of occasions to define forms of communication that are not so much language but are language like. Even morse code is a “verbal code” which certainly expresses “ideas and feelings”.