40 seems to be ignored. Most Pentacostal church's everyone is off in every other direction and it more chaos than anything else.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
1 Corinthians 14
39 Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.
I think this is an important starting point as many churches do forbid speaking in tongues either explicitly through their stated doctrine and practices or implicitly through their ethos and culture. This is a Biblical command to not forbid people from speaking in tongues and therefore must be honoured.
40 seems to be ignored. Most Pentacostal church's everyone is off in every other direction and it more chaos than anything else.
As I have said, the Bible shows that tongues is a language given supernaturally by the Holy Spirit (Acts 2.4) and that ecstatic is a polemic word that is unnecessary in this debate.
no offence was meant Brother...Originally Posted by zeke37
Why introduce the word ecstatic to this discussion? It is not found in the Biblical text and it is not a general dimension to a tongues message in most churches today. Everyone I know who speaks in tongues and gives messages in tongues is in control of what they are doing - it is not some sort of ecstatic utterance.
Let's use Biblical terminology rather than loaded terminology in this discussion, it will help us reach a point of understanding a lot quicker.
to prophesy is to speak the already prophetic Word of God to an audience and have them understand it...it is not prophesy to them until they understand what is said
I am not sure what you are trying to say here, apologies. Are you saying that the gift of prophecy, which in the book of Acts involves giving specific words to individuals about God's will for them, has somehow become the gift of preaching in the last 2000 years?
no it is not...that is a point that we differ on...So, Paul teaches that it is ok to allow the Word of God/Gospel of Christ into all other langauges.....It does not have to be kept in Hebrerw or Greek......it can be shared in all languagesI appreciate that the gospel should be translated into every tongue, but tongues is also called praying in the spirit
tongues means languages, either understood or foreign...depending on the context
in ACTS2 everyone listening understood, regardless of what tongue they understood...and it is very clear from Acts that tongues is a language unknown to the hearer, supernaturally given from the Holy Spirit. Read Acts 2.4 - they spoke in tongues as the SPIRIT (not their logic and learning and experience and revision) gave them utterance.
no, Paul is saying that the spreading of the Word in foreign tongues must not be forbidden...allow the Gospel into all tongues, even English...This supernatural speaking an unknown language (to your mind) as the Spirit gives you utterance is what Paul is saying MUST NOT BE FORBIDDEN.
because some churches realize that the charismatic tongue is not even the subject of 1Cor12-14 at all...it is a mistranslation...a tradition of man that many now wrongly base their faith on....Yet, we do have many churches where it is forbidden. This should be the starting point of any discussion on tongues - why do so many churches forbid it against the expression wishes of Paul as he writes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
this is exactly what happened later on, with Latin, for centuries, to their shameAs I have said, the Bible shows that tongues is a language given supernaturally by the Holy Spirit (Acts 2.4) and that ecstatic is a polemic word that is unnecessary in this debate.
but it never, ever means ecstatic utterances.
I don't think that this is relevant.Here I cleaned it up some:
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Tongues in Acts 2 . . .[/font][FONT='Verdana','sans-serif'] [/font]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif'][/font]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif'][/font]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif'][/font]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']The first thing to consider is the usage of glwssaiV lalien(speaking in tongues) in historical context. It is widely known that the ecstatic usage of tongues was widely practiced during the time of New Testament (NT) Palestine in the whole Mediterranian due to the so-called mystery religions/cults.
The Pythian and Delphic oracles were known to spout unintelligible prophecies that needed an interpreter when the women were said to be under the influence of a supernatural entity (pagan gods). This provides the usage of profhthV and glwssaiV lalien in Koine history in association with non-human unintelligible speech.
The phrase speaking in tongues, while not necessarily connoting ecstaic speech, does certainly INCLUDE this dimension of usage. Most limited lexicons give very brief and simplisitc overviews of the Koine Greek . . . the best, recognised universally, is G. Kittle's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT). I would suggest a view of the article on glwssa.
The historical concept of the profhthV and their speech and the contrast of the mystical concept of the pnuema verses the nouV pretty much seals the deal that the speech was not of the understanding . . . but from the place within that connected with what extends beyond the understanding. This can be defined as ecstatic.
So lets define ecstatic. A compound verb from ek (out of) and estemi (to stand) making ekstasiV, or literally out of stance . . . it has the connotation of out of NORMAL stance. Hence it has been used in reference to a vision (Acts 10:10) and amazement (Mark 5:42).
Our common conception of ecstatic, someone running around bumping into walls and frothing at the mouth is NOT what is in view . . . hence to read our current colloquial usage is folly. Truly, any gifting or move of the Spirit can be ecstatic if demonstrative enough to cause amazement . . . or even the specially edowed prophetic utterances whose source is not from "normalcy" but the supernatural working of the Spirit. This usage is in view when I say "ecstatic" . . . it is thoroughly biblical and wholesome.
To the text of Acts 2:
We have already established that there is an understanding of ecstatic NON-human language in the usage of the Konie glwssaiV lalien, although not a necessary understanding. The context will have to determine our understanding.
The first concept of import is in the word eterais (other) . . . the clear concept of the word includes something that was different than their normal tongue and something that was altogether new to them. Hence, whatever it was that they spoke . . . it was NOT something that they were familiar with . . . not something that was in their history of personal usage.
The second concept is that the speech was inspired by the pnuema (Spirit). Many studies have overlooked this vital concept. The history of the word is one of mystical and other-worldy usage. It is derrived from the pn a linguistic construct that pointed to the unknown and supernatural representing the rough breath and mystery the ancients associated with breathing and air. Hence, pnuema, connotes a supernatural unknown mysterious feeling.
The connection with pnuema and speech (laleo or cognates) cannot be overemphasized . . . the history of association from Plato and others in Ancient Greek of the mystery of speech inspired by the pnuema carries into the NT with the concept of the Holy Spirit of God. This connection wasn't unqiue to the Greeks . . . Hebrews associated the same mystery as did most ancient cultures.
This background lays the foundation for a type of speech which is obviously supernatural and patently *other* worldy. At this point it may still be known foreign languages supernaturally imparted, however.
The next touchpoint is the use of fonhV (sound). It is singular . . . not plural. That means that when the masses heard what it was that they heard . . . it was ONE loud sound . . . not many variable sounds. The sound of a group not individuals. This leads to the conclusion that what they gathered to was NOT a speech, per se, procession . . . but something much more awkward . . . obtruse.
some would argue that the ones who called them drunk,Here is where the arguement begins to take more form, and from the Greek becomes quite clear. The text will be helpful:
Acts 2:6-8
6 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. Acts
7 They were amazed and astonished, saying, " Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 "And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born?
NASU
NASU
The key is the singular and plural usage. "each one" ekstatoV eiV (each man singular) is the men hearing. Each individual heard them (autwn first [v. 6] plural and ekstatoV second [v. 8] SINGULAR) . . . AS A GROUP. The picture is of each man hearing them (plural) as a GROUP (singular). One hears ALL of them speaking in Parthian, while the man next to him hears THE SAME MEN (AS A GROUP) speaking in Mede AT THE SAME TIME . . . and it continues down the line.
Illustration: I am speaking in (whatever) and I have a Mexican, Russian and African all in front of me . . . the Mexican man is hearing me in Spanish, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME the Russian is hearing me in Russian WHILE AT THE SAME TIME the African is hearing me in African.
TDNT sees the sealing issue the Ioudaian (Judean's) as original (meaning it is in the original autographa). As such . . . this means that you have Judeans (local Jews) suprised to hear Judean's (the disciples) speaking Judean! BIG PROBLEMS. The resolution is that they are mystified because everyone is hearing their own dialects coming from the same men at the same time . . . which is physiologically impossible.
The case then becomes more of a miracle of hearing . . . than a miracle of speaking. The miracle is that the men gather at a strange sound, something uncommon (foreign languages are hardly uncommon) and are further dismayed as they are each able miraculously to understand this formerly strange sound in their own dialects AT THE SAME TIME AS THE MAN NEXT TO THEM from the WHOLE GROUP OF DISCIPLES.
Add to this that those who gathered and heard the noise and DID NOT understand accused the disciples of being DRUNK (ever heard a drunk man speak unintelligibly? I have) and you have a pretty solid case that the tongues of Acts 2 were ecstatic unintelligible languages who the Holy Spirit imparted understanding of to the men who would be converted.
[/font]
as stated, the scripture Itself is the proof.So the case is pretty clear. I have laid out history, usage, the text, linguisitcs . . . if u can refute these . . . then have at it. I have yet to have anyone really sink their teeth in to refute it. The logic and hermeneutic is sound . . . have fun
__________________
I don't think that this is relevant.
I believe that the chapters in question confirm my understanding and disprove yours.
some would argue that the ones who called them drunk,
did so because they just did not agree with what was said....
not that they didn't also understand it in their own language aswell...the fact is that they were very intelligable...so much so that possibly every person there heard it in their own language....possibly only some, but possibly all. some obviously did not agree, hence the drunk comment, IMO.
as stated, the scripture Itself is the proof.
IOW I beleve that many who think ecstatical/charismatic tounges are even mentioned in ACTS2, 1COR12-14,
are not dividing the Word properly...
and are taking aline here or there, while omitting the surrounding text which shows context.
I don't think that this is relevant.
I believe that the chapters in question confirm my understanding and disprove yours.
some would argue that the ones who called them drunk,
did so because they just did not agree with what was said....
40 seems to be ignored. Most Pentacostal church's everyone is off in every other direction and it more chaos than anything else.
What Pentecostal churches do you go to? Here, v 40 is kept to as we give messages in tongues, prophecy, have words of knowledge and so on and so forth.
It is absolutely relevant . . . drives at the historic usage . . . but u have never been one to take historic usage as proof.
I don't mind history....it is just that your understanding of history differs from others opinions...
yours is still opinion....and it has no bareing on what we are discussing
if you simply read the entire chapter and follow the running thought through out it,
then the explanaition become apparrent I believe.
you and others who practise "tongues" fail to do this IMO
Shocker
well, I really don't think that you follow the subject through....
I would hardly agree . . . they would have called them heretics.
says you...I'd say they called them drunk...
surely God's Power was not limited that day?
surely all people heard the message in their own dialect
accepted/agreed....or not...that is the question
regardless Zeke, the plural and singular noun usage of Acts 2 is what it is . . . there is no getting around it . . . to see the usage and say "nope sorry that is not what it says" is tantamount to saying 2+2 does not equal 4. Regardless of interpretation of other passages, here, in Acts 2, the plural and singular use of pronouns and the ioudian cannot be contested.
since I do not think that ithe tongue in ACTS2 was the same tongue that you speak, i'm not toworried about your exaplanation of the script
One person heard the whole group in Persian while the person next to him heard the SAME GROUP AT THE EXACT SAME TIME SPEAKING IN Mede . . . that is not foreign languages . . . it is one speech coming from the person and multiple people hearing the same man in different dialects . . . unless he can speak in chinese and with a second mouth speak in russian AT THE SAME TIME.
again, ACTS2's cloven tongues of fire and your experience are not the same right?
I'm more intrerested in1Cor12-14, rather than ACTS2
It is absolutely relevant . . . drives at the historic usage . . . but u have never been one to take historic usage as proof.
I don't mind history....it is just that your understanding of history differs from others opinions...
yours is still opinion....and it has no bareing on what we are discussing
if you simply read the entire chapter and follow the running thought through out it,
then the explanaition become apparrent I believe.
you and others who practise "tongues" fail to do this IMO
Shocker
well, I really don't think that you follow the subject through....
I would hardly agree . . . they would have called them heretics.
says you...I'd say they called them drunk...
surely God's Power was not limited that day?
surely all people heard the message in their own dialect
accepted/agreed....or not...that is the question
regardless Zeke, the plural and singular noun usage of Acts 2 is what it is . . . there is no getting around it . . . to see the usage and say "nope sorry that is not what it says" is tantamount to saying 2+2 does not equal 4. Regardless of interpretation of other passages, here, in Acts 2, the plural and singular use of pronouns and the ioudian cannot be contested.
since I do not think that ithe tongue in ACTS2 was the same tongue that you speak, i'm not toworried about your exaplanation of the script
One person heard the whole group in Persian while the person next to him heard the SAME GROUP AT THE EXACT SAME TIME SPEAKING IN Mede . . . that is not foreign languages . . . it is one speech coming from the person and multiple people hearing the same man in different dialects . . . unless he can speak in chinese and with a second mouth speak in russian AT THE SAME TIME.
again, ACTS2's cloven tongues of fire and your experience are not the same right?
I'm more intrerested in1Cor12-14, rather than ACTS2
I don't mind history....it is just that your understanding of history differs from others opinions...
yours is still opinion....and it has no bareing on what we are discussing
Actually phones as singular has alot to do with it . . . it means that what was percieved was not a marketplace cacauphony that would be associated with the foreign language exchange . . . my point stands.
As for history . . . I have showed you how, in the normal meaning of glossa, ecstatic speech is one of the understood usages . . . I showed you the delphic and pythian oracles . . . I even showed you the Testament of Job where there are ANGELIC TONGUES AND DIALECTS referred to in the Judeo/Christian era in question . . . AND YET IN LIGHT OF FACTS OF HISTORY YOU SAY "no glossa only means language" . . . so I dont know what to say . . . facts are facts and you dont take historic usage unless you think in agrees with your position. At least be humble enough to say "OK it is in the broad meaning of glossa . . . i just dont agree that this is what glossa refers to HERE" . . . but you cant even say this!
says you...I'd say they called them drunk...
surely God's Power was not limited that day?
surely all people heard the message in their own dialect
No I dont think that they all heard it. I think everyone heard a sound, something like they had never heard before, gathered, some who would be those who would respond to the Gospel, heard the tongues in their languages and were astonished at how the sound that they just heard could now be heard individually by each of them in their own dialect (notice NOT GLOSSA but DIALECTOS) ascribing greatness to God, and the others who would not respond to the Gospel continued to hear what sounded like drunk men to them . . . babbling, incoherance, disjointed unconnected UNINTELLIGBLE SPEECH. Gods power did exactly what it set out to do . . . save those who would respond to the Gospel.
since I do not think that ithe tongue in ACTS2 was the same tongue that you speak, i'm not toworried about your exaplanation of the script
AH HA! And herein lies the problem . . . it is what we call PRESUPPOSITION. BECAUSE YOU DO NOT THINK THAT ACTS 2 IS ECSTATIC SPEECH . . . YOU THEREFORE WILL NOT EVEN OBJECTIVELY INVESTIGATE THE EVIDENCE WITHOUT BIAS. Sorry brother, that is because of PRESUPPOSITION, NOT because of hermeneutic. Thanks for admitting tho that your reasons have nothing to do with objectivity.
again, ACTS2's cloven tongues of fire and your experience are not the same right?
I'm more intrerested in1Cor12-14, rather than ACTS2
Oh contrare . . . I think that they are the same thing . . . the Spirit just used them differently. Tongues being a communication of the soul to God is used to bless those in the church in 1 Cor 12-14 and tongues as a communication of the soul to God is used to arouse the curiousity of the 3000 on Pentecost and impress them with what it is BECAUSE THEY KNOW IT IS NOT NORMAL FOREIGN LANGUAGES and grab their attention for the presentation of the Gospel by Peter's sermon.
I beg you don't change your opinion...Tongues seems like the most useless gift ever... All the other gifts at least hold a purpose. What does the gift of tongues do? It's a rather selfish gift from the way I see it... all the other gifts had a purpose and I can see why God would give them to people. The gift of tongues as we know it today is completely useless as far as spreading the Gospel etc. It seems like it's just a piece of heaven on earth for the person doing it which I don't see the point for.
Not to mention I think it scares off more non-Christians than it's gonna reach out to anyone.
Can someone tell me how "speaking in tongues" (as seen on TBN or something) is useful and actually benefits anything? Just curious... Never seen anyone do it outside the TV so I'm willing to change my opinion cause I realize most what you see on tv TBN or otherwise, is a bunch of horse pucky and maybe it's a misrepresentation?
Actually phones as singular has alot to do with it . . . it means that what was percieved was not a marketplace cacauphony that would be associated with the foreign language exchange . . . my point stands.
personally, your point means little to me....right or wrong
as it is not relevant to the meaning of tongues in 1Cor14
As for history . . . I have showed you how, in the normal meaning of glossa, ecstatic speech is one of the understood usages . . .
no, you shared your opinion, one that I do not agree with
I showed you the delphic and pythian oracles . . .
must have missed that one, not that it matters
I even showed you the Testament of Job where there are ANGELIC TONGUES AND DIALECTS referred to in the Judeo/Christian era in question . . .
you did? where was I?
AND YET IN LIGHT OF FACTS OF HISTORY YOU SAY "no glossa only means language" . . .
well...it does...sorry
so I dont know what to say . . .
either do I but copy/paste the scripture..
the whole thought, instead of a line here or there
facts are facts and you dont take historic usage unless you think in agrees with your position.
either do you
At least be humble enough to say "OK it is in the broad meaning of glossa . . . i just dont agree that this is what glossa refers to HERE" . . . but you cant even say this!
because I do not agree with that...it wouldn't matter anyway, asthe text point out what "tongues" means, in the very context...but you take a line here or there and make it mean what you want it to mean, instead of sticking with the thought that Paul is placing there
No I dont think that they all heard it. I think everyone heard a sound, something like they had never heard before,
the sound that they heard sounded like their own home dialect,
so they had heard that dialect before...lol
gathered, some who would be those who would respond to the Gospel, heard the tongues in their languages and were astonished at how the sound that they just heard could now be heard individually by each of them in their own dialect (notice NOT GLOSSA but DIALECTOS) ascribing greatness to God, and the others who would not respond to the Gospel continued to hear what sounded like drunk men to them . . . babbling, incoherance, disjointed unconnected UNINTELLIGBLE SPEECH. Gods power did exactly what it set out to do . . . save those who would respond to the Gospel.
I do not agree with your analogy
AH HA! And herein lies the problem . . . it is what we call PRESUPPOSITION. BECAUSE YOU DO NOT THINK THAT ACTS 2 IS ECSTATIC SPEECH . . . YOU THEREFORE WILL NOT EVEN OBJECTIVELY INVESTIGATE THE EVIDENCE WITHOUT BIAS. Sorry brother, that is because of PRESUPPOSITION, NOT because of hermeneutic. Thanks for admitting tho that your reasons have nothing to do with objectivity.
doesn't matter...it was not what you do, else all of you who are "in it" would likewise hear the Wonderful works of God magnified in his/her own langauge...and all you guys hear is babyl.
you certainly do not use that tongue to spread the Word, do ya?
so, is what you do, the same as seen in ACTS2?
the answer is no...so your point is moot.
argue for your practise, not for theirs.
I do not doubt their experience at all...
I know it was a miracle and I know that it had a distinct purpose....
and that is something that I cannot say for your "tongues"
and remember that I've been there....
Oh contrare . . . I think that they are the same thing . . . the Spirit just used them differently.
lol...we are at an impass.
Tongues being a communication of the soul to God is used to bless those in the church in 1 Cor 12-14 and tongues as a communication of the soul to God is used to arouse the curiousity of the 3000 on Pentecost and impress them with what it is BECAUSE THEY KNOW IT IS NOT NORMAL FOREIGN LANGUAGES and grab their attention for the presentation of the Gospel by Peter's sermon.
as said, weare at an impass...
Tongues seems like the most useless gift ever... All the other gifts at least hold a purpose. What does the gift of tongues do? It's a rather selfish gift from the way I see it... all the other gifts had a purpose and I can see why God would give them to people. The gift of tongues as we know it today is completely useless as far as spreading the Gospel etc. It seems like it's just a piece of heaven on earth for the person doing it which I don't see the point for.
Not to mention I think it scares off more non-Christians than it's gonna reach out to anyone.
Can someone tell me how "speaking in tongues" (as seen on TBN or something) is useful and actually benefits anything? Just curious... Never seen anyone do it outside the TV so I'm willing to change my opinion cause I realize most what you see on tv TBN or otherwise, is a bunch of horse pucky and maybe it's a misrepresentation?
Tongues seems like the most useless gift ever... All the other gifts at least hold a purpose. What does the gift of tongues do? It's a rather selfish gift from the way I see it... all the other gifts had a purpose and I can see why God would give them to people. The gift of tongues as we know it today is completely useless as far as spreading the Gospel etc. It seems like it's just a piece of heaven on earth for the person doing it which I don't see the point for.
Not to mention I think it scares off more non-Christians than it's gonna reach out to anyone.
Can someone tell me how "speaking in tongues" (as seen on TBN or something) is useful and actually benefits anything? Just curious... Never seen anyone do it outside the TV so I'm willing to change my opinion cause I realize most what you see on tv TBN or otherwise, is a bunch of horse pucky and maybe it's a misrepresentation?
Tongues seems like the most useless gift ever... All the other gifts at least hold a purpose.
What does the gift of tongues do?
The gift of tongues as we know it today is completely useless as far as spreading the Gospel etc.
It seems like it's just a piece of heaven on earth for the person doing it which I don't see the point for.
Not to mention I think it scares off more non-Christians than it's gonna reach out to anyone.
Can someone tell me how "speaking in tongues" (as seen on TBN or something) is useful and actually benefits anything? Just curious... Never seen anyone do it outside the TV so I'm willing to change my opinion cause I realize most what you see on tv TBN or otherwise, is a bunch of horse pucky and maybe it's a misrepresentation
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?