Vain babbling

[LaSpino3]

In Acts 2, when the apostiles spoke in tongues to a large crowd, they spoke the Gospel message; that being the good news of the resurrection of their Saviour. This message of resurrection had never been heard by the ears of men.

There was no N.T. written at this time. In Acts 2, it was the first time the Holy Spirit worked in any man. When the apostles spoke, they spoke, "As the (Holy) Spirit gave them utterance.

"Every man (in the crowd) heard them speak in his own tongue (language.)" This was the miracle of Pentecost, and it came by way of the gift of the Holy Spirit. 3000 were saved, those who believed, and many thousands were not, those who believed not.

Again, there was no N.T. and the good news of Jesus Christ had never been preached before. This being the first time the Holy Spirit's gifts were given to men. It was "The Holy Spirit gave them (the apostles) utterance."

The word tongue, or tongues in the Hebrew O.T. is used 104 times, and never means anything other than an known language of speech, a dialect, or the literal tongue itself.

The Hebrew's understood the word to mean a language, or dialect of a people.

Nowhere can I find, in any source material that the word tongues means anything else than the above in the original Greek and Hebrew. Jesus and the apostles taught out of the O.T. quoting from it continually, for this reason, the word tongue, or tongues would have only meant what the Jews' understood it to mean.

Other sources consulted are,

Webster's dictionary, printed 1860. "Tongue:" A language; the whole sum of words used by a particular nation. Speech, words or declarations only; opposed to thoughts or actions. A nation, as distinguished by their language.

Webster's Third New International Dictionary Unabridged. A spoken language, especially, a speech used by a particular people or class, or in a particular region. A dialect. A language other than one's own, a foreign or strange language. Tongues, plural, the learned language as Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, a people having a distinct language as in Isa.66:18, "I will gather all nations and tongues;"

See Also Encyclopaedia Britannica.

I have at home, an 1825 K.J.V. of the Bible. On the introductory page it reads, "Translated out of the original tongues," meaning the original languages.

Now you can get on your platforms and tell me I don't understand, and that's OK. But what I am sure of, speaking words that have no meaning in any language, is not of God, and is not supported by the Scriptures.

Phil LaSpino

 

[Truth_Warrior]

Now you can get on your platforms and tell me I don't understand, and that's OK. But what I am sure of, speaking words that have no meaning in any language, is not of God, and is not supported by the Scriptures.

Phil LaSpino

1Co 12:1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.


1Co 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.


1Co 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

1Co 14:18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:

1Co 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
1Co 14:38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

1Co 14:39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.



Site dictionaries and Encyclopedias all you want.


I have Gods Word on the truth.

Your tradition is causing you to be blinded to truth.

 

[Hillsage]

tturt post #17

[FONT=&]To[/FONT]ngues are a sign to unbelievers of believers.

Great insight.

This whole thread like many others laspino started is designed for not showing truth but for division and if you go back and look you will see a trend.
He starts a thread.....gets the fire and division started and bows out.

Another good insight. The instant I read this I thought you really pinned the tail on the donkey.

Truth Warrior post #18
This whole thread like many others laspino started is designed for not showing truth but for division and if you go back and look you will see a trend.

He starts a thread.....gets the fire and division started and bows out.
Mr. start and dart Laspino.

#20 I have spent many many hours and read every arguement you propose and I see them as vain babble when you stand it up against truth.

Most fundaMENTALists try to demean Charismatic tongues as babble. Never does it dawn on them that at the tower of Babel the tongues that were the curse...were the languages of men. The very same languages that you have just correctly associated with LaSpino's arguments.

 

[tturt]

Some purposes of tongues are:
-Builds up our faith and helps us love Jude 1:20-21
-Magnifies God: Acts 10:4
-Prayers to be Spirit-Led: I Cor 14:14
-Intercession: Rom 8:26
-Believers can speak to God I Cor 14:2
-Personal Edification: I Corinthians 14:4,5 (Strong’s edification includes “the act of building.” Yahweh is our help to get rid of “stuff).”
-Church Edification: gift of tongues and interpretation I Cor 12:10

This is always interesting to me - those who oppose don't mind stating so yet I Cor 14:39 “Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.”

 

[cupid dave]

Great insight.
Another good insight. The instant I read this I thought you really pinned the tail on the donkey.



Most fundaMENTALists try to demean Charismatic tongues as babble. Never does it dawn on them that at the tower of Babel the tongues that were the curse...were the languages of men. The very same languages that you have just correctly associated with LaSpino's arguments.

So...?

Z


Socrates did the same.

That we find the right answer is what counts???

Yes...?

 

[Hillsage]

So...?

So if finding the right answer really is important. An observation such as TRUTH WARRIOR made would seem to be of value in judging a source of information, IMO.

Z
Socrates did the same.
That we find the right answer is what counts???
Yes...?

Yes, finding the right answer is most certainly the path we should be on. But personally I think we should be careful of those who start a path and then depart when they can't defend why they aren't staying with it. It comes off as though they're really just afraid of where it does end up?

BTW have you noticed that TRUTH WARRIOR's observation of LaSpino has already come to pass...again! "Mr. start and dart" has already departed and run to start 3 new threads rather than deal with those issues here?

BTW...what was the "Z" all about? And "Socrates did the same thing"...What 'thing', Dave?

 

[tturt]

[FONT=&]To[/FONT]ngues are a sign to unbelievers of believers. I Cor 14:22 “Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.” Mark 16:17 “And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;”

Some say that the unbelievers in this Scripture is referring to believers who don't believe in tongues. What do you think?

 

[LaSpino3]

Hilsage wrote, "Most fundamentalists try to demean Charismatic tongues as babble."

Phil replies, "I find it amazing how the Lord brings forth the truth, even from those who reject certain doctrinal truths, in this case, the so called tongues movement.

Hilsage, and Cupid Dave, agree on the following, "Fundamentalist try to demean Charismatic tongues.'

The fact that you used the word fundamentalist indicates that Fundamentalist do have the truth. Why?

Fundamentalist have the primary principle, rule, and doctrines which serves as the groundwork, and foundation of Christianity. Fundamental Christianity goes back to Christ himself, built upon the apostles, and finally the written word. Speaking in a language not of this world, is not one of these teachings. Its not me that divides, as you continually accuse me of, but its false teachings that have, and continue to divide the body of Christ.

Fundamental Christianity disagrees with the so called Charismatic teaching on tongues. So where does that leave you, unfundamental?

By the way, I am still waiting for anyone of you to tell me from which Greek, Hebrew, or English dictionary, or Lexicon you have gotten the idea that the word tongues means anything else other than a language, idiom, or dialect of a language of a people, or nation.

Give it up, you can't, Why? because there ain't any. "Ain't that the truth?"

But I am not unsimpathic with you, Why? because when you speak in tongues, it makes you feel good; Right?

No disrespect meant, only responding to your comments posted.

Phil LaSpino

 

[Hillsage]

Fundamentalist have the primary principle, rule, and doctrines which serves as the groundwork, the foundation of Christianity. Fundamental Christianity goes back to Christ himself, and through him upon the apostles, and finally the written word.

Your opinion comes solely from your logic. And with such logic/opinion, as above, if you really believed it, you'd STILL BE A CATHOLIC Phil.

'Oh consistency, thou art truly a jewel to be sought for.'

Its not me that divides, but its false teachings that have, and continue to divide the body of Christ.

There's no "division" with the 'true church' Phil. Like I said in my last post, 'WHICH YOU NEVER REFUTED, I was in meetings with people from all kinds of religious backgrounds, and I couldn't tell a Baptist spirit 'tongue' from a Catholic spirit 'tongue'. We were united "IN THE SPIRIT" in spite of our divided 'Sunday churches'.

You think that unity is based upon doctrinal agreement...that's why the church is so DIVIDED Phil....it is an "ISM" spirit that you follow after, and it leads you to think 'you have the truth'. But in reality it is the 'religious spirit' that caused 666 denominationalISM splits. People like you can't discern the difference between CONformity and UNIformity. And it's because you have followed the CON of the 'religious spirit'.

Speaking in a language not of this world, is not one of these teachings.

You, and others like you truly have eyes that cannot see. Read the BOLD below.

1CO 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for NO MAN understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

We have experienced a tongues which is biblically supported, if you read it in faith, without 'ism' bias. You have 'mentally' brought scripture down to your level of non-experience whereas we have 'by faith' have been lifted to receive an experience that's up to the level in the bible.

Not that there aren't some issues within the Pentecostal/Charismatic community. There absolutely are with both, character and doctrine. Not all 'tongue speakers' agree on every doctrinal point surrounding this spiritual gift.

Fundamental Christianity disagrees with the so called Charismatic teaching on tongues. So where does that leave you? unfundamental.

No, like I said earlier, it leaves you doctrinally fundaMENTAL as opposed to being experientially fundaSPIRITUAL.

By the way, I am still waiting for anyone of you to tell me from which Greek, Hebrew, or English dictionary, or Lexicon you have gotten the idea that the word tongues means anything else other than a language, idiom, or dialect of a language of a people, or nation.

I answered this question before...you just don't like the answer. You have put your faith in the traditions and commandments of men like Jesus warned against. Jesus never picked one of the religious 'brains' of his day to be a disciple. HELLO!

Give it up, you can't, Why? because there ain't any. "Ain't that the truth?"
Phil LaSpino

Your truth, Phil...your truth. And it's a false truth based upon experiential lack from bad indoctrinationalISM.

 

[LaSpino3]

Phil wrote, "Fundamentalist have the primary principle, rule, and doctrines which serves as the groundwork, the foundation of Christianity. Fundamental Christianity goes back to Christ himself, and through him upon the apostles, and finally the written word."

Hillsage, replied, "Your opinion comes solely from your logic. And with such logic/opinion, as above, if you really believed it, you'd STILL BE A CATHOLIC."

Phil replied, "I said back to Christ, who is the cornerstone of the church, not to the Catholic church which came about in the 4th century."

Hillsage wrote, "You, and others like you truly have eyes that cannot see. Read the BOLD below."

1CO 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for NO MAN understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries."

Phil replies, "Here is where the problem lies. You absolutely reject the meaning of the word "Tongues," and it true meaning in the English, Greek, Hebrew, and any other language."

My last example. If two men went into an English only speaking church to preach a sermon, and one, the preacher, spoke only German, and the other was a translator who spoke both German, and English.

Now the pastor who spoke German only begins to speak. No-one in the church understands a word he is speaking; that is, until the translator interprets it for him. Now the congregation knows what the message is.
Until the translator had translated the message, it was "Unknown," to the congregation.

The only other way this could have been be done, is if the Holy Spirit does what He did at Pentecost. Acts 2:8, when one of the foreigners said, "How hear we every man in our own tongue (language, or dialect) wherein we were born?"

This gift of speaking known languages, tongues that a person has never studied, is a gift from God. But it is not one that can be turned on, and off like a light switch. Its a gift given when needed, and at the discression of the Holy Spirit, and not individuals.

Until you come to terms with the above truth, there is no longer any need to discuss this subject any further with you.

Phil LaSpino

 

[Hillsage]

Phil replied, "I said back to Christ, who is the cornerstone of the church, not to the Catholic church which came about in the 4th century."

That's the problem Phil, the Catholic church claims the same validity for truth that you claim. So you cancel out either one of you being an authority based upon both of you believing YOUR OPINIONS are right. It's all about that 'religious spirited' thing I mentioned.

Hillsage wrote, "You, and others like you truly have eyes that cannot see. Read the BOLD below."

1CO 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for NO MAN understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries."

Phil replies, "Here is where the problem lies. You absolutely reject the meaning of the word "Tongues," and it true meaning in the English, Greek, Hebrew, and any other language."

No, I don't reject the meaning, I simply let the bible define it...and not MEN like you have. I fully understand that "NO MAN understandeth" means 'it doesn't make any difference what your interpretation of tongues is'. It means that if it WAS an earthly language AT ALL...ANYWHERE on the face of this earth, then 'SOME MAN...SOMEWHERE' on earth, WOULD understand it. But since 'this particular tongue' is in regard to a heavenly language of spirit beings and NOT an earthly language the bible says; "NO MAN UNDERSTANDS" it.

My last example. If two men went into an English only speaking church to preach a sermon, and one, the preacher, spoke only German, and the other was a translator who spoke both German, and English.

Now let me explain the error of your analogy. The very fact that your TRANSLATOR does understand German means "NO MAN UNDERSTANDS" doesn't even apply to your myopic interpretation of this scripture.

The only other way this could have been be done, is if the Holy Spirit does what He did at Pentecost. Acts 2:8, when one of the foreigners said, "How hear we every man in our own tongue (language, or dialect) wherein we were born?"

Now you are confusing the prayer tongues of my spirit speaking to God versus Tongues from THE HOLY SPIRIT speaking through men to other men. You can't apply your apple understanding to an orange.

This gift of speaking known languages, tongues that a person has never studied, is a gift from God. But it is not one that can be turned on, and off like a light switch. Its a gift given when needed, and at the discression of the Holy Spirit, and not individuals.

BINGO Phil, you are absolutley right. But only when talking about the tongue that is initiated by The Holy Spirit and not my spirit, as when I pray in tongues.

1CO 14:14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.
My/your spirit is not The Holy Spirit. Even translators got this one right by not capitalizing spirit Phil.

Until you come to terms with the above truth, there is no longer any need to discuss this subject any further with you.

To 'come to terms with truth' one must first HAVE truth to deal with...such as I have shared. So not "discussing this further" truly depends upon whether or not you can submit to your own 'caveat' Phil. Can you deal with 'more truth' than you had concerning this subject?

 

[LaSpino3]

Hillsage wrote, "But since 'this particular tongue' is in regard to a heavenly language of spirit beings and NOT an earthly language the bible says; "NO MAN UNDERSTANDS" it."

Phil replies, "If your using the word "No," as an absolute, two points of interest come up that expose your mis-interpretation. If no man understands, and "NO," is absolute, as you are claiming, and it is; this would mean that no interpreter can understand also.

If he did understand, and than revealed the message to the congregation, than no man, could not mean "no man," but "All men," could understand it; right? Now if your praying in this unknown language, and "no man," would have to include you; so what's the point.

The apostiles asked Jesus, "How should we pray?" Jesus replied with, "Our Father --- etc." Now this sounds more reasonable than what your attempting to convey. But maybe Jesus was not telling all He knew to them. Maybe babbling was a secret He was keeping from them? although I can't think of one reason why He would.

By saying "no man," Paul was making reference to those in the congregation, and not in the whole world, as you are falsely claiming.

Look, Hillsage, if you want to speak in a language that "No man," including yourself can understand, I don't care. If I can save one person from this nonsense, I will have accomplished my work for the Lord.

Phil LaSpino

 

[Hillsage]

Phil replies, "If your using the word "No," as an absolute,

Not me Phil...the BIBLE. And you can either believe your church or you can believe the bible...like me.

two points of interest come up that expose your mis-interpretation. If no man understands, and "NO," is absolute, as you are claiming, and it is; this would mean that no interpreter can understand also.

That is exactly what I said in my last post Phil..

If he did understand, and than revealed the message to the congregation, than no man, could not mean "no man," but "All men," could understand it; right?

You would only be correct 'IF' an interpreter could have understood it. But that would be contrary to what 1Cor 14:2 says then...wouldn't it? So you have to deny the scripture to defend your indoctrinated belief system...I don't.

Now if your praying in this unknown language, and "no man," would have to include you; so what's the point.

The point/purpose of prayer in my spirit's heavenly tongue, is exactly what scripture tells you it is.

1CO 14:4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.

If you've never experienced the self edification that comes from being able to pray to God for a situation that your mind/soul is inadequate for....then 14:4 would mean to you, what it means to me. No one knows your thoughts better than your spirit. And you can pray a deceitful soulish prayer in English, that comes from your 'unrenewed mind', or you can pray a perfect prayer that comes from your spirit which knows what's wrong with your soul/mind.

1CO 2:11 For what person knows a man's thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.

The apostiles asked Jesus, "How should we pray?" Jesus replied with, "Our Father --- etc." Now this sounds more reasonable than what your attempting to convey.

If I was basing my theology on "reasonable" without scripture, then I might have to argue the point with you, but since my view is based upon scripture...there is no argument.

But here's some 'reason' you lack in your above hypothesis, the Apostles didn't even have the baptism of the Spirit at this point TO PRAY in tongues. Praying in tongues wasn't available to them until after Pentecost. And that "reasoning" just beat yours.

But maybe Jesus was not telling all He knew to them. Maybe babbling was a secret He was keeping from them? although I can't think of one reason why He would.

Babbling is no secret. Any true bible believer knows that babble was the curse of the tower of Babel, and like I said earlier the tongues of BABEL are the language you speak today as a 'tongue of man'.

By saying "no man," Paul was making reference to those in the congregation, and not in the whole world, as you are falsely claiming.

You opinion based upon nothing scriptural Phil. And it's also a 'indoctrinated opinion' that directs you to a belief system that has robbed you of even being able to exercise faith for this gift so many of us have received.

Look, Hillsage, if you want to speak in a language that "No man," including yourself can understand, I don't care. If I can save one person from this nonsense, I will have accomplished my work for the Lord.

Well, if that is the case then someone is serving the wrong Lord.

Do you know what the true danger of deception is? It's the fact that you ARE deceived and you don't even know it.

 

[John 07]

2 Tim.2:16, "Shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness."

what do you make of this (article > glossolalia from Wikipedia):

Non-Christian practice
Other religious groups been observed to practice some form of theopneustic glossolalia. It is perhaps most commonly in Paganism, Shamanism, and other mediumistic religious practices.[52] In Japan, the God Light Association used to practice glossolalia to cause adherents to recall past lives.[53]
Glossolalia has even been postulated as an explanation for the Voynich manuscript.[54]
Certain Gnostic magical texts from the Roman period have written on them unintelligible syllables such as "t t t t n n n n d d d d d..." etc. It is conjectured that these may be transliterations of the sorts of sounds made during glossolalia. The Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians also features a hymn of (mostly) unintelligible syllables which is thought to be an early example of Christian glossolalia
In the 19th century, Spiritism was developed by the work of Allan Kardec, and the phenomenon was seen as one of the self-evident manifestations of spirits. Spiritists argued that some cases were actually cases of xenoglossia (from Greek,xenos, stranger; and glossa, language. When one speaks in a language unknown to him).
Glossolalia has also been observed in the Voodoo religion of Haiti,[55] as well as in the Hindu Gurus and Fakirs of India

​

 

[Hillsage]

what do you make of this (article > glossolalia from Wikipedia):

First off, I'd say it is Wikipedia and not the bible. But second, I say; read the headline and first line of the article. I made it 'bold' to help you 'catch the truth'.

Non-Christian practice
Other religious groups been observed to practice some form of theopneustic glossolalia.

2CO 11:14 No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.

Does anyone here think that this BIBLE verse just might mean that the tongues that are of the devil could be imitating 'the true gift' that is of God???

3 John 1:11 Beloved, do not imitate evil but imitate good. He who does good is of God; he who does evil has not seen God.

So you can 'imitate the bible'...or you can do like 'many' do, and just throw the truth out because there is an imitation that's from the devil.


You can also go to Wickipedia and read the following concerning CHRISITIAN tongues.

"Theological ExplanationsIn Christianity, a supernatural explanation for glossolalia is advocated by some and rejected by others.

• Glossolalists could, apart from those practicing glossolalia, also mean all those Christians who believe that the Pentecostal/charismatic glossolalia practiced today is the "speaking in tongues" described in the New Testament. They believe that it is a miraculous charism or spiritual gift. Glossolalists claim that these tongues can be both real, unlearned languages (i.e., xenoglossia)[13][14] as well as a "language of the spirit", a "heavenly language", or perhaps the language of angels.[15]
• Cessationists believe that all the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit ceased to occur early in Christian history, and therefore that the speaking in tongues practised today is simply the utterance of meaningless syllables. It is neither xenoglossia nor miraculous, but rather learned behavior, possibly self-induced. These believe that what the New Testament described as "speaking in tongues" was xenoglossia, a miraculous spiritual gift through which the speaker could communicate in natural languages not previously studied.

Proponents of each viewpoint use the biblical writings and historical arguments to support their positions."

In the end, this last line of Wickipedia explains the never ending dilemma between those who have, and those who have not.

 

[Truth_Warrior]

First off, I'd say it is Wikipedia and not the bible. But second, I say; read the headline and first line of the article. I made it 'bold' to help you 'catch the truth'.
2CO 11:14 No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.

Does anyone here think that this BIBLE verse just might mean that the tongues that are of the devil could be imitating 'the true gift' that is of God???

3 John 1:11 Beloved, do not imitate evil but imitate good. He who does good is of God; he who does evil has not seen God.

So you can 'imitate the bible'...or you can do like 'many' do, and just throw the truth out because there is an imitation that's from the devil.


You can also go to Wickipedia and read the following concerning CHRISITIAN tongues.

"Theological ExplanationsIn Christianity, a supernatural explanation for glossolalia is advocated by some and rejected by others.

• Glossolalists could, apart from those practicing glossolalia, also mean all those Christians who believe that the Pentecostal/charismatic glossolalia practiced today is the "speaking in tongues" described in the New Testament. They believe that it is a miraculous charism or spiritual gift. Glossolalists claim that these tongues can be both real, unlearned languages (i.e., xenoglossia)[13][14] as well as a "language of the spirit", a "heavenly language", or perhaps the language of angels.[15]
• Cessationists believe that all the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit ceased to occur early in Christian history, and therefore that the speaking in tongues practised today is simply the utterance of meaningless syllables. It is neither xenoglossia nor miraculous, but rather learned behavior, possibly self-induced. These believe that what the New Testament described as "speaking in tongues" was xenoglossia, a miraculous spiritual gift through which the speaker could communicate in natural languages not previously studied.

Proponents of each viewpoint use the biblical writings and historical arguments to support their positions."

In the end, this last line of Wickipedia explains the never ending dilemma between those who have, and those who have not.

great post

 

[tturt]

For there to be a counterfeit, there has to be an authentic. I, too, prefer Scripture over other sources.