What is the baptism of the holy spirit all about?

[Rev Randy]

the Acts 2 "tongues" (where the speaker speaks in one language and the hearer hears what is said in their own language) still occurs ...

Yes it does.

 

[zeke37]

Yes it does.

seriously, how do you know?
do you have proof?

 

[zeke37]

Huh? Some of your statements are very hard to understand.

Huh?
Are you saying it DOES need an interpreter? Or does NOT? Could you try to write a little more clearly please?

Yes it DOES need an interpreter. Pentecost did NOT need one. Two different gifts. (Is this really all that complicated?)

You're seriously going to try to build a theological position on one of the most unclear passages in the entire Bible? Please. I don't even care to speculate on the dynamics of 1Cor 14:21-22.

it's not that hard at all.

20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
21In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
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.
​

English, and all other tongues of men.
to the ends of the earth, all nations.

wherefore preaching about God done in a foreign tongue,
is a sign for those foreign speaking new folks, so they can come to God.
not for those that already believe....because we already believe.

only if we did not believe, and understand a different (foreign) tongue of those speaking in the assembly,
would we need that sign, of the Good News being spread in foreign languages


it's rather easy when you understand that tongues = foreign languages
remember that this chapter is the rules about how to accomplish/continue the Great Commission in the proper manner
not about public vs private special prayer un-language

 

[Rev Randy]

seriously, how do you know?
do you have proof?

I've witnessed it in person. Proof? Enough for myself. But I've witnessed quite a few things in Africa that I've seen nowhere else nor would I attempt to explain them.

 

[zeke37]

LOTTTTTTTA words to say that Scripture didnt "REALLY" mean what it said.

it means exactly what it says.
not what your circle says it says

whether i'm right about tongues, or you are,
IT'S NOT EVEN FOR YOU that already believe,
yet you cling to your form, like it's God.

IT JUST MEANS FOREIGN LANGAUGES. THAT'S IT

 

[zeke37]

I've witnessed it in person. Proof? Enough for myself. But I've witnessed quite a few things in Africa that I've seen nowhere else nor would I attempt to explain them.

WHAT DID YOU WITNESS? sorry cap lock
was it just like ACTS2?
did you "see" the same cloven tongues of fire?

how do you KNOW?
you can attempt explaining it

 

[zeke37]

1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.
2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue (foreign languages, to the ones listening) speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue (foreign languages, to the ones listening) edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
5 I would that ye all spake with tongues (foreign languages) but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues (foreign languages), except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues (foreign languages, to the ones listening), what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?
7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?
8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?
9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.
10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.
11 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.
12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.
13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue (foreign languages, to the ones listening) pray that he may interpret (be interpreted for the audience).
14 For if I pray (aloud, or teach aloud, or sing aloud, about God) in an unknown tongue (foreign languages, to the ones listening), my spirit prayeth, but my understanding (in my mind) is unfruitful (to them listening) .
15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified
(not edified because in this case, you speak your words of the good News
in a foreign language to them, and they can't understand your words)
18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues (foreign languages) more than ye all:
19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue (foreign languages, to the ones listening) .
20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues (foreign languages) and other lips (foreigners) will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
22 Wherefore tongues (the Good News spoke in foreign 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.
23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues (foreign to each other, Greek, Hebrew, whatever, all spoken over each other at the same time), and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?
24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:
25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth. (yay! even works in English )
26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue (foreigners, speaking their own foreign language), hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.
27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue (foreign language), let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.(if someone preaches in their foreign language, for the purpose of edifying the church,
it better be interpreted to the church in a language they can understand.
if it cannot be, then you are to keep your message to yourself,
instead of confusing the people with your foreign tongue)

29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. (2 or 3 translations at once, from Hebrew, to Greek, to French maybe...
but no more as it would become confusing to most of the audience)
30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? (charismatics seemingly forget this verse)
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.
38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak (the Good News) with tongues (foreign languages, so to spread the Good News) .
40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

 

[zeke37]

jal>>It doesn't take two different gifts to know a language fluently. It only takes ONE gift at most. No one who is fluent in both languages would say, "I can't translate for the audience until God also gives me the gift of intepretatoin." Your position dosn't make sense.

I did not state my position the way you say I do.
my position is different than the one you have assigned me

tongues is one gift, and interpretation of tongues is another
both are needed to carry out the Great Commission properly.

Zeke>> Then you do not have any actual experience with multi-lingual persons. do you think someone with a very thick accent, a landed immigrant, who speaks English,
will be able to accurately reflect your feeling in your words etc, if he is to translate it
since you speak perfect English?

Sorry, Zeke, but you are trapped in a contradiction.

no I am not.

Learning a language fluently involves both speaking and listening. If my pronunciation is so poor – due to my accent – that I improperly convey the message, then I am not FLUENT in that language.

exactly my point...lol

You yourself allude to a GIFT of being multilingual. A gift functioning so poorly that I am mispronouncing the words?

no. that person would not be "gifted" in languages then.
it's not a hard concept to follow.

Even if that were true, that would simply require me to further DEVELOP my gift of multilingualism.

good, go for it.
if God helps you, you'd become gifted at it
if not, then...not.

Gifted of God, doesn't just mean "good at it"
it not only means good at it, but also that you are using said Gift,
in furthering the plan of God

There is no need for a SECOND gift.

the first gift, by example, would be a Hebrew man being gifted in Greek
he could speak both languages fluently,
so he can give his testimony and edify the Greeks in the church

the second gift, of interpretation, would be a French man who is gifted in Greek
because he understands the Hebrew man's Greek words,
he can then in turn spread this same message to all the French people in the church

it could also be a Greek man, gifted in Chinese, who is listening among the crowd
He understands the Greek message, and is in turn able to share it with anyone that speaks Chinese


through multiple foreign languages and interpreters,
God can reach the entire world's languages eventually.

that's Gifts of extreme measure
and completely shatters the charismatic circle's definitions and practices
and leaves them in shame

so as for tongues, between you and I,
place our two definitions next to each other, side by side,
and see which is more important for the Body

the Great Commission, or jibbering in an un-language

Again, it only takes one gift to know and speak a language.

but not to interpret to others...that's a different ball game
because multiple language barriers can be breached at once.

get it yet?

My argument stands.

if fails every time Bro

[/quote]If the languages at issue were a matter of natural learning, there would be no possibility of two different kinds of gifts, one to learn the languages and the other to interpret them. That would make ZERO sense. Period. End of story.
[/quote]
it's not the end of the story at all.
maybe for you, but not for the truth
I explained it above.

Zeke>>that is exactly what is meant by Paul when he says;
PRAY that someone interpret
why wouldn't you pray to God about it first, before asking?
First of all, Paul wasn't saying, pray that ANYONE interpret. He was saying, let the speaker pray that he himself may interpret what he said. This makes ZERO SENSE if natural learning is at issue.

you don't think the Greek manuscripts were written originally in English do you?

pray that he may interpret, means pray that he may be interpreted.
if you cannot see that, you are indeed lost on this subject.

I suggest you study the Greek manuscripts instead.

After I said it wasn’t the norm for God to do a Star-Trek beam-me-up-Scotty. You replied
Zeke>> normal? yet you guys claim a special divine prayer un-language?

That response is not going to work.

of course it is...
you don't have the right to call something normal or not,
when your very basis for your practice is as un-normal as it gets
and directly contradicts Christ's teaching on prayer

At least we who believe in unknown tongues are hermeneutically consistent because we see the WHOLE chapter as a discussion of the supernatural.

you are blind then. willingly too imo.

YOU are the one claiming the passage is 100% natural learning, wholly unsupernatural.

no I did not.
I repeatedly say it is a gift of God , if done with regards to the Great Commission

others that have linguistic ability, but that are not Christians,
do not do that
so in their case, mr athiest or whoever,
it is not a GIFT of GOD for the purpose of growing the Body

in that case, it's just a learned thing

but when one edifies the church,
as in a foreigner coming to your church and speaking his understanding,
but in his own native tongue,
after said message is interpreted for the audience into a tongue/tongues that they understand,,
then that does grow the Body, and is a Gift of God

And now you have Paul suddenly telling us to pray for a beam-me-up-Scotty?

huh?
I used to love Star Trek, but huh?

If this were indeed a wholly unsupernatural chapter, as you allege, here’s what Paul would have said, “Guys, before you speak in a foreign tongue, just check with the leadership and/or the congregation to see if any translators are present.”

a. I never said it was not about a Gift of God, so stop saying I do

b. well, that's what he says in other words...

he says, pray about it...

whether "pray" means "ask" or "enquire" to other people,
or literally "pray to God"
just where do you think that prayer would come true at, if God answers?
obv. at the church so the speaker can edify others with his words of Good News

By the way, is the context natural, or supernatural?

both,
a Gift of God that "we" do
to further the Great Commission
by way of spreading the Word through the diff languages of men

It’s largely a discussion of the gift of prophecy.

that's simply because what ever is spoken or read aloud,
must be understood by the audience for it to become prophesy to them,
just as it is with the one speaking.

hence the Gift of Interpretation

prophesy is not what you think it is, in this chapter.
in this chapter, prophesy is the already written word of God
that folks are trying to share by reading aloud.

Is that a natural talent, in your view? Was Moses just a learned man, and nothing more? Your position on this chapter is so ahermeneutical it’s not even funny.

who mentioned Moses?
it's really easy to understand if you are not charismatic church indoctrinated

zeke>>there is nothing hidden here.
it's just a translational problem, because words have changed over the years. I pray you that......it did not mean "to God" every time the word "pray" is used in the bible.
there's PLENTY of examples of this TRUTH
to pray to someone, is to ask or tell them a thing


that can be to God or man.
the word pray in the bible does not always mean a prayer to God

I can ask you a question in the old English using the word pray...

I pray thee, what time is it?

Zeke, Your ahermenutics is getting more sloppy by the moment. You provide no exegetical parallels or precedents for these seemingly outlandish speculations. As already suggested, this is the kind of mental gymnastics required to buttress your indefensible position.

haven't you ever read Macbeth or any Shakespeare?
have you no experience with Old English at all?
I love the KJV, my fav. and phrases like this are used all the time.
words change meaning, or have more than one meaning
"pray" just so happens to be one of them

this is nothing new to bible students, and is not really even debated
because it is understood as fact.

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]jal>> Not only is it needlessly confusing for Paul to write this way, it is in fact a a non-sensical statement. No one would ever say, "I thank God that I speak in languages more than all of you" If taken literaly this is absurd. [/FONT]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]how so?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]it was Paul mission to go to the gentiles and give them the Word of God[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]of course was very happy that he spoke more languages than the rest.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]he was his own interpreter[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]he could go where ever the Lord sent him and accomplish Great Things[/FONT]
you denying this, is the absurd part

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]Rather one would say, "I thank God that I speak MORE LANGUAGES than any of you." (Forgive me for misundertanding you earlier, I had given you the benefit of the doubt that your position isn't absurd. I now realize I was wrong[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]zeke>> Really? no one would [say that]? Paul did just that.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Paul was a vessel to spread the Word into the gentile tongues.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]don't you understand that? it is soooooo important. it was PARAMOUNT that he knew more languages than them, he was gifted in it, and used of God because of it, to usher in the gentiles[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]there were dozens of dialects found in each language, as is evident by Acts2's miracle[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Paul had to contend with this multitude of dialects and languages, [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]and he was gifted specifically so he could.[/FONT]
Zeke, aside from your sloppy ahermeneutical references to evangelism (in reality this is a passage on the CORPORATE WORSHIP, not on the Great Commission),
[/FONT]

wow, making void the Word of God again, are you?
a special prayer language is not mentioned, sorry, it's only fantasy

you either missed or completely ignored the argument. (Sigh).

me? are you serious? lol.

Let me spell it out for you. Heremenutics is not an infallible science.

following Paul's train of thought is not hard, if you just stick with it all the way through

 

[zeke37]

The human propensity to err makes it all the more VITAL AND EXPEDIENT that the biblical interpreter operate on some reasonable GROUND RULES of interpretation. Otherwise we can pretty much take a passage to mean anything we WANT it to say.

kinda like how charismatics and those that believe their tripe make a mockery out of 1Cor14?
making void the truth that God would have us learn
about the rules on effectively continuing and eventually finishing the Great Commission

it's our biggest job as a Christian, don't you get that?

A good case in point is the troublesome passage, “Unless a man is born of water and Spirit, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.” Some have suggested that to be born of water means to be born of the womb. Now here’s the problem with that. There is no known PRECEDENT in the Greek language – or ANY language for that matter – where people commonly used the phrase “He was born of water” when speaking of natural birth. This is not to assume that it’s an impossible interpretation –it’s merely to point out that it’s not HERMENEUTICALLY AND EXEGETICALLY justifiable. (If God gave you that conclusion by a direct REVELATION, fine, but don’t pretend that it is justifiable HERMENEUTICALLY).

funny thing is my first real pastor, teaches water is the womb.
I think it's baptism

(In the Bible we do have at least SOME kind of precedent for the Sprit giving men the ability to speak unlearned languages (Acts 2). So there is nothing unwarranted or totally unjustified in the Pentecostal reading of 1Cor 14).

sure there is...Acts2 needed no interpreter at all.
everyone ehard the message in their own natural "tongue"

it's humerous (and a little sad) that Pentecostals take their name from Acts2,
yet their's and other charismatics, practice, of tongues is exactly opposite of what we see in Acts2

you could not get more opposite if you tried

Same problem with your rendering of 1Cor 14:18, as I pointed out, “[FONT=&quot]No one would ever say, "I thank God that I speak in languages more than all of you".[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]sure, Paul would. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]he did, and he was able to correct them and edify the body, [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]because of his gifts, and he knew how to operate them better than you[/FONT]
he knew their definitions better than you

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]That’s a nonsensical statement for reasons that SHOULD be obvious. Not obvious? Ok I’ll spell it out. Even if you know 50 languages, and I only know two, you don’t speak in languages more than I do, you rather speak MORE LANUAGES than I do. [/FONT]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]yep, 16th century English translation of ancient Greek manuscripts[/FONT]
sure, you've got it all figured out....lol

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]Because when you speak, and when I speak, we are both speaking in languages (because that’s the only way to speak), so you are not speaking in languages more than I am speaking in languages. This is WORSE than reading “born of water” as natural birth because it is a wholly nonsensical statement. [/FONT]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]pffff. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]they did not use the word "languages" then...[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]they used the word "tongue"[/FONT]

it means language
look it up for yourself

Paul spoke MORE languages than any one else,
because God gifted him in languages to the extreme

please remember what Paul's mission was/is,
and that "languages" were very important for him to be able to accomplish it

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]Again, if you obtained your reading of this chapter by REVELATION, fine, but don’t pretend it’s HERMENEUTICALLY justifiable – much less expect a Pentecostal to concur with your ahermeneutics. [/FONT]
[/FONT]

I don't care if you do.
i'm just droppin seeds for GOD to grow in HIS time, not me or my time.
I don't expect even ONE convert here at this forum, let alone you

You should know, by the way, that I am not a Pentecostal, I’m not a member of any church (I dislike all of them), I’ve never spoken in tongues or experienced any supernatural gift of any kind.

good for you
you spoke as if you were....
I wonder why you are so against the proper "interpretation" of this chapter?
what drives you to believe it's ecstatic utterances that can be found in all other religions

sorry, its not.

And I suspect that most Pentecostals haven’t experienced the true gift of tongues.

if they had, there would be no need for any interpretation from men.

And I certainly don’t agree with everything Pentecotals do in their services. So I would appreciate, in this discussion, if you’d start addressing ME, and MY arguments, and MY position, instead of railing at me as if I were one of them.

my bad.

Your gymnastics at verses 14-18 are especially severe.

no gymnastics at all

I pointed out an issue here but you nonchalantly glossed over it. Is this a case of intellectual dishonesty?

nope. I am not dishonest.
why would I be?
I have nothing to gain either way, whether you believe me or not

Let’s look at that passage again:
14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.

sorry, but I break things down verse by verse.
it makes for better understanding

if Paul prays or sings or teaches in a foreign language, (say Hebrew)
then even though his spirit is praying/singing/teaching about God
the audience won't be able to understand, because they are Greek
so Paul's minds understanding, will not bear fruit to the audience.
what he has in his mind, his understanding, will be a mystery to them in the audience

it's a HUGE negative

so, what are we to do instead?
we are to pray or sing (or teach) with BOTH understanding and while in the Spirit

Pentecostal and charismatic practices do not do that.
they forget the "understanding" part completely

they think being in the Spirit means NON_UNDERSTANDING

15 So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding;

BOTH at the same time

I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my understanding.

BOTH at the same time

16 Otherwise when you are praising God in the Spirit, how can someone else, who is now put in the position of an inquirer,[d] say “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since they do not know what you are saying?

don't you see that this follows with what I've been teaching?
it's about languages, not special prayer un-language

YOUR claim is that we can ONLY pray with our understanding (that anything else is not even prayer).

of course...it's just chanting otherwise.
how did Jesus say to pray? chanting?
or with words of understanding"?

But if that’s the case, then Paul is making an issue of a non-issue.

it's a HUGE issue back then
pure disorder in Corrinth

one church servicing "we know not" how many diff speaking gentiles
a multi-lingual society

rules were needed on how to effectively share what you know, regardless of who was I attendance and what "tongue" they spoke

For instance we all know that a square circle is an impossibility. Knowing that, would Paul take the time to tell us that he doesn’t spend time drawing square circles? Of course not. It is YOUR claim that praying-without-understanding is an impossibility, a square circle, it’s not real prayer.

correct.

If that were true, would Paul take the time to remind us that he doesn’t engage in that practice? OF COURSE NOT.

do the NT writers tell you that it's OK to murder or fornicate or do magic?
of course not.
they say it is NOT ok, and they do NOT do it
your point is moot

Paul admonishes them over and over again, yet you can't see it for some reason.

the whole chapter almost, is an admonishment for them
because they were in the wrong.
Paul uses examples of the right and wrong way to do things
one bad example, then a good one.

Here again, your position is IMPOSSIBLE to justify hermeneutically and exegetically. It reduces Paul’s words to a bunch of useless rambling nonsense.

huh?
boy have you lost the point, even mine
see above

Furthermore, your reading is FLATLY CONTRADICTED by the text. The text itself implies that it is NOT a square-circle, it is NOT an impossibility, that is, it is in fact possible to pray without understanding.

you misunderstand Paul's words drastically at each step
he's talking about ANYONE speaking in a foreign language, to ANYONE ELSE
the church is just the example....same is true out in a field

don't do it, unless your message is interpreted by another Gifted person.

Because, Paul says this: “I will pray both with my spirit and with my understanding, for OTHERWISE a visitor will not understand what I am saying.”

exactly. praying in the Spirit AND with understanding, not just in the Spirit

that means don't think that just because your a Christian,
that you can go to a group of people that doesn't speak your language
and still get your message across...

you are supposed to edify, not just talk.
and edification can ONLY BE DONE, when someone "understands" the message being spoken.

so, if you don't speak their language, either incorporate an interpreter to help, or shut it up and don't do it at all.
you'd only confuse them

That “otherwise” is HUGE. It implies that praying with the understanding is not the ONLY possibility. There is an OTHERWISE – one that causes problems for a visitor. This DEMOLISHES your entire position (as if it weren’t in ruins already).

let's pick up the subject matter...
not that it ever changes in this chapter...but let's pick it up anyway, a few verses back

10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.
11 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.

ok, got it?

12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.

ok, got it?

13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

who ever speaks, if they do so in a foreign language,
their spirit might be active enough,
but what they are trying to teach will be unfruitful
what should we do instead of JUST praying in the Spirit?

15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

why must we do so with "understanding"?
why not in a foreign tongue (without an interpreter)

16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.

ahhhh. that's why...
if you did speak in a foreign language to them,
you'd be speaking to the air, or only yourself, or only to God,
because they can't understand your language
they would not be edified


it's all about allowing the Word into ALL languages of men,
and the rules on how to effectively accomplish that
without folks thinking your mad

 

[JAL]

zeke>> the first gift, by example, would be a Hebrew man being gifted in Greek
he could speak both languages fluently, so he can give his testimony and edify the Greeks in the church. the second gift, of interpretation, would be a French man who is gifted in Greek because he understands the Hebrew man's Greek words, he can then in turn spread this same message to all the French people in the church

Thanks for reaffirming my position, what you've just described twice is the same gift. Both men are fluent in two languages, and that's the only gift requisite for translation. And if either of the two is mispronouncing the words, he just needs to develop his gift more.

Zeke >> BOTH at the same time

You keep repeating what we already agree on. Yes, as already stated, in the context of CORPORATE WORSHIP, both are requisite. But you're still evading my argument. The "OTHERWISE" implies that there is a form of prayer OTHER than praying with understanding. If there were no such possibility - if such were a square circle, or if such were something the Corinthians were not involved in - why make an issue of a non-issue? Paul's going to take the time to tell them to refrain from drawing square circles, given that it was an impossibility and something they were not even TRYING to do? Please. Clearly the Corinthians were TRYING to pray without understanding, which in corporate worship is not acceptable.

You're in denial. Talk about indoctrination. At every turn you are ignoring the facts of the text. Why not just admit that you have prejudged the matter? You have alresdy DECIDED beforehand that God wouldn't take any pleasure in giving someone words of praise in an angelic tongue. Based on that doctrinal bias, your "analysis" of the chapter (if you want to call it that) is pure eisegesis, not exegesis.


What the church doesn't understand is that fellowship can only be defined as sensory experience. I can't claim to have a girlfriend, for example, if I never see, hear,touch, taste, smell, or otherwise communicate with her. (And i certainly wouldn't WANT that kind of girlfriend). And the MORE sensory experience (for instance the wider the variety), the more potentially intense the fellowship. Thus, "And the Lord spoke with Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend." "You have never heard His voice, nor seen His shape" (John 5:37). Logically it follows - and I couldn't care less that the church denies this - that God wants to physically make contact with, and lovingly caress, every cell in the human body, INCLUDING the human voicebox (vizualize the gift of tongues). For this reason - and for other reasons already stated - your obvious bias against unknown languages is highly questionable.


Inherent in your bias is a COMPLETE FAILURE to distinguish LEVELS of understanding. For instance suppose a Russian child does me a favor. I want to give him some words of praise, but I don't know the language. So I say to his mother (who is bilingual), give me some appropriate words of praise in Russian. So she spits out of a phrase (I have no idea what the words mean but I happen to trust her), which I then repeat to the child. Did I understand what was said? Yes and no. I DO understand that I am speaking words of praise (that's all I really NEED to know, if I trust her). But on the level of linguistics, I am at a loss. The point is that your evaluation of unknown tongues as senseless babbling is superficial, premature, and preconceived. In my opinion, the Holy Spirit CONVEYS to the speaker's heart that the words are God-given expressions of prayer and praise, not senseless babbling.

zeke>> do the NT writers tell you that it's OK to murder or fornicate or do magic?

Zeke, The NT doesn't make an issue of non-issues. Paul was regulating HOW the Corinthians were speaking in tongues. They were already speaking in tongues. He addresses the issue of doing it (aloud in corporate worship) without understanding. In THAT context there was no need to bring it up if it was a non-issue.

jal>> Because, Paul says this: “I will pray both with my spirit and with my understanding, for OTHERWISE a visitor will not understand what I am saying.”

zeke>> exactly. praying in the Spirit AND with understanding, not just in the Spirit.

Zeke, Paul admonishes them for something they weren't even doing? Further, you say it would be senseless to pray without understanding. That contradicts what Paul says. Paul doesn't call it senseless (unequivocally), rather he calls is senseless IN CORPATE WORSHIP. Here's what he says:

What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
[16] Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
[17] FOR THOU VERILY GIVE THANKS WELL, but the other is not edified

Note carefully the capitalized letters. Here he says that you who speaks without understanding - THAT IS THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT, DENY IT ALL YOU WANT, AND YOU WILL - IS IN FACT giving thanks well enough. YOU are edified (partly because in some sense you DO understand what is being said - see my discussion of the Russian child) - but the OTHER man is not edified. Paul doesn't DENY the self-edifying nature of praying without understanding. Rather Paul affirmed it here and earlier at verse 4, "He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church" (verse 4).

zeke>> Ok, got it?

zeke>> Ok got it?

Zeke, You dwell on things we already agree on as a way of PRETENDING that you are responding to my arguments. I ALREADY agree that understanding must take place in CORPORATE WORSHIP. But Paul also affirms the self-edifying nature of praying in the Spirit in non-corporate contexts.

Your next commentary on the text exposes how torturous your exegesis is. You cite Paul:
13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

And then you comment on this text as if it is referring to speaking with understanding (in a foreign language).
zeke >> who ever speaks, if they do so in a foreign language,their spirit might be active enough, but what they are trying to teach will be unfruitful...

Foreign lanuage? Sorry, Zeke, but that's torture. Paul is clearly contrasting praying with the understanding versus praying WITHOUT the understanding. He isn't contrasting, "Praying in my native tongue verus praying in a foreign language which I likewise understand" This is clear enough from the ensuing: "[in a corporate context] I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also." As a result of this contrast, it follows that if I only pray with my spirit, my mind is unfruitful, meannig it lacks understanding, as Verse 14 asserts, For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my UNDERSTANDING is unfruitful." To pray in a tongue, then, is NOT to pray with the understanding.



zeke>> that means don't think that just because your a Christian,
that you can go to a group of people that doesn't speak your language
and still get your message across...

Really, Zeke? Paul would find it necessary to explain this dynamic to them? This is something they would likely be confused about? You honestly mean to tell me that Paul spent 40 versus repeating the obvious - the self-evident - over and over again? Really? That's totally absurd. No NT author writes that way. There's no precedent or parallel for it. Paul is rather dealing with points of confusion. Suppose the Holy Spirit just fell on you in a mighty way, causing you to overflow with joy and giving you an angelic tongue to express words of praise. You would be TEMPTED to speak it aloud because, after all, God is MOVING IN YOUR VOICEBOX CAUSING YOU TO SPEAK, so why hold back? By holding back, aren't you possibly insulting the gift? At least THAT'S a question worth addressing - which is what Paul did for 40 verses. The question YOU are referring to is not even worth addressing, the answer is much too obvious and self-evident...

 

[BluhdoftheLamb]

seriously, how do you know?
do you have proof?

Your doubt is not a good basis for doctrine. Neither is your inexperience.

And for you to attack others based on their "dogma," when you have no idea at all about any such thing, just looks desperate.

This is not the purpose of Spiritual gifts being included in Scripture, obviously.

May I suggest trying a little love, instead? I do realize your position is borne of love of the truth, but Scripture also says how can you love God whom you have not seen if you can't love people who you have seen?

 

[zeke37]

zeke>> the first gift, by example, would be a Hebrew man being gifted in Greek
he could speak both languages fluently, so he can give his testimony and edify the Greeks in the church. the second gift, of interpretation, would be a French man who is gifted in Greek because he understands the Hebrew man's Greek words, he can then in turn spread this same message to all the French people in the church

Thanks for reaffirming my position, what you've just described twice is the same gift. [

no it is not.
one is speaking another language(s),
and one is interpreting THAT into yet other language(s)

it's not that difficult to follow.
why are u having so much trouble?
indocrtinization, or belief of the same thing others are indoctrinated with
shame...making void the Word of God

Zeke >> BOTH at the same time

You keep repeating what we already agree on.

then stop asking the same questions/making the same objections.

Yes, as already stated, in the context of CORPORATE WORSHIP, both are requisite.

this chapter is not about corporate vs private special prayer language/un-language
you err right out the gate.

But you're still evading my argument. The "OTHERWISE" implies that there is a form of prayer OTHER than praying with understanding.

not at all.
you simply misunderstand his words, as is evident
he's talking about a guy coming to Corinth, speaking a different tongue than them,
and wanting to edify them with what he has gleaned from the scriptures.
if he does so in his own foreign tongue, then there's a problem,
unless his words are interpreted to the audience in a tongue that they can understand

so Paul gives 2 example
the right way, with the help of a translator,
and the wrong way, without one

the foreigner is still speaking intelligent things,
but just not in a language that the audience can understand
so it needs translation

If there were no such possibility - if such were a square circle, or if such were something the Corinthians were not involved in - why make an issue of a non-issue?

see above.
there was an issue
they were not following the instructions

it was mass confusion, because everyone was speaking over top of each other, in their own tongues,
and when you put multiple tongues all speaking over each other together in one church,
MASS CONFUSION SETS IN...no order...
the new guys think your nuts
and they can not understand enough to come to God​

Paul is FIGHTING THAT​

You're in denial. Talk about indoctrination.

lol

At every turn you are ignoring the facts of the text.

no i am not. you are because you believe a lie.
i don't know why, since you are not even a charismatic

Why not just admit that you have prejudged the matter?

prejudged?
what?
I came to a conclusion years ago, after thoroughly investigating the matter

not only do I have first hand experience and time spent in Pentecostal church
i have friends that practice charismatic tongues too
lol, you know NOT what you speak...lol again

if I found what you guys say to be either true or positive, I would not have a problem

but not only does it make void the Word of God, but it takes AWAY from one's prayer life, and replaces it with incoherent nonsense

YHVH WANTS TO HEAR FROM US

You have alresdy DECIDED beforehand that God wouldn't take any pleasure in giving someone words of praise in an angelic tongue. Based on that doctrinal bias, your "analysis" of the chapter (if you want to call it that) is pure eisegesis, not exegesis.

but I did not decide anything "beforehand"
I did not have an opinion either way.
Study, prayer and experience has SHOWN ME THE TRUTH

What the church doesn't understand is that fellowship can only be defined as sensory experience. I can't claim to have a girlfriend, for example, if I never see, hear,touch, taste, smell, or otherwise communicate with her. (And i certainly wouldn't WANT that kind of girlfriend). And the MORE sensory experience (for instance the wider the variety), the more potentially intense the fellowship. Thus, "And the Lord spoke with Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend." "You have never heard His voice, nor seen His shape" (John 5:37). Logically it follows - and I couldn't care less that the church denies this - that God wants to physically make contact with, and lovingly caress, every cell in the human body, INCLUDING the human voicebox (vizualize the gift of tongues). For this reason - and for other reasons already stated - your obvious bias against unknown languages is highly questionable.

i'm not biased to foreign languages at all
the Good News SHALL BE preached to all the tongues of men
it's part of His plan
God wants to hear from YOU, not some ecstatic uttering

Inherent in your bias is a COMPLETE FAILURE to distinguish LEVELS of understanding.

either you understand the tongue/language of the speaker, or not.
if you don't, but want to understand that message,
then that means the message has to be interpreted into your tongue

For instance suppose a Russian child does me a favor. I want to give him some words of praise, but I don't know the language. So I say to his mother (who is bilingual), give me some appropriate words of praise in Russian. So she spits out of a phrase (I have no idea what the words mean but I happen to trust her), which I then repeat to the child. Did I understand what was said? Yes and no. I DO understand that I am speaking words of praise (that's all I really NEED to know, if I trust her). But on the level of linguistics, I am at a loss. The point is that your evaluation of unknown tongues as senseless babbling is superficial, premature, and preconceived. In my opinion, the Holy Spirit CONVEYS to the speaker's heart that the words are God-given expressions of prayer and praise, not senseless babbling.

sorry Charlie. if u babbyl, that's what God will hear.
but if you THINK about your hearts desires, no matter what sound you make,
I could care less....because God CAN know our heart, our thoughts.

but He wants to hear from you, intelligently,
not the way it is presented in the charismatic circle's.

how are you going to know if anything is His will or not,
if you mumble everything and don't think about your petition to Him?
understand?

and if it's just about praise,
well, He can't understand it through all that chanting/mumbling/ecstatic utterances

it is completely opposite of everything that we learn in the whole of scripture,
and the Holy Spirit is ALL OVER the OT.

zeke>> do the NT writers tell you that it's OK to murder or fornicate or do magic?

Zeke, The NT doesn't make an issue of non-issues.

the OT and the NT tells us NOT to do those things, over and over again
because those kinds of people do not make it in the Kingdom

how can you say it is a non-issue?
it's a HUGE issue, as MOST of us are hypocrites
it, and things like Paul' admonishment of the Corinthians, needs repeating
to drive the point home

Paul was regulating HOW the Corinthians were speaking in tongues.

he was regulating the way they should spread the Good News among any of the tongues of men.

They were already speaking in tongues.

no matter where any speaker was originally from,
they would stand up and start preaching, no order, just go for it.
they were speaking their own home language when they preached,
regardless if the audience understood the speakers own home language or not.

and folks were talking over each other in those multitudes of languages,
all at the same time......no order, mass confusion

He addresses the issue of doing it (aloud in corporate worship) without understanding. In THAT context there was no need to bring it up if it was a non-issue.

he's addressing breaking the language barrier.
sorry your fantasy's explanation can't see that.

pray about it, in a tongue that God can understand,
so he can answer you in His way, where YOU understand
but don't pray in charismatic tongues, because that's all He'll hear too.
and you'll both be confused

 

[zeke37]

jal>> Because, Paul says this: “I will pray both with my spirit and with my understanding, for OTHERWISE a visitor will not understand what I am saying.”

zeke>> exactly. praying in the Spirit AND with understanding, not just in the Spirit.

Zeke, Paul admonishes them for something they weren't even doing?

what?
yes, many of them were praying in their own languages aloud
they were doing that...causing confusion
Paul says don't unless u have an interpreter to help,
because the other folks can't understand you without one.


but when they can understand you, either by natural means or after translation,
then that is the speaker speaking both with Spirit AND Understanding at the same time
and that the prophesy (truth of Christ in the Scriptures) that YOU already understand, and are speaking about
can be passed on to them as such...truth/prophesy...
all present could attest to it's validity

Further, you say it would be senseless to pray without understanding.

of course.

That contradicts what Paul says.

no it does not.
we are all, no matter what language we speak, praying or singing in the Spirit
when we pray to God or sing to God

now, if we travel to a foreign country and want to share the Good News,
and start speaking in our own native language, the audience can't understand that.
even tho the audience cannot understand our words, WE are STILL in the Spirit
we are still trying to spread the Good News, and work for God
we are speaking the wonderful works of God
we give thanks well,
but we are not imparting our understanding to them

obv. we as the speaker understand. but they don't....
unless it is interpreted for them in their own tongue (foreign to us)

we are to pray to God/sing to God /teach others about God
in a way that makes sense to the audience.

Paul says "what then, what do we do instead of praying without understanding?
well, he says, we are to pray with both understanding and while in the Spirit ALSO.
or else how will they even know when to say AMEN?

YOU speaking in your foreign tongue give thanks well, and God can understand that,
but the audience is not edified....and your point was to edify the audience

this IS the continued teaching of Paul through the chapter.

that rips apart the whole charismatic tongues phenomena in a verse or two,
let alone the entire chapter....lol.

Paul doesn't call it senseless (unequivocally), rather he calls is senseless IN CORPATE WORSHIP. Here's what he says:

What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
[16] Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
[17] FOR THOU VERILY GIVE THANKS WELL, but the other is not edified

see above.

Note carefully the capitalized letters. Here he says that you who speaks without understanding - THAT IS THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT, DENY IT ALL YOU WANT, AND YOU WILL - IS IN FACT giving thanks well enough.

good for him/the speaker.
the whole point is for the speaker to edify the church...not himself, not God, not the air
Paul says, ya YOU (as the speaker) give thanks, sure, ok........
but the audience doesn't even know when to say AMEN

how is that fruitful?

YOU are edified (partly because in some sense you DO understand what is being said - see my discussion of the Russian child) - but the OTHER man is not edified. Paul doesn't DENY the self-edifying nature of praying without understanding. Rather Paul affirmed it here and earlier at verse 4, "He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church" (verse 4).

lol, that's a negative, not a positive.
one bad example, and one good example...
you pick up the bad one, like it's ok...lol
it's not.

can't you see that?
if you speak your own foreign tongue to the audience,
then you are ONLY edifying yourself, INSTEAD of the church
and your goal is to edify the church
YOU already KNOW what you are saying...
you don't need to just edify yourself (Paul uses it in a negative)
you are supposed to be edifying them.

Zeke, You dwell on things we already agree on as a way of PRETENDING that you are responding to my arguments. I ALREADY agree that understanding must take place in CORPORATE WORSHIP. But Paul also affirms the self-edifying nature of praying in the Spirit in non-corporate contexts.

no such distinction is made by Paul.
that's a complete fantasy
Paul says that self edifying is a very bad thing, if you are supposed to edify the church.
you'd be speaking to the air, to yourself only, to God only,
when you were supposed to edify the assembly with your words
it's not a good thing at all to only self edify, while preaching/praying/singing to others

you are trying to teach them things,
so they MUST understand your words to be edified

so if you are there to preach to them, then don't JUST edify yourself

use thei language, or get yours interpreted to theirs,
so the audience can understand.
thus YOUR understanding will be passed on to them,
and they can be edified, even come to God if they are new

Your next commentary on the text exposes how torturous your exegesis is. You cite Paul:
13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

And then you comment on this text as if it is referring to speaking with understanding (in a foreign language).

it is...
if Paul spoke Hebrew to them, he'd give thanks well,
but they who listen would not be edified
Paul's understanding of scripture would still be a mystery to them
Paul would not, in this case, bear fruit...
so he tell us what to do instead.

zeke >> who ever speaks, if they do so in a foreign language,their spirit might be active enough, but what they are trying to teach will be unfruitful...

Foreign lanuage? Sorry, Zeke, but that's torture.

that's the context.
have you not read...

9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.

11 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.

15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.

20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
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.
23If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?
​

 

[zeke37]

Paul is clearly contrasting praying with the understanding versus praying WITHOUT the understanding.

YES, of course he is. it's the point of his message.
you have mistakenly substituted what "praying without understanding" means to them and Paul,
you think it means praying aloud in ecstatic utterances,
while I know it means praying/singing/preaching/teaching/praising in foreign languages,
different then the ones you are trying to communicate with

that means YOUR UNDERSTANDING that you are trying to present
trying to pass on to them....to edify them....

if speaking the Good News is done in a foreign to them language, without any interpretation,
then it's the bad example

either do so with interpretation, or zip it

He isn't contrasting, "Praying in my native tongue verus praying in a foreign language which I likewise understand"

I never said he was.

he was contrasting
"praying aloud in one's native language, to an audience that does not understand that language"
with
"doing so with an interpreter."

This is clear enough from the ensuing: "[in a corporate context] I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also."

what is clear is that we are to do BOTH AT THE SAME TIME.
iow, we are to be in the Spirit, while praying/singing/preaching/praising,
and at the same time, it is to be understood by your audience.

why can't you follow the subject matter?
what version are you reading anyway?
try the KJV.

As a result of this contrast, it follows that if I only pray with my spirit, my mind is unfruitful, meannig it lacks understanding, as Verse 14 asserts, For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my UNDERSTANDING is unfruitful." To pray in a tongue, then, is NOT to pray with the understanding.

that's NOT what the verse, nor context asserts at all
it asserts that IF the speakers words are not understood by the audience
then the speakers understanding of scripture will be unfruitful.
it would be a waste of time.
you'd be speaking to yourself.
you'd be speaking to the air.
you'd be speaking to God, INSTEAD OF EDIFYING THEM WITH YOUR UNDERSTANDING

get it?

start over, get rid of your preconceived notions about what "tongues" means in this chapter,
and go line by line, verse by verse,
and don't forget Paul's continuous thought, which I just showed you above.....again....

zeke>> that means don't think that just because your a Christian,
that you can go to a group of people that doesn't speak your language
and still get your message across...

Really, Zeke? Paul would find it necessary to explain this dynamic to them? This is something they would likely be confused about? You honestly mean to tell me that Paul spent 40 versus repeating the obvious - the self-evident - over and over again? Really? That's totally absurd.

he was "correcting their bad behaviour", over and over again.
right now, you and I disagree on what that bad behaviour was.
you think it was ecstatic utterances, and I know it is trying to spread the Good News
in a language that your audience doesn't understand.

times were MUCH different back then, the Gospel was going out to the nations, slowly...
it was kick-started in Acts2, and we continue to do so today.
all Christians should feel compelled to share the Good News.
we are Commanded to do so by Christ.
and He specifically says in the Gospel's that foreigners will get the Word in ALL tongues of men
and it is written in the Law too, as Paul attests to in 1Cor14.

but there is a way to do it, to get that message into the tongues of other men.
it was the beginning, not like us today, where we gather together all already understanding the same language.

but if a travelling preacher from China was to come to our church and speak his native tongue to us,
it would mean nothing to us, unless it was interpreted for us to understand.

Paul is saying even if there is more than one language represented, do so in an orderly fashion
don't speak over one another.
make sure what you have to say can be understood, regardless of what tongue you speak
if you can't accomplish that, then zip it

and if you do understand the message, but your buddy beside you does not,
whether by language or wanting more proof/disbelief,
then don't explain it to him right there and then...
wait till later, so as not to disrupt the current message

No NT author writes that way.

really? look again....ALL of them do just that
there's a lot of repetition in all their writings....to drive the point home
every Christian should know that

There's no precedent or parallel for it. Paul is rather dealing with points of confusion.

the Word being allowed to go to the gentiles, was a new thing....
there was no precedence to fall back on. it's not like it had been done before Paul, in any language by Hebrew or Greek maybe...

the Writings of God were now open to everyone,
and there needs to be an orderly way to do it

the Corinthians were doing it wrong,
so Paul shows them by example,
the right way vs the wrong way, to do it

Suppose the Holy Spirit just fell on you in a mighty way, causing you to overflow with joy and giving you an angelic tongue to express words of praise.

that's an impossibility,
unless my words were understood by each and every person that could hear them
without the need f a translator

angels in the bible are understood by men when they speak.

some folks might THINK what they do is Godly,
but their mumblings/ecstatic utterances/chanting, is from their own mind, or worse

and PS, I have been overcome with the Spirit...it's marvellous!

You would be TEMPTED to speak it aloud because, after all, God is MOVING IN YOUR VOICEBOX CAUSING YOU TO SPEAK, so why hold back?

if it came out by God's will, it would not be ecstatic utterances in nature.
it would be a message meant to be understood perfectly by anyone that could hear it.
they'd hear it in their own native dialect, so as there is no confusion at all.

the charismatic circle's of today call something a gift, that is opposite of all that
and some even use the name Pentecostal, which makes me laugh a little
considering their practice is so opposite

By holding back, aren't you possibly insulting the gift? At least THAT'S a question worth addressing - which is what Paul did for 40 verses. The question YOU are referring to is not even worth addressing, the answer is much too obvious and self-evident...

you have NO idea what you speak of.
be edified.

 

[zeke37]

Your doubt is not a good basis for doctrine. Neither is your inexperience.

And for you to attack others based on their "dogma," when you have no idea at all about any such thing, just looks desperate.

This is not the purpose of Spiritual gifts being included in Scripture, obviously.

May I suggest trying a little love, instead? I do realize your position is borne of love of the truth, but Scripture also says how can you love God whom you have not seen if you can't love people who you have seen?

I wasn't doubting anything yet.
I wanted to now if there was proof.
I would have loved to have seen it.

 

[BluhdoftheLamb]

I wasn't doubting anything yet.
I wanted to now if there was proof.
I would have loved to have seen it.

Ok, your long statements seem like doubt to me, at the least.

I'm not sure there is ever proof outside of experience

 

[zeke37]

possible....I expect THAT to occur at the last day

 

[JAL]

[FONT=&quot]zeke>>no it is not.
one is speaking another language(s),
and one is interpreting THAT into yet other language(s)

it's not that difficult to follow.
why are u having so much trouble?
indocrtinization, or belief of the same thing others are indoctrinated with
shame...making void the Word of God

Really, Zeke? It takes two gifts to learn a language as to become a translator? Fine, have it your way. Go to school to get a Doctorate in French. Then apply for a job as a translator – oh woops, I forgot, you will have to go back to school and first get ANOTHER doctorate in the gift of interpretation. Hey, that’s a brilliant idea – I challenge you to pass it on to the schools in your area. Just approach the school board and tell them, “I propose that the students should not get away with only taking a French class. They should have to take two classes concurrently, the first class will be “Learning French”, and the second one will be “Learning how to translate French.” Like you say, it’s two different gifts – two completely different areas of learning – so we will need two separate classes for it. (Seems to me the school board would laugh you right out of the building - if you’re lucky. More likely they’ll THROW you out on your rear).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The absurdity of you position defies description.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Zeke>> [/FONT]this chapter is not about corporate vs private special prayer language/un-language
you err right out the gate.

[FONT=&quot]It’s not an error, furthermore my position doesn’t depend on whether it’s a CONTRAST. The undeniable context is corporate worship, regardless of whether Paul bothers to contrast it with private worship - which in fact he does, by the way, for instance at verse 28: [/FONT]28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God.” Here Paul says it’s okay to use the tongues to edify yourself PRIVATELY if there is no interpreter available for a CORPORATE proclamation. This FLATLY CONTRADICTS your claim that Paul isn’t contrasting the public versus the private.

Zeke>> either you understand the tongue/language of the speaker, or not.

Zeke, when you pretend to reply by responding to something other than what I was addressing, it looks like intellectual dishonesty. Yet you seem to be in the habit of doing this. Anyway, your unwillingness to distinguish between levels of understanding has all the signs of oversimplification. Why would a Pentecostal want to embrace a point of view so lacking in depth and sophistication that it looks as though it came from a simpleton?

[FONT=&quot]Zeke>>God wants to hear from YOU, not some ecstatic uttering[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]False dichotomy. This is simpleton talk. It is rooted in a point of view so oversimplified and unsophisticated that it cannot discern how God could possibly be hearing from YOU in an angelic tongue. Refer back to my discussion of the Russian child because you’re still not getting it.

[FONT=&quot]Zeke>> sorry Charlie. if u babbyl, that's what God will hear.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Zeke, this looks like intellectual dishonesty. Clearly what I described with the Russian child was not meaningless babbling. How is it productive for you to misrepresent my position?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
Zeke>>but He wants to hear from you, intelligently,
not the way it is presented in the charismatic circle's.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Ok, now you are back to the old game. You are railing at the downfalls of the Pentecostal church as though I agree with all that they do. Here again, you PRETEND to be responding to me and my arguments when you know darn well you are not. That’s intellectual dishonesty. Let’s get something straight. I HATE Pentecostal churches and I HATE most of their doctrines. And I suspect only a handful of them have experienced the true gift of tongues. Got it?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]To prove your point that God would not UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES want to hear from us in an angelic tongue, you will at least need to refute my Russian child analogy. If you can’t argue your point – if all you can do is assert it – then it’s just a bunch of hot air, and no self-respecting Pentecostal will be taken in by it.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Zeke>> how are you going to know if anything is His will or not,
if you mumble everything and don't think about your petition to Him?
understand?

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]See the Russian child analogy. [/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Zeke>> and if it's just about praise,
well, He can't understand it through all that chanting/mumbling/ecstatic utterances

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]God can’t understand angelic tongues?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
Zeke>> the OT and the NT tells us NOT to do those things, over and over again
because those kinds of people do not make it in the Kingdom

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Asserting is not proving.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Zeke>> how can you say it is a non-issue?

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I didn’t. Pay closer attention to what I was referring to. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]zeke>> [/FONT]he was regulating the way they should spread the Good News among any of the tongues of men.

[FONT=&quot]Right, Paul needed 40 verses to explain to the Corinthians that, when performing evangelism, it’s a good idea to speak in a language known to the audience. More importantly, it was vital that God included those 40 verses in the NT because no one in Christendom would have figured it out, otherwise. All of us would have remained forever under the delusion that the best way to preach the gospel is to speak in a language that the heathens don’t know. [/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]and folks were talking over each other in those multitudes of languages,[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
all at the same time......no order, mass confusion

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I feel sorry for all those secular organizations who aren’t lucky enough to have a Bible with those 40 verses. Have you ever visited one of their meetings? It’s always mass confusion, the whole time everyone’s shouting out in multiple languages and no one can understand anything. Pure chaos. The same thing occurs in meetings of the House and Senate here in the USA. No one (except we lucky Christians with those 40 crucial verses) has managed to figure out that it’s a good idea to speak in a common language when there’s a member’s meeting. Thank God for Paul! [/FONT]


Zeke>> Paul says "what then, what do we do instead of praying without understanding?
well, he says, we are to pray with both understanding and while in the Spirit ALSO.
or else how will they even know when to say AMEN?

[FONT=&quot]You’re still skating over the point. YOU say that the Corinthians were already praying with their understanding, in which case it’s a NON-ISSUE for Paul to remind the Corinthians that he prays with his understanding. It’s like Paul taking the time to explain, “I eat food when I can so I don’t starve to death.” Well, who doesn’t it? And since everybody is already doing it (as you contend), then why bring it up? Verse 15, “[/FONT] So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my understanding.” The only reason to bring it up is if the Corinthians were NOT doing it. To try to get around this problem, you try to say that Paul is referring to the AUDIENCE’S understanding. Yes, he refers to the audience in many places, but in the verse just cited, he is clearly referring to his OWN understanding when he prays. He makes it an issue – because for Corinth it WAS an issue, contrary to your assumption that the gift of tongues is a language understood. Paul makes this clear AGAIN in verse 16. Let’s back up to verse 15 again so you don’t miss it this time. Paul mentions two separate issues in verse 15:
(1) I will pray with my spirit – (this is NOT a matter of understanding).
(2) I will pray with my understanding.
The above is verse 15. You say, Paul is preferring them to pray with both. Agreed. Let’s now at look at the next verse. In this next verse, is Paul going to refer to #1 or #2, or both?
“ Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how will the visitor understand….”
Paul is admonishing them to do BOTH because they were NOT. You are therefore wrong to assume the Corinthians were praying with their understanding. But Paul doesn’t stop there, he goes so far as to admit in the next verse that praying without understanding CAN edify you (although it doesn’t edify the church);: “For thou verily give thanks well, but the other is not edified.”

And if that weren’t enough, Paul makes the contrast yet AGAIN at verse 19: “ Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.” He keeps talking about praying with or without your understanding because it WAS an issue –the Corinthians were NOT praying with their understanding, which can only mean an unknown tongue.

By the way, when Paul refers to preferring that we do BOTH 1 and 2, he is primarily referring to the gift of prophecy. If you doubt this, please review the first several verses of the chapter. And don’t forget the last verse of the chapter as well.

You say that the gift of tongues is just the natural talent of speaking learned languages. Your predilection for the natural over the supernatural is extraordinary. There are plenty of multilingual non-Christians. So the Holy Spirit is busily gifting unbelievers while depriving many Christians of said gift? That’ s a little weird, isn’t it?

I want to return briefly to a point you skated over.

jal>> “[FONT=&quot]No one would ever say, "I thank God that I speak in languages more than all of you". That’s a nonsensical statement for reasons that SHOULD be obvious. Not obvious? Ok I’ll spell it out. Even if you know 50 languages, and I only know two, you don’t speak in languages more than I do, you rather speak MORE LANUAGES than I do. Because when you speak, and when I speak, we are both speaking in languages (because that’s the only way to speak), so you are not speaking in languages more than I am speaking in languages. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot](The problem disappears if “tongues” means a supernatural gift, because not everyone has one. It would be like saying, ‘I speak in prophecies more than you all&#8217. [/FONT]


[FONT=&quot] Again, zeke, hermeneutics must have some ground rules. If your reading has Paul speaking in a way that can’t be found in parallel or precedent anywhere else, we OUGHT to object. In this sense the whole chapter is a problem for your view. Why so? Imagine this conversation with my wife when I come home one night. “Honey, how did the meeting go?” “Unfortunately no one understood what I said.” “Why not, honey?” “Because I was speaking in languages.” [/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]That is NOT how you would have described it. Nobody talks that way. Instead you would have said, “They didn’t understand me because I was speaking in a FOREIGN language.” Nor would you ever say, “If want people to understand me, I’d better not speak in a language.” See the problem with your view of “tongues” as natural language? It means you read verse 19 like this: “[/FONT] Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding than ten thousand words in a language”. Huh? Regardless of whether is POSSIBLE to make sense of those words, the fact is that it is not NORMALLY how one would speak. And therefore we OUGHT to object to it, if hermeneutics has any place at all in our lives. You are faced with this problem not just in one or two verses but basically all 40 of them. Your position has Paul continually speaking in an unconventional, needlessly confusing fashion. And PLEASE don’t cite that verse about Paul being difficult to understand – you don’t get to use it as a justification for ahermeneutics. We NEED hermeneutics to avoi d falling prey to wildly deviant delusions of doctrine.

Paul could have said it like this (if he wanted to express your position on this issue):
“ Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding than ten thousand words in a FOREIGN language”. That would be the NORMAL way to say it, but he never does that, he never once prefixes the word “foreign” , and although the translators often prefixed it as “unknown tongue” that prefix is NOT in the original Greek.

Again, it’s not a question of whether your interpretation of Paul is correct – perhaps you arrived at it by some direct revelation. The issue here is what is permissible under a hermeneutics which has some ground rules, and your reading is NOT acceptable hermeneutically.

I'll make some predictions. In response you will
(1) Skate nonchalantly over everything said.
(2) Respond to points that I DIDN'T make, as a way of pretending to refute what I said.
(3) Mispresent me at every turn.


It's a foregone conclusion.

 

[TamaraLynne]

Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord... -Acts 3:19

But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him. -1 Jhn 2:27

I will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you; And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." -Gen 12:3

The anointing isn't something that provides a persistent "feeling", but through the gift of the Holy Spirit God Himself teaches us to walk in His ways, and if we do, then there is a persistent outward effect on the world.

Everything in this post I understand now because I have had experiences with the presence of the Lord. Many years ago I would not have...because many years ago I did not even understand that God abides in us and us in him. No I do not speak in tongues like many others...I have even asked for the gift. I spent hours praying and worshipping and the most that came out was like a woman in labor....alot of tiny sounds and breath...I was alone at home. But I have had God fall upon me in such a powerful way and these are my experiences and I cannot prove them. I can talk about them but not prove them.

So when others say they have the gift of tongues I believe them. Even though I do not have the gift of tongues ...yet
But the baptism of the Holy Spirit for me is about Gods presence ..it is about God abiding in us and us in him. Our relationship with God is felt...and I don't think this can happen without the Holy Spirit.

I agree with Nanopants on what he posted above in that it is not an all the time feeling....I would like it to be but then it would probably be like the time I lifted my hands in a worship song as I was on my treadmill and "BAM!!!" I hit the wall behind me because I was not aware my legs had stopped.

 

[Nanopants]

Everything in this post I understand now because I have had experiences with the presence of the Lord. Many years ago I would not have...because many years ago I did not even understand that God abides in us and us in him. No I do not speak in tongues like many others...I have even asked for the gift. I spent hours praying and worshipping and the most that came out was like a woman in labor....alot of tiny sounds and breath...I was alone at home. But I have had God fall upon me in such a powerful way and these are my experiences and I cannot prove them. I can talk about them but not prove them.

So when others say they have the gift of tongues I believe them. Even though I do not have the gift of tongues ...yet
But the baptism of the Holy Spirit for me is about Gods presence ..it is about God abiding in us and us in him. Our relationship with God is felt...and I don't think this can happen without the Holy Spirit.

I agree with Nanopants on what he posted above in that it is not an all the time feeling....I would like it to be but then it would probably be like the time I lifted my hands in a worship song as I was on my treadmill and "BAM!!!" I hit the wall behind me because I was not aware my legs had stopped.

That's awesome, except for the part about hitting the wall! But I can understand. I often have experiences like that while I'm out riding, but minus the crashes so far thank God. There's something about God drawing near to us during certain activities, I think wich kind of reminds me of David being taught how to wage war by God, and in my experience, it seems like all I had to do was just get moving, start learning, asking, seeking and knocking, and before I knew it I was using some of those gifts by nature.