It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Study of Tongues in the New Testament

page: 8
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: ChesterJohnAnd you did forbid it. In the OP you said believers shouldn't use a gift the Holy Spirit gave them, that's wrong to say.


Please quote me?


That's not what you're saying here?


Clearly those who practice speaking in unknown tongues in the assembly of believers without an interpretation are in disobedience to Gods word. And if there be more than three speaking in tongues in the assembly they are in disobedience to Gods word as well.


Do you know the difference between a very loud outburst of tongues in the middle of a service from one, or two people in succession and then the people using their private prayer language gift to themselves for the most part? Where it's not loud or interrupting?

Have you ever seen the first one I mentioned happen in a worship service? I've seen it maybe twice in my life, it's extremely rare.




posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Constantine paid for and had seven Vellum Copies of Jeromes Latin Vulgate brought to him in Rome. They came from Alexandria Egypt and So did the Roman Catholic Church. the Edict was just a formality but it already had its feet in the Door with the Vulgate.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical
You see I didn't forbid anyone from speaking in tongues. I said they were doing it in disobedience to God's word if they didn't follow Paul's instructions.

Paul's said if they used a tongue in an assembly and it was to be done in a certain way. No more than three in any assembly and one at a time while another translated. If there was no translation they were not to use it in the assembly. That doesn't mean they can't use it in private.



edit on 18-7-2016 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: NOTurTypical
You see I didn't forbid anyone from speaking in tongues. I said they were doing it in disobedience to God's word if they didn't follow Paul's instructions.

Paul's said if they used a tongue in an assembly and it was to be done in a certain way. No more than three in any assembly and one at a time while another translated. If there was no translation they were not to use it in the assembly. That doesn't mean they can't use it in private.




You aren't distinguishing between the two. That's why I asked if you have ever witnessed the one Paul is speaking about, where someone interrupts withe a very loud tongue, then after 4 or 5 seconds someone interprets. Then again someone stands up and does a very loud tongue and again someone interprets.

Have you ever witnessed that? That's what Paul is talking about, not where a person is praying or using the tongue themselves to God. Two completely different things, and it seems you are mingling them into the same thing.

I've been in a "spirit-filled" Church for over a decade now and I've seen tongues with interpretation maybe twice in my life, it's extremely rare.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Constantine paid for and had seven Vellum Copies of Jeromes Latin Vulgate brought to him in Rome. They came from Alexandria Egypt and So did the Roman Catholic Church. the Edict was just a formality but it already had its feet in the Door with the Vulgate.


I don't know anything about that, but what I do know is Constantine only ended the persecution of Christians. Christianity wasn't the State religion of the Empire until 380 AD with Theodosius I. I linked the Wiki page for the "Edict of Thessolinica" a few posts ago, that proclamation made Christianity the religion of the Empire.

It's a common misunderstanding.

Edit to add: Just checked Google to see what you were talking about, and the Latin Vulgate was first published in 382 AD. Two years after Theodosius I made Christianity the State religion. The Latin Vulgate didn't exist when Constantine was Emperor.

2nd Edit: Lol, Constantine died in 337 AD, that was about 50 years before the Latin Vulgate.



edit on 7 18 2016 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

edit on 7 18 2016 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)


(post by Shahada removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Shahada


You done pretending to know stuff? I doubt it, you have the toungue. But not the mastery of the tongue that comes with the Spirit and Wisdom.


That's exactly what the Gnostics were accused of in Alexandria.

“Wherefore also Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures, not acknowledging some books at all; and, curtailing the Gospel according to Luke and the Epistles of Paul, they assert that these are alone authentic, which they have themselves thus shortened.”

The biggest deletion was removing the entire last 12 verses of Mark. They don't appear in the Alexandrian MSS, yet in the 2nd century both Polycarp and Tertuillian quote from those verses in their writings.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

I am not doing any communication with you until you learn about what you're so zealously pretending to.

for future reference my reply to you is:

Save it, I have had enough of your pretending to know everything and being the absolute most chronically incorrect off point and arrogant about it person to ever be.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Shahada

You cannot deny the Alexandrian MSS are missing a ton of verses, that's a fact. Quite a bit is different than the Textus Receptus MSS from Byzantium.

And you'll be back, you say in every thread you're done with me and you can't help replying.
edit on 7 18 2016 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Thank you for responding.

I didn't have anything to add really. Your presentation pretty much matched what I learned at a seminar sponsored by the Church of the Nazarene back about 1973, height of Jesus Movement, predominantly Pentecostal. They, the sponsors of the seminar, were offering Pauline based counter.

Most of my friends ended up joining Assembly of God.

I visited one time in c1981. One of the elders got up to offer the Invocation. Not 5 seconds into the prayer, someone else on the platform (possibly another elder) stood up and started in speaking tongues (gibberish version), pretty much rendering the Invocation prayer inaudible. Yeah, I walked out.

Anyway, that anecdote was all I wanted to add.


edit on 18-7-2016 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn



Originally posted by ChesterJohn
That is basically it only separate the second one into two types one interpreted and one unknown therefore remains uninterpreted. This last use I call the selfish use of unknown tongues has no Biblical example but then neither does the gift of an interpreted tongue.


But there’s no need to separate it into two further types…IMO…It’s simply one person speaking in tongues directly to God, which edifies that individual…it can’t be intended as being selfish…because someone may/could be able to interpret it within the Church congregation




Originally posted by ChesterJohn
But the unknown tongue in many groups has substituted the Gift that is seen in Acts 2. That is why they claim to be having a Baptism of the Holy Spirit. But it is the Spirit who gives tongues as a gift not as a baptism. Because the baptism by the spirit is into one body (1Cor 12:13) and it is into Christ (Gal 3:27) not into speaking in tongues.


Receiving the Holy Spirit is a baptism in itself, and brings with it a Spiritual gift or gifts…one of which could be the ability to speak in tongues, depending on the gift(s) you receive…


- JC


edit on 18-7-2016 by Joecroft because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 02:26 AM
link   
When I first got saved, I was with spirit filled Lutherans who spoke in tongues. I didn't understand it, but anyone can do gibberish, and if you are meditating on something like your love for God as you do this babble it puts your mind in an alpha state which is less "thinking" than beta. It's sort of the same as when Catholics or Arabs use their rosary or prayer beads. At least in Catholicism you are supposed to be meditating on one of the mysteries as you say the repetitive prayers. It certainly feels spiritual if you are doing it correctly and not as some chore.

Then I started really studying my bible. I got into the Hebrew and Greek and what the words actually say. Paul spoke many languages. That is the literal translation of Tongues. It is an actual known language.

The miracle of the day of Pentacost is that people of other languages who were in town for the festival heard Peter speaking and they each heard them in their own specific dialect. People who speak Spanish for instance will have slight variations around the world. They would hear and understand the words in their own unique dialect which is a miracle.

Can God give you a language? Sure that can happen, I've met some who say that it happened to them when they were in another country and the holy spirit gave them a language for that time. I did not witness it, but the story was corroborated by another witness who was there.

In 1 Co 14, take the section :

6 Now, brothers,1 if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching? 7 If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played? 8 And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle? 9 So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air. 10 There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, 11 but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me. 12 So with yourselves, since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, strive to excel in building up the church.

Here Paul is clearly saying that to speak without being understood is useless. Notice he is saying languages. Not gibberish. Early believers were eager to share what God had done for them, but what good would it be to talk for an hour to people who don't understand my language? So, if you don't speak other languages then strive to build up the body of Messiah in other ways. Remember, they were all about spreading the good news.

13 Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. 15 What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also. 16 Otherwise, if you give thanks with your spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider2 say “Amen” to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying? 17 For you may be giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not being built up. 18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. 19 Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue.

This would mean that if you are speaking in a language, pray that you can interpret into another language that is KNOWN. This is not about some secret prayer closet language. This whole discussion is about sharing with others. So, if you are praying in your language your spirit is edified, but since you cannot translate it to another language you mind is unfruitful in that regard. Note he says "how can anyone who is an outsider (non speaker of your language) benefit or even know when to say Amen? You are not doing anything to build them up! Again, Paul spoke lots of languages, more than the friends with him did. However, he would rather say "Praise the Lord" and shut up than talk and not be understood.

Now, imagine you enter a church and 50 different people are all talking to God in their own language as the same time. Wouldn't that appear as chaos and confusion? God is not the author of confusion. If that person comes into a congregation and hears honest prophecy won't his mind and heart be touched? Won't they be amazed as the woman at the well whom Yeshua /Jesus revealed all things about her to her? She ran to tell the village of it!

God said he would punish the lost tribes of Israel. He said he would speak to them from people with strange languages. His prodigal son (10 tribes) would still be stiff necked. Thus, when the truth is revealed in a miraculous tongue all can understand in their own dialect it's a sign, as the day of Pentecost. Paul is speaking of that prophecy, not some secret prayer language.

Now read the passage:

20 Brothers, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature. 21 In the Law it is written, l“By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.” 22 Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign3 not for unbelievers but for believers. 23 If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, 25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.

This teaching can go deeper, but I think it's safe to say, Paul was speaking about languages that are known because that is the Greek word used there. It's not some angelic language, but a known language (tongue).

edit on 19-7-2016 by UnifiedSerenity because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-7-2016 by UnifiedSerenity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 02:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: NOTurTypical
You see I didn't forbid anyone from speaking in tongues. I said they were doing it in disobedience to God's word if they didn't follow Paul's instructions.

Paul's said if they used a tongue in an assembly and it was to be done in a certain way. No more than three in any assembly and one at a time while another translated. If there was no translation they were not to use it in the assembly. That doesn't mean they can't use it in private.




Paul was speaking about going to a church that does not speak your language so you take an interpreter with you who is a fellow Christian thus anointed to help teach. He said that no more than 2 or 3 should do this as it is taxing on the people to listen like this. I watched a Spanish speaking Christian teaching the other day, and after 45 minutes of this back and forth with interpretation, I was pretty exhausted. It's not about babble. It's about teaching, sharing, prophecy with interpretation.



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 02:44 AM
link   
Here is a great teaching line by line and verse by verse on tongues:

tongues part 1

Tongues part 2

From part 2




1 Cor 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. Now it is important that you note that the word “unknown” as it is written in this verse is in italics which means what? It means that man added it to the translation to make it carry in English. But I think you’ll remember I taught you the word “tongue” as it is used here, that is glossa:

G1100 γλῶσσα glōssa gloce'-sah Of uncertain affinity; the tongue; by implication a language (specifically one naturally unacquired): - tongue.

It means that it is un-acquired. What does that mean? That means that it is a language that was not present where you grew up in a natural sense. But if two languages are spoken where a child grows up they will naturally pick up on both of those languages. One may be more dominant than the other but they will have both those languages. So, what it is really saying here is that I, being an English speaker, if I go down to where there are people who predominantly have another tongue, let’s say I went to Mexico City, and to teach there they would not understand what I was saying.

God would know what I was saying because God understands all languages but those poor people would not hear my words else I had an interpreter because the tongue I spoke would be foreign to them. It would not be naturally learned by them for they did not all naturally learn English as they grew up. Now concerning tongues, many people would say “Well I’m just prophesying to God”.

You know, I have a pretty close walk with the Father and I’ve had some experiences that I would never speak of but I will tell you this, it reminds me of the verse in Romans 9 where it would say, “Who are you man that you would question or try to tell God what to do?” Remember what He did to Paul when he was trying to run God’s church for Him? He knocked him down and blinded him. Now if you claim people can’t understand but you’re prophesying to God, God doesn’t need a prophet to prophesy to Him.

All wisdom comes from Him. Probably the highest trips of vanity are those that say “well I just prophesied to God”. That’s very dangerous; dangerous when one says, “I’m ministering to God”. Well, I would be very careful if I were you if I had that opinion. I know from experience that God has a way of getting people back down into low gear where they belong.

edit on 19-7-2016 by UnifiedSerenity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 02:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ChesterJohn



Do you have anything positive to add to this thread?


Personally, I believe the account of those speaking in tongues in the Book of Acts is made up nonsense.

This is what is what is meant when one talks of "speaking in tongues".


Matthew 10:19
But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. 20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.


The explanation for what the people heard was given in Acts. It was like that spoken by the prophet. It was a miracle tongue all understood in their own dialect ( dialektos in the Greek).
edit on 19-7-2016 by UnifiedSerenity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: UnifiedSerenity
How ever these in Corinth were just coming to their assembly and speaking in an unknown tongue. So Paul corrected them in the Teaching of 1Cor 14.



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Joecroft

I am sorry but the baptism a believer gets today in into the body of Christ. Please see listed verse already answering that point earlier.

the Tongue sign gift was done in acts and that was for Israel and may not even happen today.



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

They were creating havoc. They were not speaking in foreign language, not some angelic language.



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: UnifiedSerenity


The explanation for what the people heard was given in Acts. It was like that spoken by the prophet. It was a miracle tongue all understood in their own dialect ( dialektos in the Greek).

The story says "God-fearing Jews", that would be the pious as opposed to not pious. The pious, one would assume were literate (at least on a hearer level) with respect to the scriptures read in synagogues. I would propose that Peter was speaking Greek (the language of the Septuagint).

As for "each in his native tongue", well, Acts was written well after the event (if it happened). The author must therefore provide much of the dialogue from his own imagination; much as Thucydides recreated speeches of notable characters in his History.



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: pthena

You seem to be unaware that during that particular time of year the city swelled with Jews from other areas and Non Jews who did not speak the language. They each heard it in their own dialect. That is what the bible says.




The Festival of Pentecost

After Jesus ascended to heaven, His disciples remained in Jerusalem and “were continually in the temple blessing God” (Luke 24:52,53). Clearly, Jesus’ followers did not interpret any of His actions prior to, and including His crucifixion as either rejecting the temple or rendering it obsolete. We should assume, then, that Jesus’ followers would have participated in the pilgrim festival of Pentecost in accordance with the commandment of God: “Three times a year all your males shall appear before the Lord your God at the place which he will choose: at the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Passover), at the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost), and at the Feast of Booths (Sukkot)” (Deuteronomy 16:16). The first century Jewish historian Josephus mentions that the population of Jerusalem swelled at Pentecost as Jewish pilgrims came from all over the countryside (War 1:253; cf. 2 Maccabees 12:31,32). Luke also attests to the multitudes of Jewish pilgrims gathered in Jerusalem for the festival of Pentecost: “Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome” (Acts 2:9–11). Peter addressed these crowds of pilgrims who were participating in the festival, which took place in the temple.4

The Crowds of Pentecost

These crowds of Jewish pilgrims from all over the Roman world heard the disciples speaking in their own languages and were amazed (Acts 2:4–8). In response to their amazement, Peter stood and addressed the crowd (Acts 2:14–39) proclaiming Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah of Israel and identifying what the pilgrims saw and heard as the “pouring out” of the Holy Spirit. This signified the advent of the Messianic era, so Peter called the people “to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus” (Acts 2:38). Peter’s discourse and the events that precipitated it suggest a public location; moreover, the only place in Jerusalem where such crowds would have gathered on the Day of Pentecost would be the Temple Mount.5
link


edit on 19-7-2016 by UnifiedSerenity because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join