Speaking in Tongues Volume 4...

Timtoolman,

You said, ' . . . long before some whacko came up with the jibberish nonesense of today.'

.

 

. </font>[/QUOTE]What falsehood?
I didn't say a thing.
I merely gave you a quote from one of the early church fathers, "Clement of Alexandria," who also was in agreement with the other church fathers. I gave you the link to the website. It is for you to do with the information as you like. We are all responsible for the light that we receive.
DHK

 

'Languages are grouped into families. If one is familiar with a couple of different languages he should be able to identify quite a few others of the same family.'

 

I guess you speak at least 3500 languages fluently and are a grammarian of each of these 3500 or more languages and so you would know!! </font>[/QUOTE]No but all have been proved fakery. It seems that tongues today is always spoken in one of the 3500 that no one can find. Yeah Okay. </font>[/QUOTE]I take it that you are a grammarian of 3500 languages and have over 3500 PHD's in these languages.
Well i am impressed.
Or are you phd's (post hole diggers)????

 

. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes yes, .........Paul knew many languages. Jibberish, No. And there is no scripture that says he did. Or Christ for that matter.

 

I guess you speak at least 3500 languages fluently and are a grammarian of each of these 3500 or more languages and so you would know!! </font>[/QUOTE]No but all have been proved fakery. It seems that tongues today is always spoken in one of the 3500 that no one can find. Yeah Okay. </font>[/QUOTE]I take it that you are a grammarian of 3500 languages and have over 3500 PHD's in these languages.
Well i am impressed.
Or are you phd's (post hole diggers)???? </font>[/QUOTE]Nope don't need to know all of em to know fakery when I see it. Again it is funny how the tongues people now try to claim that if you don't recongize it, it must be one of the 7000 other languages not known to man. How absurd.

 

'Nope don't need to know all of em to know fakery when I see it. Again it is funny how the tongues people now try to claim that if you don't recongize it, it must be one of the 7000 other languages not known to man. How absurd.'

.

Berrian, Th.D.

 

Ray,
If the angels in heaven spoke gibberish (as you insinuate), how was it that John could understand them without an interpreter? What language did the angels speak. Some might say it was the good ole KJV. But it could have been Greek or Hebrew. It was a language that John could understand without interpretation. So much for "angelic languages." They are not ecstatic in nature. The only ecstatic speech known to mankind is of pagan origin and practiced in pagan religions and heretical sects.
Try reading through the Book of Revelation. You will find that the angels sing and speak in actual real languages--languages that are recorded in the original Greek.
Every time an angel appeared in the Bible from individuals in the book of Genesis to the book of Revelation, angels have always spoken in the language of the people that they were speaking to--never ecstatically. Angelic languages are not ecstatic languages. There is no indication to say that they are. In fact it if very presumptuous for you to take any such position without evidence.
DHK

 

I believe that the Lord was in charge of what the Apostle John experienced both by the visions and in communicating with God. John reports the interactions of the Elders with God and the messages for the seven churches of Asia minor.

I could care less how they communicated. My basic mission in this life to communicate to sinner and saint alike, what the Word of God is saying to us as Christians. God communicated with John and that is probably enough for us to understand.

Some things are not for us to understand. We at times can become too athereal or celestial, which can lead toward guess work.

 

Why do I know in advance that I'll regret this, probably? I guess I know that fools DO rush in where angels fear to tread, but anywho-&gt;.
I have just read through this entire thread (12p.) in the last little bit, deliberatley avoiding trying to see who wrote what so as not to start trying to guess who was saying what. There were two things that caught my attention, however.
One was a statement, to the effect that, 'Paul was more spiritual than some (or the) others. - whatever that means, in this thread. Outta' curiosity, where does Paul (or Luke or Peter, writing about him) ever make any claim to be 'more spiritual' than anyone?
Second, when speaking of I Cor.14:4, I noticed that text says that that "...he who speaks... edifies himself...". Someone wrote to the effect of self-edifying is important. Where is that found in Scripture? I checked my concordance, but am not able to figure out from whence this arises. I see where the active sense is used that we are to edify the church and other individuals. I see where the passive sense is used and we are edified. Aside from stretching I Cor.14:4 like a rubber band around the aforementioned barrel, I see nothing that implies edify self, and in fact I would suggest that Scripture seems to warn against exactly that.
Anyway, for myself, I am ecstatic that I have been both enlightened and edified, by the extraordinary eisegesis and exegesis so far expressed here. Or maybe its that I'm just easily entertaine...!
Ed

 

Sorry! Last sentence should read "Or maybe IT'S that I'm just easily entertaine...!"
Ed

 

You are the one that believes that the gifts of the Spirit, and especially tongues, are still for today. And if so, they should be commonly manifestted throughout history. But the fact is they are not. I am a student (and teacher) of church history. Why haven't I come across this astounding phenomena (which started in the 20th century in any other demoniantional groups, in any of the other true Bible believers that have existed throughout the centuries? I search history and find zilch. I posted the evidence from the early church fathers who believe the practice was of Satan. I have volumes of history books, general church history, but especially history books relating to the Baptists and going back to the Apostles. I find nothing about Charrismatic gifts from the Apostles onward. Why? Because they ceased at the end of the first century.
DHK

 

Mike, Below are verses in the order they were written in 1 Cor. Remember, in the Corinth church they were so messed up that people were standing up in the assembly and cursing the name of Jesus. Paul was being forward to them and rebuking them. Read the verses below and see that the edifying of oneself, in this context is wrong.
Read this verse from 2 Cor 2, which shows what Paul was thinking when he wrote 1 Cor.

4For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I (F)wrote to you with many tears; not so that you would be made sorrowful, but that you might know the love which I have especially for you.

Paul wrote 1 Cor. in tears. The evidence is overwhelming that the whole of 1 Cor. is a rebuke and must be read as such.

1 Cor 10
23(AL)All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable All things are lawful, but not all things (AM)edify.
24Let no one (AN)seek his own good, but that of his neighbor.

33just as I also (AZ)please all men in all things, (BA)not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, (BB)so that they may be saved

1 Cor. 12
7But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit (L)for the common good.

1 Cor. 14
4He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

Mike, the verses below are all very negative and directly follow the verses you say are not negative. We must stay in context to understand what Paul is saying. Too many people slide right by the obvious.

1 cor. 14
6Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?
7And 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?
8For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?
9So 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.
10There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.
11Therefore 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.
12Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.

In Christ,
Brian

 

Someone said, 'I don't think it is going to do much good to make him go into a fifty-five gallon drum and make fun of him.'

.

 

Mike,

Like I said before the 'gifts of the Spirit' have always continued in churches that welcome the truths in I Corinthians 12 & 14. If Christians reject truth--He, the Holy Spirit does not force His way into the assembly of the saints. There always have been a remnant who believed in the gifts of the Spirit, though they did not get their names written in a Church History book. But, we do know that the Montanists believed and experienced the 'gifts of the Holy Spirit.'

So the experiences of multi-millions of Christians in our times, confirm that God the Holy Spirit did not withdraw from the world back into Heaven.

Ray

 

Briguy,

We all can read our Bibles; what was your point?

First, in 12:1 Paul is explaining the value of these 'spiritual gifts' not denying them to the congregation. He is simply saying in the past some of you Gentiles were involved in idol worship, which was a fact. But now they are saved.

No person who speaks by the Holy Spirit would call Jesus accursed, but rather the people who say Jesus is Lord came to this truth by the witness of the Holy Spirit.

And then in verse 4 he calls attention to the 'diversity of the gifts' that the Lord gives to His church for their edification.

If there were a couple or a few who spoke things against Jesus, he wanted them to know they were still unsaved and probably had household idols yet in the homes.

You and DHK seem to have problems understanding verse 3, foolishly thinking that the whole congregation had somehow spoken against the Lord. If this were the case that most did this, the Apostle Paul would not have even devoted I and II Corinthians to sinners.

This not being the case, Paul said, 'desire spiritual gifts' 14:1; 'I wish that everyone spoke in tongues' 14:5 and in 14:18 the greatest apostle who ever lived, to my thinking, said, 'I speak in 'tongues' more than any of you.' Also, in 14:39 Paul tells the Elders in the church 'Do not forbid Christians from speaking in tongues.

But there did have to be Divine order in the service which was the responsibility of the Elders to insure this would be the case. [14:40].

 

You greatly misunderstand these verses:

1 Corinthians 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

It is relatively easy to get someone to repeat the words: "Jesus is Lord." I can get any member of my unsaved Roman Catholic family to do it without any problem. I can any number of cults to do it. The Oneness people would say that, but I don't believe Oneness with their view of God are saved. I can probably convince a Muslim to repeat these words after me: "Jesus is Lord," and he would do it. That is not a difficult thing for an unsaved person to do. Your concept of this verse is totally wrong. Paul is contrasting this latter part of the verse with the first part. The emphasis is but by the Holy Spirit as contrasted to another spirit.

Contrariwise I can say that Jesus is accursed (and not really mean it from my heart). I can utter the words. There is nothing preventing me. It is not an impossibility. Any Christian can do that. The emphaisis again is the phrase speaking by the Holy Spirit as contrasted to another spirit.
Previously he mentions their pagan background which they had come out of--worshiping idols. Indeed some of them had spoken in tongues (actual languages), and had cursed God in a foreign language in paganism. Now some of them were doing it as Christians. Paul is saying that if you are cursing God in a foreign language, speaking in tongues, then it is obviously not of the Holy Spirit, it is of a demonic spirit. No man calls Jesus accursed by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit doesn't do that. He praised God, not curses God. Yet we have evidence that this very thing happens in Charismatic circles today--where individuals, controlled by demons, speak in actualy languages, and praise Satan. That is what was happening in Corinth, and that also happens today sometimes. Thus it is a legitimate quetion to ask each and every tongue-speaker, How do you know what you are saying is of God? How do you know what you are saying is not of the devil? You may be praising Satan and not God. How do you know?
DHK