Tongues - Tongue of Angels

[Don]

Atestring, your reference to Revelation 14 is interesting, as if that were true, then only 144,000 men could learn the tongue of angels, much less speak it.

2 Corinthians 12 doesn't refer to a language spoken by angels; it simply says unspeakable, on account of their sacredness...which is why they were unlawful to utter.

 

[Lorelei]

Originally posted by Latreia:
Lorelei,

Who can argue with such reasoning?

The evidence has been presnted, and you are of course free to accept it or reject it.

Given that there is nothing more that I can say, and I dont want to get into repeating myself any more than I already have, I huess that its for me on this thread.

I feel exactly the same way which is why I didn't bother repeating myself again.

~Lorelei

 

[TheOliveBranch]

I may have missed this point in other posts, but when words are joined by "and", doesn't this join them with the same meaning, not compare the two? So, by using the word "and", Paul is liking the tongues of man and angels. In other words, they are the same language. Then, Latreia's point is valid.

The Corintians had a problem with an unknown tongue, which, in their mind, put them above others. Their proof was the ability to speak in the "angelic" tongue. This is where the need for an interpreter came in. Paul tells them that if this language were something other that one could understand, then more than one person would be able to understand this tongue, and could interpret what was being said for those that wouldn't understand. I have heard tongues, it is kinda scarry, more wicked looking. I also saw the same tongues spoken by some actor in a movie set in the middle east. I understood neither, and call them a hoax because they couldn't be interpreted. Well, they actually were real to the one speaking, (and real to me, but not understood).

 

[Lorelei]

Originally posted by TheOliveBranch:

The Corintians had a problem with an unknown tongue, which, in their mind, put them above others.

We have gone over both the fact that the word unknown is not in the original texts and have also clarified that unknown to the speaker does not necessarily mean unkown to any man anywhere at any time.

There are only 3 times in the book of Acts that anyone speaks in tongues. No where does it indicate those tongues were unknown to every human, but we do know that in Acts 2 they were unknown to the speakers but known to those who were listening. We also know that in Acts 10 the Jews who didn't believe that Gentiles could be saved, changed their unbelief when witnessing the Gentiles speaking in tongues.

Originally posted by TheOliveBranch:

Their proof was the ability to speak in the "angelic" tongue.

Where does it say they were claiming this?

If the angelic tongue in 1 Corinthains 13:1 is the same as the tongue in 1 Corinthians 14, then why wasn't that tongue called "angelic"? To use your argument that angelic tongues existed, that tongue was identifiable by Paul and therefore not an unknown one, but an angelic tongue.

How do you know if you are speaking a human or angelic tongue? How can you claim it's angelic when you don't even know how to identify the many dialects of mankind? How do you know the difference? According to you, Paul evidentally did. Where does he explain to us how to know the difference? Interpretation doesn't explain what tongue a person was speaking, but rather what was said.

But again, these points have been brought up before, it's just that no one cares to address them.

Paul is clear, spiritual gifts were given for one purpose and that is to edify the body. Anyone speaking a tongue should be doing so for this reason and this reason alone. How can an angelic tongue suit this purpose?

Paul also specifies that the gift of tongues was given as a sign to the unbeliever, not the believer. He also goes on to say that if an unbeliever could not understand what was being said, he would think you were crazy. How can an angelic tongue be a sign to an unbliever?

To say that a tongue of angels is indeed a gift of the Spirit it would still have to meet these two criteria addressed in 1 Corinthians 14. I don't see how a tongue that no man can speak can either edify the body or be a significant sign to the unbeliever, and the Bible never says otherwise.

~Lorelei

 

[TheOliveBranch]

You have totally misunderstood me, Lorelei. I did not say angelic tongues existed, but that the claim existed. Just as the charismatic movement claims the existance. The claim is as old as the Corinthians, but the actual tongue is not true. This is the "and" in what Paul is saying. The only languages, or tongues spoken are to be ones that can be interpreted. Angelic tongues are without interpretation. So, if they aren't a tongue of God's angels, whose are they?
They spoke in a tongue that was uninterpretable, and claimed it to be "angelic". If it were just languages, there would be no argument. What I am saying is that Paul is saying that languages are the same between man and angels. They don't have a specific "tongue" of their own. Why should we talk to the angels anyway?

 

[atestring]

Originally posted by Don:
Atestring, your reference to Revelation 14 is interesting, as if that were true, then only 144,000 men could learn the tongue of angels, much less speak it.

2 Corinthians 12 doesn't refer to a language spoken by angels; it simply says unspeakable, on account of their sacredness...which is why they were unlawful to utter.

This was not my reference but a reference made in "The Interpreters Bible" which is a very reliable commentary.
I don't think that you can disprove this to be a reliable reference that was given in the commentary.

[ February 03, 2003, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: atestring ]

 

[Lorelei]

Originally posted by TheOliveBranch:
You have totally misunderstood me, Lorelei. I did not say angelic tongues existed, but that the claim existed. Just as the charismatic movement claims the existance.

I am sorry that I misunderstood what you were saying.

I still don't think that it can be proven that they made this claim at all, otherwise I believe Paul would have discussed "angelic" tongues, or the lack thereof, in more depth. You never hear the phrase other than the one verse in 1 Corinthians 13.

But again, I am sorry I misunderstood exactly what you were saying.

~Lorelei

 

[Lorelei]

Originally posted by atestring:
This was not my reference but a reference made in "The Interpreters Bible" which is a very reliable commentary.

Reliability does not equal infallibility. Just because a source is reliable, it does not mean the are always 100% accurate.

Originally posted by atestring:

I don't think that you can disprove this to be a reliable reference that was given in the commentary.

He already did disprove it. The references listed have nothing to do with speaking in tongues, let alone angelic tongues. It is just not in the context.

~Lorelei

 

[Don]

Lorelei beat me to it...again....

 

[Bible-belted]

Originally posted by Don:
Lorelei beat me to it...again....

Except that the Interp[reter's commnetary isn't the only one to make the reference. So does the Bible Kowledge Commentary. That's Moody folks. They are hardly supportive of angelic tongues. But they see a connection. If these scholars think there's a reference then maybe there's more to it than some are willing to admit. Certainnly it is deserving of more than a dismissive "the aren't infallible".

As top this argument:

2 Corinthians 12 doesn't refer to a language spoken by angels; it simply says unspeakable, on account of their sacredness...which is why they were unlawful to utter.

It is... incomplete. The words in question "harreta remata", the ones where Don gets his interpretation, are the ones that are taken to mean "language of the heavenly sphere" by some scholars. Not all of course, but that isn't the point. The point is that it is far from clear that his interpretation is corect or that the one that he is countering is as impossible as he makes it out to be. The evidence simply is not conclusive.

 

[Lorelei]

Originally posted by Don:
Lorelei beat me to it...again....

No, see I wasn't trying to beat you to, but rather support what you already said!

Is this a nice way to ask me to shut up????

~Lorelei

 

[Lorelei]

Originally posted by Latreia:
The evidence simply is not conclusive.

Well, the evidence has to point to one of the two conclusions, you can't have it both ways.

First you say Paul insists that man can speak in a tongue of angels.

Then you insist that 1 Cor 14:2 can be referring to an angelic tongue.

In order for this to be so, Paul who said "If" he spoke in the tongue of angels would be doing something that was not lawful for man to do.

Now which of these two things do you believe? To hold to one, the other is automatically contradicted.

The term in and of itself may not be perfectly conclusive, but in the context of the rest of the Bible you can indeed make a solid argument against it.

~Lorelei

 

[Lorelei]

Originally posted by Latreia:
Certainnly it is deserving of more than a dismissive "the aren't infallible".

I was addressing the argument made by atestring who merely seemed to think that it couldn't be disproven because this resource was reliable. Atestring didn't seem to think this argument warrented more proof than that.

Originally posted by atestring:
This was not my reference but a reference made in "The Interpreters Bible" which is a very reliable commentary.
I don't think that you can disprove this to be a reliable reference that was given in the commentary.

I just thought it should be brought to your attention that I wasn't the one "dismissing" the argument, rather explaining that I wasn't simply going to have to believe it because Atestring said it was reliable

~Lorelei

 

[Don]

Originally posted by Lorelei:
Is this a nice way to ask me to shut up????

~Lorelei

Not at all!

 

[Bible-belted]

Lorelei,

Well, the evidence has to point to one of the two conclusions, you can't have it both ways.

As a matter of principle, you are incorrect. If the evidenc only pointed one way there wouldn't be a disagreement. The most that one can say in many instances is that the preponderance of evidence suggests something, making one conclusion more liekly. However such judgements usually ahve astrong subjective element to them.

In order for this to be so, Paul who said "If" he spoke in the tongue of angels would be doing something that was not lawful for man to do.

This assumes a reason for it breing unlawful in 2Co 12. I don't accept that assumption.

A lot of your argument is based on unspoken assumptions. I suggest for your own edifcation that you spend some time unpacking them.

The term in and of itself may not be perfectly conclusive, but in the context of the rest of the Bible you can indeed make a solid argument against it

Really? Then make it.

But even if you do make ne let me say that one can also make a strong case contextually that permits it.

If you want to argue context though I recommend you get consistent. I gave you solidly contextual evidence for 1Co 13:1 being a real situation. You simply said "I disagree." For you to argue context now...

I was addressing the argument made by atestring who merely seemed to think that it couldn't be disproven because this resource was reliable.

Yes I know. But these are scholars, people who have spent more time learning the Bile than you or I. To be dismissive is inappropriate. You may disagree with them, but you may not simply dismiss them. You must interact with them.

If you think they are not credible scholars, then say so and give your reasons.

 

[Lorelei]

Originally posted by Latreia:
As a matter of principle, you are incorrect. If the evidenc only pointed one way there wouldn't be a disagreement. The most that one can say in many instances is that the preponderance of evidence suggests something, making one conclusion more liekly. However such judgements usually ahve astrong subjective element to them.

I am still in disagreement that the evidence even speaks to it more than once. I was simply pointing out that for you to suggest that it does merely contradicts your own argument.

Originally posted by Latreia:
This assumes a reason for it breing unlawful in 2Co 12. I don't accept that assumption.

Would you like to tell me what you do accept?

This assumes nothing, it merely accepts the words of Paul within context.

2 Cor 12:4-5
4 was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell.
NIV

You either admit that this statement means that Paul was not permitted to tell us what he heard (then meaning he could indeed understand that tongue), or you deny that he even understood what was said and then say that to speak that tongue is not permitted.

Originally posted by Latreia:

A lot of your argument is based on unspoken assumptions. I suggest for your own edifcation that you spend some time unpacking them.

No, that is what your arguments are based upon. Your assumptions that angelic tongues exist causes you to try to read that belief into every passage that you can find so that you can uphold your belief.

Originally posted by Latreia:
]Really? Then make it.

I have made several arguments but you have apparantly not listened to them nor have you addressed the many questions that I have posed in my responses. I have read each and every scripture you have posted and found most of them irrelevant to the conversation. You still have posted no verse that says that Corinthians were professing to speak in angelic tongues. You have only solidified the case that the Corinthians were carnal and abusing most every doctrine they have been taught, but none of those verses proclaim angelic tongues as one of them. In all of your quotes that started with "Now speaking to" this issue or that, you will note that 1 Corinthians does not start addressing angelic tongues that way. It does not say, "Now speaking to angelic tongues". It was speaking to all spiritual gifts and their improper motivation and practice. The context of 1 Cor 13:1 does not in any way suggest any of the arguements you have made for it.

Originally posted by Latreia:
But even if you do make ne let me say that one can also make a strong case contextually that permits it.

Then do it, so far you haven't touched upon any contextual basis, they have all been merely subjective. Nor have you addressed the questions that your arguements seem to cause. Such as how can angelic tongues be practiced is they are not permitted to be spoken?

Originally posted by Latreia:
If you want to argue context though I recommend you get consistent. I gave you solidly contextual evidence for 1Co 13:1 being a real situation. You simply said "I disagree." For you to argue context now...

Your evidence proved no such thing. Not one verse showed that the situation was that they professed to speak in tongues of angels. Not one verse. Oh you listed a few verses that said they were doing a lot of things wrong, but not one of them said anything about them speaking in angelic tongues, nor did you attempt to answer any questions that your argument did raise.

I merely said I disagree, because you made no solid argument, therefore I was going to have to repeat the arguments I had already made again, because you offered NO new evidence in your post. You may be convinced in your own mind that you made a valid point, but you did no such thing.

So please, show me the other passages in 1 Corinthians that tells me that the Corinthians were speaking angelic tongues. I am still waiting to see it.

Originally posted by Latreia:
Yes I know. But these are scholars, people who have spent more time learning the Bile than you or I. To be dismissive is inappropriate. You may disagree with them, but you may not simply dismiss them. You must interact with them.

Forgive me if I am still not impressed. This is why there are so many people led astray these days, we have too many scholars who are telling us what the Bible says that no one is really rightly dividing the word of truth for themselves.

I am not as studied as some of these scholars and I thank God that I am not. I let His Spirit reveal the truth of His Word to me, and when I do that, His word stands in unison without the need for further explanation.


You rely on the scholars that support your point of view, I will rely on the Word of God and the power of the Holy Spirit to reveal that Word to me.

Originally posted by Latreia:

If you think they are not credible scholars, then say so and give your reasons.

For each scholar that you can find that supports you, I can find one that supports me. Then we get into the battle of defending which human is right or wrong. What we are to be focusing on is God's Word, not man's.

I suggest you quit reading the scholars and read the Bible for what it has to say. You will find it a real eye opener.

Now if you have a real argument to make, then make it. But show scriptural evidence, for that is all that I am going to listen to. Posting a few references doesn't solidify your arguement if they don't make the point you are suggesting that they do.

If you have the answers to the questions I have asked, feel free to address them rather than continue to ignore them.

Otherwise we are to the point that the discussion is unfruitful.

~Lorelei

 

[Lorelei]

Originally posted by Don:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Lorelei:
Is this a nice way to ask me to shut up????

~Lorelei

Not at all! </font>[/QUOTE]Good, because as you can tell, I am not very good at it!

~Lorelei

 

[Artimaeus]

Lorelei, nice picture. You sure are cute. Who is that dark haired woman on the left?

 

 

[Bible-belted]

I am still in disagreement that the evidence even speaks to it more than once. I was simply pointing out that for you to suggest that it does merely contradicts your own argument.

You are free to disagree. But I hope you have figured out that yoy are wrong in saying that I am self-contradictory. It is only true if I were to aceot your understanding of why Paul was forbidden to relate his vision. I don't accept it, so I am not being self-contradictory.

Would you like to tell me what you do accept?

This assumes nothing, it merely accepts the words of Paul within context.

I belivee that Paul was not permitted to tel of his vision because it was for him only, and he was not to share it as it might erve to puff him up. Paul's oppjnent apparantly had no such qualms about sharing visions to make themselves look good.

And you do assume. You assume that your interpretation of the text is correct. You assume WHY it is unlawful for Paul to repeat his vision. I can agree that Paul was not permitted to not repeat the vision without saying that the language spoken in that vision are inherenlty unrelatable. So if I don't accept your interpretation then your accusation of self-contradiction falls flat.

Your assumptions that angelic tongues exist causes you to try to read that belief into every passage that you can find so that you can uphold your belief.

You keep saying I assume, but you never substantiate the claim. I have demonstrated how assumptions work for you. I have always argued from the text, I have worked exegetically. I have not assumed my conclusion at all. You have never demonstarted otherwise. I think this is just an area where you can't believe (by your own assumptions or becaue you have been taught so) that the only way for a person to conclude that angelic tongues exist is by prior assumption. That is not the case.

"I have made several arguments but you have apparantly not listened to them nor have you addressed the many questions that I have posed in my responses"

You have not made a single argument for 2Co 12. And I have responded to every argument you made. You, opn the other hand, havbe fialed to interact with the grammar and syntax of the passage of 1Co 13. In short you are the one guilty of your own accusation.

Then do it,

You first. I did ask you to make it first.

Your evidence proved no such thing.

Sprry Lorelei, but your simple denials do not amount to an actual interaction with the evidence. I poresent evidence and all yo say is "it doesn't mean that".

If you can't do beter then we're done.

I am not as studied as some of these scholars and I thank God that I am not.

That's what I thoght. Perish the thought ur precious opinions should ever be impacted by facts.

I assume youdon't despise the learning of your medical doctros this way?

For each scholar that you can find that supports you, I can find one that supports me.

Except you don't even bother.

Like it or not that's how theological discussions work. You have to say WHY you disagree. Appeals to "relying onthe word of God and the guidance of the spirit" are pointles as both sides can make them. You have to say why you are convinced by one thing and not another.

This is supposed to be about discussion, not blind dogmatism.

 

[qwerty]

Latreia,
Good post.
You may or may not be aware of this:
Where does a cessationist start from?

I think I have some understanding, because I was a "dyed in the wool" cessationist before age 21.

A cessationist depends on their interpretation of the Word of God. Look at the posts, and you will see things like "I see" or "I don't see", "my experience", etc.

For a cessationist, "it's all about me". My interpretation, my experience. Any interpretation or expreience that is contrary is invalid.

A cessationist starts from the beginning point that the gifts mentioned in 1 Cor. 12 were only for the first century. That is because we have the Bible now. This interpretation comes from a fragment of a verse in 1 Cor. 13, the verse about the word "perfect".

The sticking point is tongues. I think if tongues were taken out of the gifts list, there wouldn't be any, or many, cessationists today. Tongues are incredibly unpleasant for the natural man. But the Holy Spirit gave tongues and interpretation of tongues, so I would have to assume that He knows what He is doing. What He does is offend the natural man to death.

If you start with the position that there are no gifts today, then, by conclusion, there are no gifts today. If it looks like a gift, then it is of the devil. It wasn't of the devil in Paul's time, but it is of the devil today. I haven't heard that one explained yet. How does something that God gave that was good in the first century, now become something evil and of the devil.

So there will not be any conclusion to the dialog about gifts. When a cessationist starts with the position that the gifts are not for our time, then they have to follow through totally in their intrepretative method, no matter how convoluted it becomes.

Also, the cessationist wants "proof". Read through some of the posts, and you will find the request for proof. But no proof will ever be good enough. Because the logic is that since there are no gifts today, then no matter what it looks like, it isn't a gift from the Holy Spirit. So the request for a "proof" is not a straight-forward request from a cessationist, because for them, there is no such thing as "proof" that the gifts exist today.