Speaking in tongues
Hardane
.." We receive because we believe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE TRUTH ABOUT SPEAKING IN TONGUES
by EDDIE JONES
(Biblical and Historical Proof)
The Pentecostal phenomenon of "speaking in tongues" has created
widespread controversy among modern Christendom today. Without the
knowledge of the truth, which only comes to an honest heart by divine
revelation, many have misunderstood the purpose of tongues. Do not be
confused by theories and ideas of men: learn the truth about this
important subject.
The Bible teaches three principal ways in which tongues are
manifested: as the initial evidence of the Holy Spirit baptism as one
of the nine gifts of the Spirit in the church, and in a believer's
personal devotion to God.
INITIAL EVIDENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT BAPTISM
Isaiah prophesied, "With stammering lips and ANOTHER TONGUE will he
speak to this people." Is. 28:11. In the great commission, Jesus said,
"And these signs shall follow them that believe...they shall speak
with NEW TONGUES." Mark 16:17.
"The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the SOUND
thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so
is everyone that is born of the Spirit." John 3:8. As the sound of
wind blowing is the evidence of its presence, so is the sound of
speaking in tongues evidence of the Holy Spirit baptism.
"And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one
accord in one place. And suddenly there came a SOUND from heaven as of
a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were
sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire,
and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy
Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them
utterance." Acts 2:1-4. The initial evidence of the Holy Ghost, upon
the 120 disciples, was witnessed by devout Jews, out of every nation.
They said one to another, "Behold, are not all these which speak
Galileans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we
were born?" Acts 2:6-8. Then Peter preached, "But this is that which
was spoken by the prophet Joel (See Joel 2:28). And it shall come to
pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon
all flesh...Having received of the Father the promise of the Holy
Ghost, he (Jesus) hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear."
Acts 2:16-33.
Cornelius and his household spoke in tongues when they were baptized
with the Holy Ghost. "They of the circumcision which believe were
astonished...because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift
of the Holy Ghost. FOR THEY HEARD THEM SPEAK WITH TONGUES..." Acts
10:45-48. Peter confirmed, "...The Holy Ghost fell on them as on us at
the beginning." Acts 11:15.
The believers at Ephesus spoke in tongues when they received the Holy
Ghost baptism. "And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy
Ghost came on them, and they spake in tongues, and prophesied." Acts
19:1-6.
When the Samaritans received the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the
apostles' hands, there was a miraculous evidence of God's power which
exceeded the miracles and signs already experienced. This prompted
Simon the sorcerer to offer money to buy this power: that on
whomsoever he laid hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. According to
the Biblical signs that follow believers, and the experiences received
at Pentecost, Cesarea and Ephesus, there should be no doubt that the
Samaritans received the Holy Ghost with the same initial evidence of
speaking in tongues. Acts 8:5-25.
The apostle Paul was filled with the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues.
Acts 9:17, I Cor. 14:18.
History also proves that speaking in tongues was the evidence of the
Holy Spirit baptism in the early church, and has not ceased to be a
Biblical experience among believers today.
Encyclopedia Britannica, 1972 Edition, Vol. W, p. 75 - Tongue-speaking
manifested itself early in the Christian experience. At Pentecost
(Acts 2) the gift appeared as a sign of the indwelling of the Holy
Spirit which marked the character of the earliest Christians...During
later church history, glossolalia (speaking in tongues) occurred among
the mendicant friars of the 13th century, little prophets of Cevennes,
the Jansenists, and the Irvingites. Tongues were found also among the
early Quakers, as well as among the converts of John Wesley and George
Whitefield...In modern times glossolalia has been found chiefly among
Holiness and Pentecostal groups.
The Saturday Evening Post, May 16, 1964, p. 32 - Praying in tongues
has recurred at intervals throughout the Christian era, although it
did not affect large masses until early in this century. Its advocates
were quickly expelled from the established churches, whereupon they
established the Pentecostal churches. For 50 years it remained the
almost exclusive possession of the Pentecostal churches.
Newsweek, June 25, 1973, p. 80 - The Pentecostal phenomenon has spread
with surprising speed through all of the world's major Christian
churches.
Why did God choose tongues for the initial evidence of the Holy Spirit
baptism? Note the following reasons: 1.Isaiah asked, "Who hath
directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being His counselor hath taught
Him?" Is. 40:13. God is sovereign to choose as He will without being
accountable to anyone! 2.Such a marvelous experience as the baptism of
the Holy Ghost demands a marvelous evidence. So God chose to speak
through the believer in a language foreign to him as the outward
evidence of the marvelous infilling of the Holy Ghost! 3.The
tongue is the most unruly member of the body and full of deadly
poison, which no man can tame. It is a world of iniquity and is set on
fire of hell. Therefore, the tongue is capable of defiling the entire
body. James 3:6. Before man can be fully sanctified, the tongue, which
defileth, must be brought under control. Who can tame the tongue?
James compares the tongue to the bit in a horse's mouth which gives
the driver complete control. James 3:3. So whoever controls the tongue
controls the person. How beautiful is this glorious truth! God chose
tongues, as evidence of the Holy Spirit baptism, to symbolize His
complete control of a believer. And this is important for the
sanctification of the individual's body. 4.Although other signs were
manifested at Pentecost, God chose tongues for the uniform sign of the
Holy Spirit baptism. (Compare Acts 2:2-4, 10:46, 19:6.) Jesus said
that this SIGN shall follow every believer of the gospel. Mark
16:16,17. The Jews were convinced that the Gentiles at Cesarea had
received the baptism of the Holy Ghost, FOR THEY HEARD THEM SPEAK WITH
TONGUES. Acts 10:45-47.
GIFT OF TONGUES IN THE CHURCH
"For by ONE SPIRIT are we ALL BAPTIZED into one body." I Cor. 12:13.
"Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit." I Cor.
12:4. The gifts of the Spirit are as follows: "the word of wisdom, the
word of knowledge, faith, the gifts of healing, the working of
miracles, prophecy, discerning of spirits, divers kinds of tongues and
the interpretation of tongues. But by one and the selfsame Spirit, God
divides these gifts severally to every man as He will". I Cor.
12:8-11.
Since the gift of tongues is a manifestation of the Spirit (I Cor.
12:7,11), a cannot operate in a person without the Holy Ghost being
resident within him. Therefore this gift is only given to believers
who have been baptized into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit
evidenced by tongue-speaking.
The gift of tongues is different from the tongues as the initial
evidence of the Holy Spirit baptism. Compare the following:
•1. These tongues differ in purpose. The gift of tongues along
with the gift of interpretation of tongues has been give unto some in
the church to convey a message from God to the congregation as the
need requires. I Cor. 12:7, 27, 28. But the tongues as evidence of
receiving the Holy Ghost, is the believers personal experience with
God, and is not designed to convey a message to the church.
•2. Also these tongues differ in operation. The gift of tongues
in the church is limited to two or three messages and that by course:
and one must interpret I Cor. 14:27. But the tongues as evidence of
the Holy Spirit baptism is an unlimited manifestation and requires no
interpretation.
Paul said, "He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself;
but he that prophesieth edifieth the church I would that ye all spake
with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that
prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues EXCEPT he interpret
that the church may receive edifying." I Cor. 14:4,5. Certainly the
apostle did not try to discredit or do away with the importance of
tongues. Because, in comparison, he illustrated that the less
honorable members of the body are necessary, and receive more abundant
honor. I Cor. 12:22,23. Each gift of the Spirit has as its proper time
and place in the church, and when tongues is interpreted they become
as important as prophecy! So Paul emphasized, "...Let all things be
done unto edifying." I Cor. 14:26. To edify the church, the gift of
tongues must be coupled with the gift of interpretation of tongues. To
avoid confusion, Paul gave instructions to follow for the use of
tongues and interpretation of tongues in the church. (See I Cor.
14:27.) He said, "If there be no interpretation let him keep silence
in the church: and let him speak to himself, and to o God." I Cor.
14:28. Also he said, "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." I Cor. 14:19. It is better for
the edification of the church to speak five words of understanding
than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue without a divinely
inspired interpretation. However, lest anyone misunderstand the
importance of tongues, Paul concluded, "Wherefore brethren, covet to
prophesy, and FORBID NOT TO SPEAK WITH TONGUES." I Cor. 14:19.
"Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to
them that believe not..." I Cor. 14:22. This Scripture deals with
God's speaking to man. (See I Cor. 14:21.) Of course, the believer
should know when the Lord speaks, whether by tongues or not. But as a
proof to the unbeliever, or anyone who doubts the Word of God, tongues
are manifested for a miraculous sign of His presence.
Paul asked the question, "Do all speak with tongues?..." I Cor. 12:30.
The context of this Scripture requires a negative answer, because Paul
is discussing Tongues as a gift of the Spirit only, and not as the
evidence of the Holy Spirit baptism. (See I Cor. 12:28.) The gift of
tongues is in addition to the tongues experienced with the baptism of
the Holy Ghost. (By the same rule, the gift of faith is in addition to
the measure of faith given a person to be saved, Compare Rom. 12:3, I
Cor. 12:9.) So everyone may not receive the gift of tongues. But in
every case, where the initial evidence of the Holy Spirit baptism is
recorded, "ALL" spoke in tongues. (For examples see Acts 2:4, 10:44,
19:7.)
PERSONAL DEVOTION TO GOD
Tongues are also manifested in a believer's personal life of prayer
and worship. They serve as a means of his secret communication with
God in the Spirit. These tongues are not meant to be understood by
men: therefore, they need no interpretation. "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." I
Cor. 14:2. "The Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with
groanings which cannot be uttered." Rom. 8:26. Paul said, "If I pray
in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is
unfruitful. 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." I Cor. 14:14,15.
These devotional tongues are also for the personal edification of the
believer. They are for self-encouragement and uplifting of his spirit.
Paul said, "He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself..."
I Cor. 14:4. So the apostle gladly stated, "I think my God, I speak
with tongues more than ye all." I Cor. 14:18.
How long will tongues continue to be manifested?
"Whether there be prophecies, they shall fail: whether there be
tongues, they shall cease: whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish
away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that
which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done
away." I Cor. 13:8-10. The phrase, "when that which is perfect is
come," is translated from the Greek phrase "to teleion". The word
"teleion" is a singular neuter term which refers to Jesus Christ.
Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, p. 618, defines the phrase "to
teleion" as used in I Cor. 13:10: "The perfect state of all things, to
be ushered in by the return of Christ from heaven." Paul said, "Now we
see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in
part: but then (when that which is perfect is come) shall I know even
as also I am known." I Cor. 13:12. When the church, having reached her
state of perfection, stands face to face in the presence of God, there
will be no need for prophecies, tongues and knowledge. But until that
which is perfect (Jesus Christ) is come, that which is in part will
remain. And as long as there remains prophecies and knowledge, tongues
shall not cease. So Paul instructed the church to COME BEHIND IN NO
GIFT, WAITING FOR THE COMING OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. I Cor. 1:7.
Believe the Truth! The Pentecostal phenomenon is for you today! If you
desire the greatest experience God has offered to mankind, I urge you
to repent, and be baptized with water in the name of Jesus Christ for
the remission of sins, and receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost,
evidenced by speaking in tongues!
Acts 2:4,38,39
------------------------------- :) ---------------------------
Hardane - A servant of the Lord.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Do your best (study) to win full approval in God's sight, as
a worker who is not ashamed of his work, one who correctly
teaches the message of God's truth...The Lord's servant must
not quarrel. He must be kind toward all, a good and patient
teacher, who is gentile as he corrects his opponents. It may
be that God will give them the opportunity to repent and come
to know the truth. (2 Timothy 2:15,24-25 TEV).
Marc Fox
Hardane wrote:
>
> .." We receive because we believe.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> THE TRUTH ABOUT SPEAKING IN TONGUES
>
> by EDDIE JONES
>
I challenge anyone who believes this to read the entire book of Acts.
What you will find is that there are more conversions to Christ and
baptizms without accompanying tongues recorded than there are with.
Obviously tongue-speaking was noted on occassion as it occurred and was
exceptional in every case. Tongue-speaking has been studied extensively
and since it is rampant in the occult, mormonism, voodoo, you name it,
it cannot be trusted as a true sign of Christianity.
Libertarius
In <32e7cbb8...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> har...@ix.netcom.com
(Hardane) writes:
>
>.." We receive because we believe.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>
SNIPALOT
That is known as GLOSSOLALIA.
>
ANYONE can go into a trance state and speak jabber
away pure gibberish. I have yet to hear of ANYONE
who spoke an intelligible foreign language without
having learned it from someone else.
Libertarius
Alpha One
Hardane <har...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<32e7cbb8...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> .." We receive because we believe.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> THE TRUTH ABOUT SPEAKING IN TONGUES
>
> by EDDIE JONES
>
> (Biblical and Historical Proof)
>
> The Pentecostal phenomenon of "speaking in tongues" has created
> widespread controversy among modern Christendom today. Without the
> knowledge of the truth, which only comes to an honest heart by divine
> revelation, many have misunderstood the purpose of tongues. Do not be
> confused by theories and ideas of men: learn the truth about this
> important subject.
Hardane, I don't mean to be harsh, but Eddie Jones is absolutely correct
(see adjacent post). For a great exposition on the topic, please refer to
"Charismatic Chaos", by John MacArthur. All of the scripture you refer to
is covered and will bring to light how speaking in tongues in not valid for
Christianity anymore. Let us not use a "second" baptism as a device to
sow seeds of discord among the brethren. Remember, the book of Acts is
more a historical record of the early Church, than it is a lesson on
soteriology.
In Christ,
Alpha One
Bonnie H
Libertarius wrote:
>
> In <32e7cbb8...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> har...@ix.netcom.com
> (Hardane) writes:
> >
> >
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> >
>
>
> That is known as GLOSSOLALIA.
> >
> ANYONE can go into a trance state and speak jabber
> away pure gibberish. I have yet to hear of ANYONE
> who spoke an intelligible foreign language without
> having learned it from someone else.
>
> Libertarius
There is speaking in the tongues of angels, and the tongues of man. I
have known of many instances where one speaking in tongues, not knowing
what he was saying, happened to be speaking perfectly in a language he
had never learned. The result was the salvation of a person or persons
within hearing. One instance was of a man speaking an ancient Mandarin
dialect that he could not possibly have known. It was solely for the
benefit (via the Holy Spirit) of an old man who absolutely knew that
this American could not have known that language. The Bible says that
one of the reasons for tongues is as a sign to the unbelievers.
Attila Csanyi
In <32E90E...@cdsnet.net> Bonnie H <bon...@cdsnet.net> writes:
>
>Libertarius wrote:
>>
>> In <32e7cbb8...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> har...@ix.netcom.com
>> (Hardane) writes:
>> >
>> >
>>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -
>> >
>>
>>
>> That is known as GLOSSOLALIA.
>> >
>> ANYONE can go into a trance state and speak jabber
>> away pure gibberish. I have yet to hear of ANYONE
>> who spoke an intelligible foreign language without
>> having learned it from someone else.
>>
>> Libertarius
>
>There is speaking in the tongues of angels, and the tongues of man. I
>have known of many instances where one speaking in tongues, not
knowing
>what he was saying, happened to be speaking perfectly in a language he
>had never learned. The result was the salvation of a person or persons
>within hearing. One instance was of a man speaking an ancient Mandarin
>dialect that he could not possibly have known. It was solely for the
>benefit (via the Holy Spirit) of an old man who absolutely knew that
>this American could not have known that language. The Bible says that
>one of the reasons for tongues is as a sign to the unbelievers.
You say "you have known of many instances". Was that your
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE or a story you've heard from someone else?
Can you give us any details, such as place, time and names
that could be verified?
Libertarius
Dale Sanger
Bonnie H wrote:
>
> Libertarius wrote:
> >
> > In <32e7cbb8...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> har...@ix.netcom.com
> > (Hardane) writes:
> > >
> > >
> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -
> > >
> >
> >
> > That is known as GLOSSOLALIA.
> > >
> > ANYONE can go into a trance state and speak jabber
> > away pure gibberish. I have yet to hear of ANYONE
> > who spoke an intelligible foreign language without
> > having learned it from someone else.
> >
> > Libertarius
>
> There is speaking in the tongues of angels, and the tongues of man. I
> have known of many instances where one speaking in tongues, not knowing
> what he was saying, happened to be speaking perfectly in a language he
> had never learned. The result was the salvation of a person or persons
> within hearing. One instance was of a man speaking an ancient Mandarin
> dialect that he could not possibly have known. It was solely for the
> benefit (via the Holy Spirit) of an old man who absolutely knew that
> this American could not have known that language. The Bible says that
> one of the reasons for tongues is as a sign to the unbelievers.
106 Los Angeles ...Azuza Street Mission....a Reporter for the LA
Newspaper reported on the events in the mission. And in the particular
meeting he was in a person spoke in tongues and was speaking perfect
Russian.
Dale
S & R
Peter Dolman wrote:
>
> I have heard "Chaotic" tongues, and I have heard "Holy Spirit Tongues", and
> the difference is night and day -- and (sometimes) dark and light.
>
> I know some people insist on the logic:
> 1. "The initial Pentecostal 'sign' was tongues."
> 2. "This reoccurred several times as the Spirit 'baptized' certain new
> believers -- Samaritans, Cornelius, Ephesians, etc.
> 3. "Tongues occurred when the Spirit came upon them"
> 4. "Tongues is THE evidence of the 'Baptism of the Holy Spirit'.
> 5. "All Christians baptized by the Spirit speak in tongues".
> 6. "Therefore, speaking in tongues is THE evidence of being a Christian".
>
> I am a Pentecostal who accepts the spiritual gift of tongues as a valid
> expression of the Sprit's manifestation and work in the life of a believer.
> I belong to a church in which people are encouraged to express their
> worship to Jesus in tongues, prayer, song, preaching -- and silent
> reverence. I believe that the New Testament specifically provides for the
> exercise of this gift both in private and in public.
>
> I also believe that tongues can be abused, copied, self-induced, or even
> demonically inspired. But so can ANY gift or Christian expression of
> worship.
>
> Nobody forbids the right and godly expression of the gift because of
> preaching or teaching which is manipulative, legalistic, controlling, or
> deceitful. The gifts of helps, giving or mercies are welcomed, even though
> there are those who act so out of a sense of guilt or co-dependency, or
> even to win favour with men, or pay God back for their salvation. The gift
> of singleness or chastity is applauded, though some are motivated to stay
> single because of problems with intimacy or sharing.
>
> What I am saying is why focus on tongues? If a person tells you you MUST
> speak in tongues to show you are a Christian, they are at best misled, and
> at worst like the Judaizers of Paul's time. Salvation is in Jesus ALONE --
> GRACE, not tongues is what saves you. All Christians do not speak in
> tongues, but ALL Christians are saved by His Grace.
>
> Do I speak in tongues? I did a few times many years ago, and many years
> before I joined a Pentecostal church. In fact, the primary reason for
> joining was that they welcomed me and my family IN LOVE long before I ever
> told them I spoke in tongues -- it only came up when I asked about it.
> There was no forcing it on me, or coercion to "do" it. That would be alien
> to me and my brothers and sisters. Do I want to speak in tongues again?
> Yes, if that's what God wants. No, if He doesn't. So far, He's chosen not
> to -- and that is fine with me (and my church).
>
> As for tongues being a 'sign' of the Spirit's presence, I agree it is. Is
> it the ONLY sign? No way! There were several 'signs' on the day of
> Pentecost:
>
> 1. Visible manifestation of the Spirit (like tongues of fire).
> 2. Audible manifestation of the Spirit (sound like a rushing wind).
> 3. Changes in the recipients of the Spirit (frightened disciples became
> bold preachers).
> 4. A 'declaratory' manifestation (Gospel was preached clearly -- and
> concisely!)
> 5. Manifestation in the mouths of the disciples -- speaking in 'other
> tongues'.
> 6. Understanding/communication manifestation to the crowds (they each HEARD
> the disciples speaking in their own language).
> 7. Spirit convicting the hearers ("what must we do to be saved?")
> 8. Repentance and contrition resulting in the salvation of thousands.
> 9. Massive growth of the new Church
This has been refreshing to read...Thank you...I now know that some
people really understand the truth about tongues. God Bless you
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From Rene'e
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
S & R
Bonnie H wrote:
>
> Libertarius wrote:
> >
> > In <32e7cbb8...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> har...@ix.netcom.com
> > (Hardane) writes:
> > >
> > >
> >
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -
> > >
> >
> >
> > That is known as GLOSSOLALIA.
> > >
> > ANYONE can go into a trance state and speak jabber
> > away pure gibberish. I have yet to hear of ANYONE
> > who spoke an intelligible foreign language without
> > having learned it from someone else.
> >
> > Libertarius
>
> There is speaking in the tongues of angels, and the tongues of man. I
> have known of many instances where one speaking in tongues, not knowing
> what he was saying, happened to be speaking perfectly in a language he
> had never learned. The result was the salvation of a person or persons
> within hearing. One instance was of a man speaking an ancient Mandarin
> dialect that he could not possibly have known. It was solely for the
> benefit (via the Holy Spirit) of an old man who absolutely knew that
> this American could not have known that language. The Bible says that
> one of the reasons for tongues is as a sign to the unbelievers.
GREAT RESPONSE!!!
Bonnie H
I have known several people this happened to, including the man who was
speaking in perfect Mandarin dialect. This man has passed away now,
about ten years ago. I have also read such accounts in many books, all
available in Christian book stores. I did not write down place, time and
names as to me this would be ridiculous. I was not out to do a
documentary of God's actions or keep a log of every time I saw the gifts
of the Spirit at work. I see those gifts every time I attend a
full-Gospel church, and see them working in my life all the time. Many
people insist on a "sign." The Lord wants people to take a little step
of faith, and then He will show them many signs.
While I appreciate the gift of tongues in the Church, it is also misused
by people with a religious spirit who just want to be seen, heard, and
thought to be spiritual. The greatest blessing in my life in the gift of
tongues is in my personal prayer life. Through the Spirit, one prays the
perfect prayer to God, not a selfish prayer. Praying in tongues
"edifies" a person, which means it builds one up in the Spirit. It
causes one to be able to understand the Bible like nothing else can do.
It causes one to grow spiritually.
Documented? No, I've never done that. But it would make an interesting
book. I don't know if anyone has written such a book.
xona
Balla ginga soitosa fretions dododo itokita lwyer jcoed koikkioed
muoshta uerians kerrian ueanusne totoreade sososo yakindea reutio
yabba dabba dodo java rivir tobata frontra mula dicko flicko dork
xona
yeah
Peter Dolman
Baskin Cooper
Hdfuhsklefa jansdfui asdfljkio awerf8905jt48$N AEFKLOGM034TM RKIF
dopa904a ,$%()(MK ,odk0fgk 0kk9o4kr5$45
--
BM8À
Libertarius
In <32E933...@geocities.com> Dale Sanger <regn...@geocities.com>
writes:
>Bonnie H wrote:
>>
>> Libertarius wrote:
>> >
>> > In <32e7cbb8...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> har...@ix.netcom.com
>> > (Hardane) writes:
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > -
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > That is known as GLOSSOLALIA.
>> > >
>> > ANYONE can go into a trance state and speak jabber
>> > away pure gibberish. I have yet to hear of ANYONE
>> > who spoke an intelligible foreign language without
>> > having learned it from someone else.
>> >
>> > Libertarius
>>
>> There is speaking in the tongues of angels, and the tongues of man.
I
>> have known of many instances where one speaking in tongues, not
knowing
>> what he was saying, happened to be speaking perfectly in a language
he
>> had never learned. The result was the salvation of a person or
persons
>> within hearing. One instance was of a man speaking an ancient
Mandarin
>> dialect that he could not possibly have known. It was solely for the
>> benefit (via the Holy Spirit) of an old man who absolutely knew that
>> this American could not have known that language. The Bible says
that
>> one of the reasons for tongues is as a sign to the unbelievers.
>
>
>Newspaper reported on the events in the mission. And in the particular
>meeting he was in a person spoke in tongues and was speaking perfect
>Russian.
>
>
>Dale
How do you know that person wasn't a Russian?
Libertarius
Libertarius
In <32E983...@nidlink.com> S & R <bywa...@nidlink.com> writes:
>
>Bonnie H wrote:
>>
>> Libertarius wrote:
>> >
>> > In <32e7cbb8...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> har...@ix.netcom.com
>> > (Hardane) writes:
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > -
>> > >
>> > >THE TRUTH ABOUT SPEAKING IN TONGUES
>> >
>> > SNIPALOT
>> >
>> > That is known as GLOSSOLALIA.
>> > >
>> > ANYONE can go into a trance state and speak jabber
>> > away pure gibberish. I have yet to hear of ANYONE
>> > who spoke an intelligible foreign language without
>> > having learned it from someone else.
>> >
>> > Libertarius
>>
>> There is speaking in the tongues of angels, and the tongues of man.
I
>> have known of many instances where one speaking in tongues, not
knowing
>> what he was saying, happened to be speaking perfectly in a language
he
>> had never learned. The result was the salvation of a person or
persons
>> within hearing. One instance was of a man speaking an ancient
Mandarin
>> dialect that he could not possibly have known. It was solely for the
>> benefit (via the Holy Spirit) of an old man who absolutely knew that
>> this American could not have known that language. The Bible says
that
>> one of the reasons for tongues is as a sign to the unbelievers.
>
>GREAT RESPONSE!!!
>--
Why could an American not speak Mandarin Chinese? That's silly!
Libertarius
Libertarius
In <5cc9il$m...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> xona <xo...@primenet.com>
writes:
Did the Spirit make you say that? - Libertarius
Steve Meikle
xona <xo...@primenet.com> writes: >
>
> Balla ginga soitosa fretions dododo itokita lwyer jcoed koikkioed
> muoshta uerians kerrian ueanusne totoreade sososo yakindea reutio
> yabba dabba dodo java rivir tobata frontra mula dicko flicko dork
>
> xona
> yeah
>to the gospel which the flagrant abuse of tongue speaking by pentecostals
>and other charismaniacs cause by their total indiscipline on the matter.
>St Paul was most clear. One tongue speaker at a time and only if
> an interpreter gives an interpretation. Otherwise unbelievers will think
> we Christians are mad. The church, ie Christians ourselves, is to blame
> for the contempt the gospel is held in, and fundamentalists who claim to take th eBible literally (they
>DON'T) are the very worst. I can speak in tongues but prefer to reason with God in
> English and sometimes with what little Latin
I can cobble together
Alpha One
I mentioned Robert Tilton in my previous post. It is noted that I do not
endorse anything he teaches or taught, only that there was a period of time
where I watched him on television and made notes so as to refute most of
what he would say.
Thanks,
Alpha One
Alpha One
An excerpt from a letter I wrote to an individual who claims to also speak
in tongues:
'The Word Faith Movement got its name (by the way, it is not what I call
it)
mainly from a component of its teaching, namely in the power of a spoken
word. It has nothing to do with a legitimate movement of pure Faith. You
are beginning to resort to accusations which are not true concerning my
heart, <name withheld>. I do not hate those who speak in tongues, and in
fact do
not hate anyone. As Christians we are to discern what is right and wrong
in doctrine by resorting to Scripture only (extra-Biblical study guides and
books are fine, but should be continually checked with Scripture)...not to
a conviction of feelings. What you have shown in your letters are classic
examples of feelings-over-written doctrine. I know you mean well,
<name withheld>, but I sense that you will continually believe the way you
feel
like you should believe (e.g., relying on listening to the Holy Spirit, or
perhaps your heart). True discernment can only come after thoroughly
studying the essential doctrines and of course, prayer that the Holy Spirit
would help you to learn the deep things of God's Word. In closing, you
failed to answer some points within the body of my letters, most notably,
the one concerning pagan religious practices in speaking in tongues. A
fairly recent study conducted at Carleton University, Ottawa, demonstrated
that virtually anyone can learn to speak in tongues with minimum
instruction and modeling (Nicholas P. Spanos, Wendy P. Cross, Mark Lepage,
and Marjorie Coristine, "Glossolalia as Learned Behavior: An Experimental
Demonstration," Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1987). There is a myriad
of resources written to prove that "speaking in tongues" is a psychological
phenomenon. I have to confess that even I experimented with glossolalia
after watching Robert Tilton (I just had to prove that what he did was
nothing special at all), and could, with a little practice, become rather
fluent in speaking the gibberish. I do not do this anymore due to my love
for fellow brothers and sisters in Christ who may practice speaking in
gibberish, which is another example of the decline in Evangelical theology
(nothing to make light of). When last thing...when you can demonstrate
that you can speak in various terrestrial languages which you had never
studied, you will have my attention.'
There are so many books written on this subject, the best of which I have
read is "Charismatic Chaos", by John MacArthur. Check it out!
Christopher Beattie
xona wrote:
>
> Balla ginga soitosa fretions dododo itokita lwyer jcoed koikkioed
> muoshta uerians kerrian ueanusne totoreade sososo yakindea reutio
> yabba dabba dodo java rivir tobata frontra mula dicko flicko dork
tounges. Let's see what this says.
"I am immature. I do not understand the seroius nature of news
groups on the internet. I am not sincere or respectful of the
people, (such as Christians who would be mostly interested in
Christian newsgroups) who read and post serious questions and
answers on these newsgroups. I also like to spam."
--
| _______ |Christopher Beattie | 801 Eisenhower Dr|
| /__ __\ Peace |Tantalus Inc. | Key West, FL 33040|
| / \ and |Development Div. |Phone: (305) 293-8100|
| /___\ Good |chr...@Tansoft.com | Fax: (305) 292-7835|
| |#include <disclamer.standard.hpp> |
Doug Oreck
On Fri, 24 Jan 1997 19:52:04 -0800, S & R <bywa...@nidlink.com>
wrote:
>>
>> 1. Visible manifestation of the Spirit (like tongues of fire).
>> 2. Audible manifestation of the Spirit (sound like a rushing wind).
>> 3. Changes in the recipients of the Spirit (frightened disciples became
>> bold preachers).
>> 4. A 'declaratory' manifestation (Gospel was preached clearly -- and
>> concisely!)
>> 5. Manifestation in the mouths of the disciples -- speaking in 'other
>> tongues'.
>> 6. Understanding/communication manifestation to the crowds (they each HEARD
>> the disciples speaking in their own language).
>> 7. Spirit convicting the hearers ("what must we do to be saved?")
>> 8. Repentance and contrition resulting in the salvation of thousands.
>> 9. Massive growth of the new Church
>
>
>people really understand the truth about tongues. God Bless you
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>From Rene'e
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Gospel was preached clearly and concisely by the disciples, but
unfortunately didn't remain in that state for long, as the successive
copiests and editors of the Gospels made various "improvments".
The following is a message from Jesus of Nazareth received through
automatic writing by James Padgett in the early years of this century:
God is a God of Love, and No Man Can Come to Him Unless He
Receives this Love in His Soul.
I am here, Jesus.
You are in a better condition tonight and I will continue my
messages.
God is a God of Love, and no man can come to Him unless he
receives the Love of the Father in his soul. As men are inclined
to sin and error and the violation of God's Laws, they can be
redeemed from sin by obtaining this Love; and that can be
obtained only through prayer, and faith in the willingness of God
to bestow this Love upon whosoever may ask for It. I do not mean
that there must be "formal" prayers, or compliance with any
church creeds or dogmas. The prayer that is efficacious is that
which emanates from the soul and earnest aspirations of a man.
So let men know that unless they have the real soul longings
for this Love, it will not be given to them. No mere intellectual
desires will suffice. The intellect is not that faculty in man
that unites him to God. Only the soul is made in the likeness of
the Father. And unless this likeness is perfected by a filling of
the soul with the Divine Love of the Father, the likeness is
never complete.
Love is the One Great Thing in God's economy of real existence.
Without it, all would be chaos and unhappiness; but where it
exists harmony and happiness also exist. I say this because I
know from personal experience that it is true.
Let not men think that God is a God who wants the worship of men
with the mere intellectual faculties-- that is not true. His Love is
the one thing that can possibly unite Him and them. This Love is not
the love that is a part of man's natural existence; the love that men
have, who have not received a part of the Divine Love, is not
sufficient to make them one with the Father. Nor is that love the
kind that will enable them to enter the Celestial Spheres and
become as the angels who are filled with this Divine Love and who
always do the Will of the Father. This Love is found only in the
souls of those who have received It through the ministrations of
the Holy Spirit-- the only instrument of God's workings that is
used in bringing about the salvation of men.
I have seen the operations of the Spirit upon the souls of men,
and know what I tell you to be true. No man must rest in the
assurance that any instrumentality or medium other than the Holy
Spirit will enable him to obtain this Love. He must not rest in
the thought that he can become a part of God's Kingdom without
this, for no love but this Divine Love can entitle and qualify
him to enter that Kingdom.
When on earth, I taught the doctrine of salvation only through
the workings of the Holy Spirit in fulfilling the commandments of
the Father. Mere belief in me or in my name without this Love
will never enable any man to become the possessor of this Love.
Hence the saying that all sins against me, or even against God's
Commandments may be forgiven men, but the sin against the
Holy Spirit will not be forgiven them, neither while on earth nor
when in the spirit world. This means that so long as a man
rejects the influences of the Spirit, he sins against it; and
such sin prevents him from receiving this Divine Love. Hence in
that state, he cannot possibly be forgiven and be permitted to
enter into the Celestial Kingdom of the Father.
God's Love is not that which needs the love of man to give It a
Divine Essence. But on the contrary, the love of man must be
completely enveloped in, or absorbed by, the Divine Love of the
Father in order to become Divine in its nature. So let man know
that his love is but the mere shadow of what the Father's Love
is, and that so long as he refuses to receive this Love of the
Father, he will be compelled to remain apart from the Father, and
enjoy only the happiness which his natural love affords him.
I am so certain that all men may receive this Love (if they
will only seek for It in the true Way, and with earnest desire
and faith) that I know it is possible for all men to be saved.
But men have the great gift of free will, and the exercise of
that gift towards the seeking and finding of this Love seems to
be a difficulty that will prevent a large majority of the human
race from receiving this great redemptive boon.
My Father is not desirous that any man should live through all
eternity without this Love. But the time will come, and very soon,
when the privilege of obtaining this Love will be withdrawn from
mankind. Men may think that this time of separation will never come,
but in that they are mistaken and, when too late, they will realize
it.
The harmony of my Father's universe is not dependent upon all
men receiving this Divine Love because, in the workings of God's
laws of harmony on men's souls, all sin and error will be
eradicated, and only truth will remain. But the mere absence of
sin does not mean that all parts of God's creation will be
peopled by spirits and men who are equally happy, or who are
filled with the same kind of love. The man who is free from sin
and has only his natural Love will be in perfect harmony with
other men possessing the same kind of love. But he will not be in
harmony with those spirits who have this Divine Love, and the
supreme happiness which it gives. And yet such differences in
love and happiness will not create discord or want of harmony in
the universe.
Adam and Eve (or whom they personify) had not this Celestial
Love, only the natural love that belonged to their creation as
human beings, and yet they were comparatively happy. But their
happiness was not like that of the angels who live in the
Celestial Heavens, where only this Divine Love of God exists.
They were mortals, and when temptation came to them, the love
that they possessed was not able to resist it, and they
succumbed.
So even though man may hereafter live forever and be free from
sin and error, yet he will always be subject to temptations which
this natural love may not be able to resist. I mean that his
nature will be merely the nature that Adam and Eve had-- nothing
greater or less.
Even in that condition, he may be able to resist all
temptations that may assail him; yet he will always be subject to
fall from his state of happiness, and so become more or less
unhappy. This is the future of men who have not received the
Divine Love.
But the spirit who has this Divine Love becomes, as it were, a
part of Divinity Itself, and will never be subject to temptation
or unhappiness. He will be free from all powers that may possibly
exist for leading him to unhappiness-- as if he were a very god.
I mean that his Divinity cannot possibly be taken from him by any
power or influence or instrumentality in all the universe of God.
This Love makes a mortal and sinful man an immortal and sinless
spirit, destined to live through all eternity in the presence of,
and at-one with, the Father.
So, if men would only think and realize the importance of
obtaining this Divine Love, they would not be so careless in
their thoughts and aspirations concerning those things which will
determine their future state through all eternity...
http://www.truths.com
Jerry Tribe
Hardane <har...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<32e7cbb8...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> .." We receive because we believe.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> THE TRUTH ABOUT SPEAKING IN TONGUES
[snip]
Speaking in tounges is a learned behaviour.
glossolalia: the technical term for "speaking in tounges."
Glossolalia occurs in a state of fervent prayer when the
believer begins to utter strings of unintelligible syllables
considered to have a deep spiritual significance.
Psychologists and sociologists have described glossolalia
as a learned, cross-cultural pycholinguistic behaviour to which
religious meaning is then attached. It is significant as a "bridge
burning" exercise that marks what the executor of the act
regards as a religious transition from which there is no return.
Eg:
Ha ta bo ho si ko lo. Bo ho lo ta. Ha sham da ka ba la
mesa la. U ku lu shu hu she kin. Santa lo ho ma si a.
(TBN programmer Jerry Barnard, spring 1987).
Such utterances are generally sandwiched between human
language expressions such as "Oh, father," "Thank you, Jesus,"
"send me $50," and so on.
--
Rgds, Jerry. <Jerry...@wgs.co.uk>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hell Is A City Much Like Dis And It's Pandemonium
for "why this is Hell, nor am I out of it".
-----
by mail and news.
Peter Dolman
Alpha One <al...@one.net> wrote in article
<01bc0b08$d687d000$b2c270ce@default>...
You make the error of "tarring all with the same brush".
The magicians of the court of the Pharoah were able to mimic Moses'
miracles. Using your logic, Moses miracles are now invalid! That's silly.
What of bad preaching -- does it invalidate good preaching? How about
those who study so they can fleece the sheep more efficiently -- do they
invalidate all studying (which you propose all should do!)? Of course not.
So, keep the good, and throw out the evil -- but don't throw the baby out
with the bathwater!.
In Christ,
Peter
Bonnie H
Steve Meikle wrote:
>
> >xona's response to tongue speaking as shown above shows the discredit
> >to the gospel which the flagrant abuse of tongue speaking by pentecostals
> >and other charismaniacs cause by their total indiscipline on the matter.
> >St Paul was most clear. One tongue speaker at a time and only if
> > an interpreter gives an interpretation. Otherwise unbelievers will think
> > we Christians are mad. The church, ie Christians ourselves, is to blame
> > for the contempt the gospel is held in, and fundamentalists who claim to take th eBible literally (they
> >DON'T) are the very worst. I can speak in tongues but prefer to reason with God in
> > English and sometimes with what little Latin
> I can cobble together
Bonnie H wrote:
I think the contempt in which the Gospel is held is due to much, much
more than misuse of the gift of speaking in tongues. Some people are of
a scientific mindset and require some sort of tangible proof that God
exists. Some are backsliders, who just don't want to hear about it,
perhaps they hate God because they thought He should respond to their
requests like a big genie in the sky. Some, many, have been injured by
Christians who behave like Pharisees, self-righteous, haughty, pious,
overbearing. trying to force people under the Law when they themselves
enjoy the freedom of Grace.
In most of the charismatic meetings I have been in, there was an
interperter present, and nothing was done out of order. If a hearer is
offended even though there is an interperter there, it is due to his or
her own misunderstanding of the gift. It does not mean the gift should
not be used. Many wonderful things have come about through the gift of
speaking in tongues.
Bonnie H
Libertarius
Try this experiment:
In a hypnosis session two individuals, A and B, enter into a
hypnotic state ("trance"). The hypnotist suggests that "A"
is a space alien from the Moon, and will deliver a message
to us in "Moon talk". He also suggests that "B" is a human
who can understand and interpret "Moon talk". On a signal,
"A" will start "speaking in tongues", i.e. "Moon talk", and
"B" will "interpret" what he hears, translating it into
English (or German or whatever the audience understands).
Many variations on this experiment have been tried!
QUESTION: How is that different from the above stated
case of "charismatic meetings"?
Libertarius
William Slamer
Libertarius: You wrote:
Subject:
Re: Speaking in tongues
Date:
25 Jan 1997 17:52:35 GMT
From:
att...@ix.netcom.com(Libertarius)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
What about speaking in tongues (glossolalia)?
By the way, I'm still waiting for your response to my last letter to
you, Libertarius. but to continue, Did this response come from you,
concerning tongues?:
ANYONE can go into a trance state and speak jabber
>> > away pure gibberish. I have yet to hear of ANYONE
>> > who spoke an intelligible foreign language without
>> > having learned it from someone else.
Do you have an open mind on religious matters and are you open to
FRIENDLY dialogue? If so, I would enjoy and appreciate a discussion
with you.
Hopefully, your electronic friend,
Just plain Bill
Nick
> ANYONE can go into a trance state and speak jabber
> away pure gibberish. I have yet to hear of ANYONE
> who spoke an intelligible foreign language without
> having learned it from someone else.
You're looking in the wrong direction. I've heard of, and know a few
people.
Bonnie H
Bonnie H wrote:
Speaking in tongues has nothing whatever to do with a "trance" state,
nor is it in any way connected to hypnosis. That is much like comparing
apples to rocks. If you don't believe in the gift of speaking in tongues
- don't speak in tongues. If you don't believe in the gifts of the Holy
Spirit, He assuredly won't force any of them on you. It is a valid
Biblical gift, millions upon millions have received it. The experiment
you suggested is a demonic imitation of the real gift of God. Besides,
what proof does the audience have that "B" actually interpreted what "A"
said?????
Michael Kennedy
att...@ix.netcom.com(Libertarius) wrote:
> Try this experiment:
> In a hypnosis session two individuals, A and B, enter into a
> hypnotic state ("trance"). The hypnotist suggests that "A"
> is a space alien from the Moon, and will deliver a message
> to us in "Moon talk". He also suggests that "B" is a human
> who can understand and interpret "Moon talk". On a signal,
> "A" will start "speaking in tongues", i.e. "Moon talk", and
> "B" will "interpret" what he hears, translating it into
> English (or German or whatever the audience understands).
> Many variations on this experiment have been tried!
> QUESTION: How is that different from the above stated
> case of "charismatic meetings"?
One is a prayer language to God, one is NOT.
Next Question please ?
Michael.
Libertarius
In <32ED9A...@cdsnet.net> Bonnie H <bon...@cdsnet.net> writes:
>
>Libertarius wrote:
>>
>> In <32EBE7...@cdsnet.net> Bonnie H <bon...@cdsnet.net> writes:
>> >
>> >>
>>
>> Try this experiment:
>>
>> In a hypnosis session two individuals, A and B, enter into a
>> hypnotic state ("trance"). The hypnotist suggests that "A"
>> is a space alien from the Moon, and will deliver a message
>> to us in "Moon talk". He also suggests that "B" is a human
>> who can understand and interpret "Moon talk". On a signal,
>> "A" will start "speaking in tongues", i.e. "Moon talk", and
>> "B" will "interpret" what he hears, translating it into
>> English (or German or whatever the audience understands).
>>
>> Many variations on this experiment have been tried!
>>
>> QUESTION: How is that different from the above stated
>> case of "charismatic meetings"?
>>
>
>Bonnie H wrote:
>Speaking in tongues has nothing whatever to do with a "trance" state,
>nor is it in any way connected to hypnosis. That is much like
comparing
>apples to rocks. If you don't believe in the gift of speaking in
tongues
>- don't speak in tongues. If you don't believe in the gifts of the
Holy
>Spirit, He assuredly won't force any of them on you. It is a valid
>Biblical gift, millions upon millions have received it. The experiment
>you suggested is a demonic imitation of the real gift of God. Besides,
>what proof does the audience have that "B" actually interpreted what
"A"
>said?????
OK. Let us look at it from YOUR point of view.
(1) What proof do YOU have that the "tongue" is NOT "demonic"?
A super-intelligent "demon" could cause BOTH types of
behavior.
(2) What proof does YOUR "audience" have that the interpreter
is "actually interpreting" what the speaker said?
Libertarius
Libertarius
In <5cjriv$s...@reader1.reader.news.ozemail.net> jeto...@ozemail.com.au
(Michael Kennedy) writes:
>att...@ix.netcom.com(Libertarius) wrote:
>
>> Try this experiment:
>
>> In a hypnosis session two individuals, A and B, enter into a
>> hypnotic state ("trance"). The hypnotist suggests that "A"
>> is a space alien from the Moon, and will deliver a message
>> to us in "Moon talk". He also suggests that "B" is a human
>> who can understand and interpret "Moon talk". On a signal,
>> "A" will start "speaking in tongues", i.e. "Moon talk", and
>> "B" will "interpret" what he hears, translating it into
>> English (or German or whatever the audience understands).
>
>> Many variations on this experiment have been tried!
>
>> QUESTION: How is that different from the above stated
>> case of "charismatic meetings"?
>
>
>Next Question please ?
>
>Michael.
>
difference?
Libertarius
John Rivest
Michael Kennedy wrote:
>
> att...@ix.netcom.com(Libertarius) wrote:
>
> > Try this experiment:
>
> > In a hypnosis session two individuals, A and B, enter into a
> > hypnotic state ("trance"). The hypnotist suggests that "A"
> > is a space alien from the Moon, and will deliver a message
> > to us in "Moon talk". He also suggests that "B" is a human
> > who can understand and interpret "Moon talk". On a signal,
> > "A" will start "speaking in tongues", i.e. "Moon talk", and
> > "B" will "interpret" what he hears, translating it into
> > English (or German or whatever the audience understands).
>
> > Many variations on this experiment have been tried!
>
> > QUESTION: How is that different from the above stated
> > case of "charismatic meetings"?
>
> One is a prayer language to God, one is NOT.
>
> Next Question please ?
>
> Michael.
If you want to experience speaking in tongues, just attend ANY
United Pentecostal Church Service. This is a gift from God and part of
the New Birth Experience.
PRAISE HIM!
Mr. Smith
Tongues
"If someone speaks in a tongue let it be limited to two or three at the
most…." 1 Corinthians 14:27
"Love never fails. But whether there are [gifts of] prophesying,
they will be done away with; whether there are tongues,
they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will be done
away with." 1 Corinthians 13:8
"Consequently tongues are for a sign, not to the believers, but to the
unbelievers, whereas prophesying is, not for the unbelievers, but for
the believers. Therefore, if the whole congregation comes together to
one place and they all speak in tongues but ordinary people or
unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are mad?" 1 Corinthians
14:22,23
"For he that speaks in a tongue speaks, not to men, but to God, for no
one listens, but he speaks sacred secrets by the spirit. However, he
that prophesies upbuilds and encourages and consoles men by his speech.
He that speaks in a tongue builds himself but he that prophesies
upbuilds a congregation." 1 Corinthians 14:2-4
"If then, I do not understand the force of the speech sound, I shall be
a foreigner to the one speaking, and the one speaking will be a
foreigner to me." 1 Corinthians 14:11
"Nevertheless, in a congregation I would rather speak five words with my
mind, that I might also instruct others orally, than ten thousand words
in a tongue." 1 Corinthians 14: 19
Michael Kennedy
att...@ix.netcom.com(Libertarius) wrote:
> OK. Let us look at it from YOUR point of view.
> (1) What proof do YOU have that the "tongue" is NOT "demonic"?
> A super-intelligent "demon" could cause BOTH types of
> behavior.
Firstly, can you explain what is a "super-intelligent demon" then I
might be able to answer the question.
As a christian I have never heard of the above, if it is a product of
your imagination then the question is invalid.
Michael.
Libertarius
In <5clvvv$t...@proxy5.ozemail.com.au> jeto...@ozemail.com.au (Michael
You mentioned "demons". I assume you are talking about some
beings that are superior to humans. If that's not what you
meant, please specify.
Libertarius
Libertarius
In <32EE8E...@cyberport.net> "Mr. Smith" <arts...@cyberport.net>
writes:
>
>Tongues
SNIPALOT
>
>"Nevertheless, in a congregation I would rather speak five words with
my
>mind, that I might also instruct others orally, than ten thousand
words
>in a tongue." 1 Corinthians 14: 19
So, even in your own Bible it is considered mindless gibberish.
Libertarius
Michael Kennedy
att...@ix.netcom.com(Libertarius) wrote:
>>Firstly, can you explain what is a "super-intelligent demon" then I
>>might be able to answer the question.
>>
>>As a christian I have never heard of the above, if it is a product of
>>your imagination then the question is invalid.
> You mentioned "demons". I assume you are talking about some
> beings that are superior to humans. If that's not what you
> meant, please specify.
I actually didn't make that comment, but " demonic imitation" was the
phase used, I gather it means evil or wrong. Not a entity as such.
Michael.
Peter Dolman
Libertarius <att...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<5cm95s$f...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>...
Nope! That's not what it said. Paul's preference for prophecy and
preaching is not a negation of tongues -- just a preference (which I concur
with).
Dear Libertarius, such sophistry is beneath you! :-)
Peter
Peter Dolman
> >att...@ix.netcom.com(Libertarius) wrote:
> >
> >> OK. Let us look at it from YOUR point of view.
> >
> >> (1) What proof do YOU have that the "tongue" is NOT "demonic"?
> >> A super-intelligent "demon" could cause BOTH types of
> >> behavior.
> >
> >might be able to answer the question.
> >
> >As a christian I have never heard of the above, if it is a product of
> >your imagination then the question is invalid.
>
> You mentioned "demons". I assume you are talking about some
> beings that are superior to humans. If that's not what you
> meant, please specify.
are however, incapable of changing there eternal destiny. Humans, on the
other hand can choose that course.
Peter
Peter Dolman
> In <5cjriv$s...@reader1.reader.news.ozemail.net> jeto...@ozemail.com.au
> >
> >> In a hypnosis session two individuals, A and B, enter into a
> >> hypnotic state ("trance"). The hypnotist suggests that "A"
> >> is a space alien from the Moon, and will deliver a message
> >> to us in "Moon talk". He also suggests that "B" is a human
> >> who can understand and interpret "Moon talk". On a signal,
> >> "A" will start "speaking in tongues", i.e. "Moon talk", and
> >> "B" will "interpret" what he hears, translating it into
> >> English (or German or whatever the audience understands).
> >
> >> Many variations on this experiment have been tried!
> >
> >> QUESTION: How is that different from the above stated
> >> case of "charismatic meetings"?
> >
> >One is a prayer language to God, one is NOT.
> >
> >Next Question please ?
> >
> >Michael.
> >
> difference?
Considering that the example given never actually happened, one can hardly
claim an OBJECTIVE knowledge of the (non) event anyway, now can one? :-)
Peter
Bonnie H
Libertarius wrote:
>
>
> OK. Let us look at it from YOUR point of view.
>
> (1) What proof do YOU have that the "tongue" is NOT "demonic"?
> A super-intelligent "demon" could cause BOTH types of
> behavior.
>
> is "actually interpreting" what the speaker said?
>
> Libertarius
(1) Some "tongues" are demonic. But to believe that, you have to believe
there is a spiritual world. The gift of "discernment of spirits" reveals
to Spirit-filled Christians (not all have this gift) when tongues are
demonic. However, demonic entities do not work through "Spirit-filled"
Christians.
(2) Christians are able, through the Spirit, to judge prophecy. Demonic
beings do not speak the truth, while the Holy Spirit will never say
anything that is contrary to the Word of God. Anything that is not in
line with sound Bible doctrine is to be rejected. Interpretation of
tongues is not necessairily "translation." Often, the tongue is given to
alert people to the fact that God wants to speak a word through someone.
That person can then give that word "in his own words." The Bible says
"The spirit of the prophet is subject to the prophet." In other words,
God does not force anyone to speak in tongues, or to give an
interpretation. He simply moves on them to do so, and if they refuse, He
will give it to someone more yielded to Him. Sometimes, if God wishes to
give a sign to an unbeliever, the tongue comes in the native tongue of
the listener. The gift of tongues is fully explained in the Bible, and
there is a lot of instruction in I Corinthians 12 $ 14.
Joseph David Chiodo
After reading the above, I am a little concerned. I'll tell you of my experience if it is of any
interest to you both. I went to some seminars on the Holy Spirit in Canada just over a year
ago and was prayed over and for a split second believed I could receive the 'gift' of tongues
and in that split second, I received it. It came without contol. I did not actually decide to
utter anything in particular. It came without my control other than accepting and praying.
Looking at the science of this phenomena gave me no reasonable explanation that I could
take as sound - at least nothing close to my experience. What is also interesting is that I can
start doing this any time when I decide, it is at that point that the words come out without my
choice of utterances. And I was still wondering about the credibility of so I asked some
Jewish friends of mine (after explaining what I was going through) to see if they understood
any of it. Quess what! I invited the Holy Spirit again (as I had done many times before)
and started speaking in tongues and they understood what I was saying. The important
point here is that I've never taken a course in learning to speak Hebrew and I've never heard
more than a few seconds of it. Certainly not the words I spoke in tongues of.
So what do I say when I speak in tongues - translated:
"I am a wicked man" or "I am a sinner" etc, There was more, to tell you the truth I had
forgotten all of the translation. Apparently, what I was speaking was not a modern use of
the translation.
I am not really sure if this is helpful, I am just reitorating my experience. Someday I will
look into a full translation with some experts.
Joe
Libertarius
In <01bc0da6$a3903340$adc5...@pdolman.wbm.ca> "Peter Dolman"
How else do you interpret "five words with my mind"? -- L.
Libertarius
===>you offer no proof that you can OBJECTIVELY differentiate
between what you call "demonic entities" and what you call
the "Holy Spirit". If such a "demonic entity" exists and can
influence human behavior, it can also make you believe that
it is the expected "Holy Spirit", without you knowing the
difference. And, from the examples you give, it is highly
unlikely that the message is a theological dissertation
which you could compare against your bible to see if there
is a contradiction.
Libertarius
Libertarius
In <01bc0daa$610ee9e0$adc5...@pdolman.wbm.ca> "Peter Dolman"
of hypnosis. I have personally witnessed at least 5-6 such
demonstrations and know for a fact that it has been standard
practice to use such a demonstration in several schools training
hypnosis practitioners. So, it is a matter of OBJECTIVE
knowledge indeed. Any of you can also try it sometime. All you
need is a trained hypnotists and sume volunteers for the
demonstration.
Libertarius
Libertarius
In <01bc0daa$bafd5fe0$adc5...@pdolman.wbm.ca> "Peter Dolman"
<pe...@technologist.com> writes:
>> >att...@ix.netcom.com(Libertarius) wrote:
>> >
>> >> OK. Let us look at it from YOUR point of view.
>> >
>> >> (1) What proof do YOU have that the "tongue" is NOT "demonic"?
>> >> A super-intelligent "demon" could cause BOTH types of
>> >> behavior.
>> >
I
>> >might be able to answer the question.
>> >
>> >As a christian I have never heard of the above, if it is a product
of
>> >your imagination then the question is invalid.
>>
>> You mentioned "demons". I assume you are talking about some
>> beings that are superior to humans. If that's not what you
>> meant, please specify.
>Demons are not "superior to humans" (well, maybe smarter than some!).
They
>are however, incapable of changing there eternal destiny. Humans, on
the
>other hand can choose that course.
>
>Peter
Bonnie H
Libertarius wrote:
> ===>you offer no proof that you can OBJECTIVELY differentiate
> between what you call "demonic entities" and what you call
> the "Holy Spirit". If such a "demonic entity" exists and can
> influence human behavior, it can also make you believe that
> it is the expected "Holy Spirit", without you knowing the
> difference. And, from the examples you give, it is highly
> unlikely that the message is a theological dissertation
> which you could compare against your bible to see if there
> is a contradiction.
>
> Libertarius
Bonnie H wrote:
I have no need to prove anything. You asked questions, did you expect
answers? Or, did you simply want to argue about something you obviously
know nothing about? I told you how a Christian can tell when a demonic
spirit is at work. An evil spirit might be able to deceive a Christian
into believing he is the Holy Spirit, but ONLY if that Christian is not
well grounded, does not know what the Word of God has to say, and is a
carnal and not a spiritual Christian. Your questions reveal that you
know nothing about spiritual things - so why do you argue about such
things? If you choose to not believe what the Bible teaches, its simple.
Don't believe it. I doubt very much if you will shake the faith of
anyone who has walked with the Lord any time at all, or who has been
blessed with the gift on speaking in tongues and other gifts of the
Spirit.
Heath
Bonnie H wrote:
>
> Libertarius wrote:
> >
> > (1) What proof do YOU have that the "tongue" is NOT "demonic"?
> > A super-intelligent "demon" could cause BOTH types of
> > behavior.
> >
> > is "actually interpreting" what the speaker said?
>
> (1) Some "tongues" are demonic. But to believe that, you have to believe
> there is a spiritual world. The gift of "discernment of spirits" reveals
> to Spirit-filled Christians (not all have this gift) when tongues are
> demonic. However, demonic entities do not work through "Spirit-filled"
> Christians.
>
> (2) Christians are able, through the Spirit, to judge prophecy. Demonic
The Bible says, "believe not every spirits, whether they are of God:
because many false prophets are gone out into the world." (1 John 4:1)
So is you really want to follow tha Bible you'll "try" (test) the tongue
talkers.
Here's what I propose. Have one with the gift of tongues speak for a
few minutes while several, let's say four or five, with the gift of
interpretation sit out of sight of one another, and write down what he
says. Then compare the writings. If indeed they all have the gifts
they claim then the written interpretations should agree. Truth has
nothing to fear from being tested, and the Bible tells us to test them
(1 John 4:1), so go ahead and do it; unless your afraid.
Bonnie H
Libertarius wrote:
>
> In <32EFFD...@cdsnet.net> Bonnie H <bon...@cdsnet.net> writes:
>snipped<
> ===>You've got it backward. The people who are involved in those
> behaviors and think they are possessed by this or that "spirit"
> are working within a certain belief system and interpreting
> those experiences accordingly. Lots of deeply believing
> Christians, for example Seventh-day Adventists I personally know,
> consider those "tongues" as an instance of demonic possession,
> though of course they don't think the same about the events
> described in Acts, etc.
>
Bonnie H wrote:
Some other Christian denominations also believe that speaking in tongues
is "of the devil." They need to re-read their Bibles, especially the
verses that promise that this gift is for ALL who believe. Confusion
comes in when people do not understand that the devil is also real, has
always wanted to be God, and has his imitation for nearly every geniune
thing of God. They take the stand that such things ended when the
apostles died off, but there is no Scripture to support this. For
myself, I met the Lord and was baptized in the Holy Spirit BEFORE I even
knew there IS a Holy Spirit, or read my Bible or had anyone tell me
anything, and before I ever went to a Church (except I had gone some as
a very young child). I am not "working within a belief system" - I have
a living experience with a Living God, that has continued for many
years. No one told me what to believe. I believe the Seventh-Day
Adventists are as "saved" as anyone, and I know they love the Lord. I
too have some close friends of that faith. Believing in speaking in
tongues has little to do with salvation of one's soul. Not believing,
however, cheats one out of a wonderful blessing and gift.
> So, it IS a matter of one's belief system how one SEES those
> behaviors. But from an OBJECTIVE, psychological point of
> view, they can all be understood under the category of
> SUGGESTION and HYPNOTIC TRANCE phenomena.
>
Hypnosis is very close to the psychic realm, and I personally will never
touch that area again. I was deeply involved in such things for a long
time. Its not that its not real. Its very real!
> I do agree with you, however, that in most cases no amount
> of discussion or arguing will change the mind of a Pentacostal
> ("Charismatic"), nor of a 7th Day Adventist with the opposite
> view.
>
> Libertarius
If it was just a belief, Libertarius, it would be changeable. People
change their minds all the time about zillions of things. Christians
don't just "believe" in Jesus Christ. They invited Him into their lives,
and His Spirit, the Holy Spirit, came to live in their spirits,
immediately. He's wonderful! He's alive. He speaks. He comforts. He
guides. He loves. Once a person meets Him, its impossible to convinve
them He's not real. You may as well try to convince them they are a
figment of their own imagination. Some organizations or demoninations
that call themselves Christian are really not Christians. They do not
worship Christ, and reduce His deity to that of a good man. Without His
Spirit living in them, they are not Christians. Christians aren't
perfect, in any sense. Christians are sinners. That's who Jesus came to
save. Tongues are not a big deal. Jesus is! I don't know that I am a
charismatic, or a pentacostal. I am a Spirit-filled Christian. I don't
know if you are a scientist, or a psychologist, or what. But I know it
is more difficult for a scientist to believe.
Bonnie H
Mr. Smith wrote:
>
> Tongues
>
>
> "Love never fails. But whether there are [gifts of] prophesying,
> they will be done away with; whether there are tongues,
> they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will be done
> away with." 1 Corinthians 13:8
>
It is always dangerous to take Scripture out of context. In the
original, there is no punctuation. To quote part of a passage of
Scripture and leave it without reading the entire thing can lead you off
in strange directions. It goes on to say in I Corinthians 13:9-13, for
example: "For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that
which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be taken
away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I
thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I
know in part, but then shall I know even also as I am known. And now
abideth faith, hope, charity, these three, but the greatest of these is
charity (love)."
"That which is perfect" has not yet come, and that is why tongues have
not ceased. That which is perfect, is Jesus, and He will return. When He
does, there will no longer be any reason for tongues, because we will
see him face to face. We will no longer "see through a glass, darkly" -
we will see clearly. We will no longer know "in part", but we will know
even as we are known. And Thank God, we will no longer be childish.
Libertarius
===>You've got it backward. The people who are involved in those
behaviors and think they are possessed by this or that "spirit"
are working within a certain belief system and interpreting
those experiences accordingly. Lots of deeply believing
Christians, for example Seventh-day Adventists I personally know,
consider those "tongues" as an instance of demonic possession,
though of course they don't think the same about the events
described in Acts, etc.
So, it IS a matter of one's belief system how one SEES those
behaviors. But from an OBJECTIVE, psychological point of
view, they can all be understood under the category of
SUGGESTION and HYPNOTIC TRANCE phenomena.
I do agree with you, however, that in most cases no amount
Peter Dolman
> In <01bc0daa$bafd5fe0$adc5...@pdolman.wbm.ca> "Peter Dolman"
> <pe...@technologist.com> writes:
> >
> >> >att...@ix.netcom.com(Libertarius) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> OK. Let us look at it from YOUR point of view.
> >> >
> >> >> A super-intelligent "demon" could cause BOTH types of
> >> >> behavior.
> >> >
> I
> >> >might be able to answer the question.
> >> >
> >> >As a christian I have never heard of the above, if it is a product
> of
> >> >your imagination then the question is invalid.
> >>
> >> You mentioned "demons". I assume you are talking about some
> >> beings that are superior to humans. If that's not what you
> >> meant, please specify.
> >Demons are not "superior to humans" (well, maybe smarter than some!).
> They
> >are however, incapable of changing there eternal destiny. Humans, on
> the
> >other hand can choose that course.
> >
> >Peter
>
> That is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to our discussion. -- L.
'Tis Not!!
>
Libertarius
In <01bc0e70$316722e0$bac5...@pdolman.wbm.ca> "Peter Dolman"
<pdo...@eagle.wbm.ca> writes:
>
>> >> >> Try this experiment:
>> >> >
>> >> >> In a hypnosis session two individuals, A and B, enter into
a
>> >> >> hypnotic state ("trance"). The hypnotist suggests that "A"
>> >> >> is a space alien from the Moon, and will deliver a message
>> >> >> to us in "Moon talk". He also suggests that "B" is a human
>> >> >> who can understand and interpret "Moon talk". On a signal,
>> >> >> "A" will start "speaking in tongues", i.e. "Moon talk", and
>> >> >> "B" will "interpret" what he hears, translating it into
>> >> >> English (or German or whatever the audience understands).
>> >> >
>> >> >> Many variations on this experiment have been tried!
>> >> >
>> >> >> QUESTION: How is that different from the above stated
>> >> >> case of "charismatic meetings"?
>> >> >
>> >> >One is a prayer language to God, one is NOT.
>> >> >
>> >> >Next Question please ?
>> >> >
>> >> >Michael.
>> >> >
>> >> THAT is your subjective INTERPRETATION. What is the OBJECTIVE
>> >> difference?
>> >
>> >Considering that the example given never actually happened, one can
>> hardly
one?
>> :-)
>> >
>> >Peter
>> >
>> As a matter of fact it has happend NUMEROUS times in
demostrations
>> of hypnosis. I have personally witnessed at least 5-6 such
>> demonstrations and know for a fact that it has been standard
>> practice to use such a demonstration in several schools training
>> hypnosis practitioners. So, it is a matter of OBJECTIVE
>> knowledge indeed. Any of you can also try it sometime. All you
>> need is a trained hypnotists and sume volunteers for the
>> demonstration.
>>
>> Libertarius
>
information
>-- 'cos they've never heard of it!
>
>Peter
>>
Contact Wilfred Cohen, hypnotist, in California. I think he is
in Huntington Beach. Better yet, tell your hypnotist friends to
do it. It is an easily replicable demonstration.
Libertarius
Peter Dolman
> >> >"Nevertheless, in a congregation I would rather speak five words
> with
> >> my
> >> >mind, that I might also instruct others orally, than ten thousand
> >> words
> >> >in a tongue." 1 Corinthians 14: 19
> >>
> >> So, even in your own Bible it is considered mindless gibberish.
> >>
> >> Libertarius
> >
> >Nope! That's not what it said. Paul's preference for prophecy and
> >preaching is not a negation of tongues -- just a preference (which I
> concur
> >with).
> >
> >Dear Libertarius, such sophistry is beneath you! :-)
> >
> >Peter
>
> How else do you interpret "five words with my mind"? -- L.
As a preference (as I stated). Look at the beginning of the sentence "I
would rather speak..."
It's a humungous, and false, leap to re-translate than into "tongues is
considered mindless gibberish in the Bible" (which you might want to read
some time -- very enlightening).
Peter
>
Peter Dolman
Libertarius
In <32F01C...@apex.net> Heath <mhe...@apex.net> writes:
>
>Bonnie H wrote:
>>
>> Libertarius wrote:
>> >
>> > A super-intelligent "demon" could cause BOTH types of
>> > behavior.
>> >
>> > is "actually interpreting" what the speaker said?
>
>>
>> (1) Some "tongues" are demonic. But to believe that, you have to
believe
>> there is a spiritual world. The gift of "discernment of spirits"
reveals
>> to Spirit-filled Christians (not all have this gift) when tongues
are
>> demonic. However, demonic entities do not work through
"Spirit-filled"
>> Christians.
>>
>> (2) Christians are able, through the Spirit, to judge prophecy.
Demonic
>
>The Bible says, "believe not every spirits, whether they are of God:
>because many false prophets are gone out into the world." (1 John 4:1)
tongue
>talkers.
>
>Here's what I propose. Have one with the gift of tongues speak for a
>few minutes while several, let's say four or five, with the gift of
>interpretation sit out of sight of one another, and write down what he
>says. Then compare the writings. If indeed they all have the gifts
>they claim then the written interpretations should agree. Truth has
>nothing to fear from being tested, and the Bible tells us to test them
>(1 John 4:1), so go ahead and do it; unless your afraid.
===>EXCELLENT IDEA! Any volunteers among the "tongue" people?
Libertarius
Libertarius
In <01bc0e71$3b6688c0$bac5...@pdolman.wbm.ca> "Peter Dolman"
I have, for over 40 years, numerous translations in several
languages. And I was indeed "enlightened". But you wouldn't
understand it right now.
"What differentiates us ["free spirits"] is not that we find no
God--neither in history, nor in nature, nor behind nature--but
that we do not feel that what has been revered as God is
'godlike.'" Nietzsche
Libertarius
Bonnie H
Heath, what you propose, may be likened to a psychic session. You fail
to understand that the gift of tongues is a manifestation of the HOLY
SPIRIT. Is a group of people going to orchestrate an experiment and tell
God what to do?????? It is "as He will" and one can not turn off and on
a message from God and the interpretation of it. The whole idea is
totally ridiculous. Not everyone has the gift of interpretation. Not
everyone is used in the ministry to give a "tongue" in a service. This
manifestation comes forth according to God's will, when He wants to
speak something. Are you going to tell Him when to speak? Give him a
cue???? Be the director of some weird sort of stage performance?
Automatic writing is a satanic imitation of the inspired writings of the
prophets. The main benefit of tongues is the edification of each
believer in a personal way. It is a form of prayer. If you have a
sincere curiosity about tongues get a Bible and read it. You will find
it is in no way comparable to what you are proposing. And by the way -
there are a lot of spirits "out there" - they do much more than imitate
tongues.
Alfred A. Kuhnert
Bonnie H <bon...@cdsnet.net> wrote in article <32F045...@cdsnet.net>...
> Some other Christian denominations also believe that speaking in tongues
> is "of the devil." They need to re-read their Bibles, especially the
> verses that promise that this gift is for ALL who believe. Confusion
> comes in when people do not understand that the devil is also real, has
> always wanted to be God, and has his imitation for nearly every geniune
> thing of God. They take the stand that such things ended when the
> apostles died off, but there is no Scripture to support this.
Would you please post the verse which states that all believers are given
the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues. I've been told this repeatedly
by Assembly of God members but they never give a verse to support
this doctrine. They act shocked that anyone would question where
it's derived from. (Please read 1 Corinthians 12:7-11, 29-30 before
you answer)
Awaiting your reply .........
Alfred A. Kuhnert
If speaking in tongues is a "language of angels" or an "unknown language",
why hasn't someone recorded all the occurrences of tongue-speaking in
their church over the past years and published a translation???????
A language will show discernable patterns over time. Thus if the current
day
tongue-speaking is really a language, it can be documented as such.
Libertarius
In <32F071...@cdsnet.net> Bonnie H <bon...@cdsnet.net> writes:
>
>Heath wrote:
>>
>> Bonnie H wrote:
>> >
>> > Libertarius wrote:
Libertarius DID NOT WRITE any of this. -- L.
Peter Dolman
> >Libertarius <att...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
> ><5cnuso$6...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>...
> >> >> >"Nevertheless, in a congregation I would rather speak five words
> >> with
> >> >> my
> >> >> >mind, that I might also instruct others orally, than ten
> thousand
> >> >> words
> >> >> >in a tongue." 1 Corinthians 14: 19
> >> >>
> >> >> So, even in your own Bible it is considered mindless
> gibberish.
> >> >>
> >> >> Libertarius
> >> >
> >> >Nope! That's not what it said. Paul's preference for prophecy and
> >> >preaching is not a negation of tongues -- just a preference (which
> I
> >> concur
> >> >with).
> >> How else do you interpret "five words with my mind"? -- L.
> >
> >As a preference (as I stated). Look at the beginning of the sentence
> "I
> >would rather speak..."
> >It's a humungous, and false, leap to re-translate than into "tongues
> is
> >considered mindless gibberish in the Bible" (which you might want to
> read
> >some time -- very enlightening).
>
> I have, for over 40 years, numerous translations in several
> languages. And I was indeed "enlightened". But you wouldn't
> understand it right now.
Ah, so all this reading is what qualifies you with the power to
re-translate Paul's simple sentence into "mindless gibberish". Thank you,
dear "free one" for clarifying for such an unqualified, untrained mind as
mine! :-0
PS. You still didn't answer how you took the leap! Unless the appeal to
scholarly pursuits is the answer.
Jerry Tribe
Alfred A. Kuhnert <akuh...@misnet.com> wrote in article
<01bc0ed0$c4224d20$a57c...@akuhnert.misnet.com>...
There have been many sociological and psychological studies of
glossolalia. I'll look some of these up and see if any patterns
have been determined. Personally I doubt it.
The religious answer will no doubt be that mere human tools
could not possibly hope to determine the grammer, syntax and
vocabulary of the alleged angelic language.
Incidently, the "real" angelic language is thought by Occultists
to be Enochian, which was partly revealed to John Dee during
the reign of Elizabeth 1st. Interestingly enough that does have
a grammer and syntax.
--
Rgds, Jerry. <Jerry...@wgs.co.uk>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hell Is A City Much Like Dis And It's Pandemonium
for "why this is Hell, nor am I out of it".
-----
Libertarius
In <01bc0eef$51ab88a0$dec5...@pdolman.wbm.ca> "Peter Dolman"
No leap involved.
>
You still have not explained what it means to say "with my mind".
Does it not mean that when speking "tongues", one is "without"
one's mind?
It sure appears to be so! And objective observation would
indeed indicate that the speaker is "out of his mind" in such a
trance state. That's why they call it "possession", because
he appears to be possessed by an alien entity.
Libertarius
Bonnie H
Alfred A. Kuhnert wrote:
>
> If speaking in tongues is a "language of angels" or an "unknown language",
> why hasn't someone recorded all the occurrences of tongue-speaking in
> their church over the past years and published a translation???????
>
> A language will show discernable patterns over time. Thus if the current
> day
> tongue-speaking is really a language, it can be documented as such.
Bonnie H wrote:
Why don't you read the book of Acts, and I Corinthians 12, 13 & 14 very
carefully. There are two ways the gift of tongues is to be used. In the
Church, when there is an interpreter present, and in one's personal
prayer life. Not all have the ministry of giving tongues in the Church,
or in interpreting tongues. Interpretation is not translation. If
tongues could be "translated" it would not be an "unknown tongue," would
it? Before you read, pray and ask the Holy Spirit to open your
understanding, if you are a Christian. Reading with your own
understanding leaves the Bible a closed book, history only.
Ken Williams
"Whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues,
they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away"
(1Cor.13:8)
In our times some Christian believers lay great emphasis on "speaking in
tongues," claiming it is sure proof that they have received the Holy Spirit
and are children of God. they are usually inclined to esteem less other
Christian believers who have not had like experiences, and to awaken
serious doubts in them that they have ever really become children of God.
In the New Testament record, the first marked miraculous manifestation of
"speaking in tongues" occurred at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, ten
days after Jesus' ascension, when the waiting disciples were baptized with
the Holy Spirit; it resulted in Jews of many lands hearing the preaching in
their own languages of the wonderful works of God (Acts 2:1-11).
Other manifestations of speaking in tongues came upon the early Church
through the laying on of hands by one or more of the twelve Apostles (Acts
8:14-18; 19:6). We search the Bible in vain for the record of anyone other
than an Apostle conferring the "gifts" of the Spirit. If this were not an
exclusively Apostolic power, St. Paul could not have appealed to his
exercising it as a proof of his Apostleship (Gal 3:5), in his argument in
defense of his Apostolic office (Gal. 1:11-3:5). Since, therefore, the
only human instruments through whom God bestowed the "gifts" of the Spirit
were the Apostles, it follows that when the last disciple died on whom an
Apostle had conferred these "gifts," these "gifts" then ceased to exist.
St. John, the last Apostle and the writer of the last books of the Bible to
be written, died just before the end of the first century. Therefore these
"gifts" ceased within about a generation afterwards. All of this agrees
with St. Paul's statement the miraculous "gifts" would fail, cease, vanish
away.
Speaking in tongues had a purpose also that the hearers would hear in their
native tongue and understand. Today our native tongue in America is
English. If the purpose of the Spirit was to convey to us the wonderful
works of God why say unto us in a foreign language or gibberish.
I am not saying that any Christian who is currently speaking in tongues is
a hypocrite but that they are deceiving themselves and others because the
Bible record is clear on the matter.
May the Lord Bless and Keep You and Yours and Bring you to a greater
understanding and give you the spirit of a sound mind. "We have also a more
sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a
light that shineth in a dark place," 2 Peter 1:19.
Sincerely, Bro Ken
Bonnie H <bon...@cdsnet.net> wrote in article
<32F114...@cdsnet.net>...
Bonnie H
Bonnie H wrote:
Hi, Alfred: While I believe that all believers are given the spiritual
gift of speaking in tongues, of course I realize that not all do. I do
believe that all could, but for their unbelief in this gift. Sometimes I
get to typing fast and thinking fast and my Internet service keeps
disconnecting which is distracting, and I don't fully say what I set out
to say.
There are more Scriptures than what I will give here, and you can find
them easily with a Strong's or other good concordance. It is interesting
to just look up every instance of "tongues" and "tongue" in the Bible.
"filled" is another good word to look up.
Joel 2:28- "And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my
spirit upon ALL flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions; (29)
And also upon the servants and handmaids in those days will I pour out
my spirit." This is talking about the "last days," and of course this
may start another war, but the "last days" to me started with the New
Covenant. (It may be apx. 2000 years to us, but to God it is but two
days...) Notice that that verse says "upon ALL flesh." But of course it
is talking about believers.
In John 20:22, when Jesus breathed on His disciples, He said "Receive ye
the Holy Ghost." So because He was leaving them, they needed the Holy
Ghost. However, they were not FILLED with the Holy Ghost. Many
disbelieve that there is more of the Holy Ghost to be had. I can't help
that.
In the upper room in Acts 2:1- 120 believers were there, including Mary
and other womnen, when, in verse 2, "And suddenly there came a sound
from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the ouse
where they were sitting. And there apepared unto them cloven tongues as
of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were ALL FILLED with the
Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave
them utterance." So I see that there is a difference between receiving
the Holy Ghost, and being FILLED with the Holy Ghost.
Acts 2:16 - Peter explaining to the crowd what was happening: "But this
is THAT which was spoken by the prophet Joel; (17) And it shall come to
pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon ALL
flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young
men shall see visions, and your own men shall dream dreams: (18) And on
my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my
Spirit; and they shall prophesy." And it goes on to talk about things
that will happen in the end times. I don't see in the above Scriptures
where God is leaving out any believers in His desire to pour out this
gift of His Spirit.
Acts 2:38 - 39 "Then peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every
one of you for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of
the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and
to ALL that afar off (in the distant future) even as many as the Lord
your God shall call.
The GIFT is the Holy Ghost. Every Christian has received this gift. And
He gives out gifts "as He will" to believers. I personally do not
believe Paul is saying in I Corinthians 12 that to one is given this
special gift and to another, that special gift. I think it is talking
about the fact that He uses this one and that one "as He will" in
various circumstances, allowing the various gifts to flow through
different people. I have seen this work in many people. I have given a
messages in tongues. I have prophesied. I have been used in the gift of
instant healing. I have received a word of knowledge, etc. I don't HAVE
the gift of healing. I have the Holy Ghost, and He is the Healer.
The verses you asked me to read, I am well familiar with. I Corinthians
12:7-11 does say, Alfred, "But the manifestation of the Spirit is given
to EVERY MAN to profit withal." And read on. If we are all "one body"
and there is only one Spirit, how can some Christians not have the gifts
of the Spirit????? Only through unbelief in those gifts.
Peter Dolman
Bonnie H <bon...@cdsnet.net> wrote in article <32F071...@cdsnet.net>...
Beware, 'less you cast your pearls before swine, Bonnie, and they get
trampled underfoot.
I would say to these 'scholars' who seek to 'test' the Holy Spirit; "Will
you accept that God exists, and Jesus Christ is His Son, our Saviour and
Lord, and will you confess His Lordship over your life, and ask Him to
forgive your sins, if the the participants 'pass'?" I doubt you would.
Then, at least this would have some value -- your eternal redemption.
Peter
Bonnie H
Peter Dolman wrote:
>
> Beware, 'less you cast your pearls before swine, Bonnie, and they get
> trampled underfoot.
>
> I would say to these 'scholars' who seek to 'test' the Holy Spirit; "Will
> you accept that God exists, and Jesus Christ is His Son, our Saviour and
> Lord, and will you confess His Lordship over your life, and ask Him to
> forgive your sins, if the the participants 'pass'?" I doubt you would.
> Then, at least this would have some value -- your eternal redemption.
>
> Peter
Bonnie H wrote:
Yes, you are right, Peter, and I for one am finished with this silly
debate. In the meantime, I am hearing from many people who are reading
"out there" but are afraid to post a word on one of these newsgroups,
for fear of being attacked, and I persist because of them. There are
many with sincere questions who actually want answers. The naysayers
will always say "Nay," but there are lots of people who are hungry for
God, and they are finding Him. He is faithful.
Raymond Knapp
.
>
> "What differentiates us ["free spirits"] is not that we find no
> God--neither in history, nor in nature, nor behind nature--but
> that we do not feel that what has been revered as God is
> 'godlike.'" Nietzsche
Sounds like a "lock up spirits" not free at all. Can not see, blind
spirit, can not feel, so sick spirit, anything but free spirits. Only on
locked up would not find God. In nature, and behind nature, then I
suppose that free spirit is up against the wall and thinks the world is a
wall and no place to go. I suppose one that wants to be closed minded
could call themselves free spirits as that is all that would be free, the
rest is locked up and unable to understand what is going on out side their
little locked room.
abot...@aol.com
In article <32F156...@cdsnet.net>, Bonnie H <bon...@cdsnet.net>
writes:
>Bonnie H wrote:
>
>Yes, you are right, Peter, and I for one am finished with this silly
>debate. In the meantime, I am hearing from many people who are reading
>"out there" but are afraid to post a word on one of these newsgroups,
>for fear of being attacked, and I persist because of them. There are
>many with sincere questions who actually want answers. The naysayers
>will always say "Nay," but there are lots of people who are hungry for
>God, and they are finding Him. He is faithful.
Bonnie I appreciate your gentle spirit. It is difficult to deal with the
exercise of something that tends by its nature to be subjective (that is
unless I interpret I cannot testify to the validity of your gift). All
that aside though we are people of the Living God, who spoke in time past
through to prophets and finally through our Lord Himself. The Holy Spirit
so inspired men that they delivered to us the once for all faith. That
self same Spirit works in men today (and women, I use the term men to
denote the human race..mankind..ahhhh you get the idea) in illuminating
the text.
There are times when contextual analysis, philology(study of
languages), and the best of our academic efforts do not tell us exactly
what each word or phrase means. Take for example 1 COR 12:31: "Covet
earnestly the best gifts, yet I show you a more excellant way." From the
standpoint of linguistics, ZELOUTE can be translated as 2 Person plural
present imperative...indicative....or subjunctive.
The KING JAMES takes it as an imperative (a command).
"Covet earnestly the best gifts, yet I show you a more excellant way".
The doctrinal justification 1COR 14:1.
Alford in his Greek New Testament renders it as a subjunctive ( a
question).
"Do you aim at the greater gifts, and moreover an eminently excellant
way?"
The doctrinal justification being the questions asked in verses 29 and 30.
Bittlinger renders it as an indicative (or mood of reality)
"You are striving after the greater gifts, then let me show you a more
excellant way" The doctrinal justification being 1 COR 14:12,26,27,29 (The
point being everyone wanted to speak).
All three views are grammaticaly, doctinally, and historically possible.
Regardless of what view you take 12:31 to mean the result of the "more
excellant way" of Chapter 13 is the same.
From Grace to Glory
Tony
Heath
> > Bonnie H wrote:
> >
> > Why don't you read the book of Acts, and I Corinthians 12, 13 & 14 very
> > carefully. There are two ways the gift of tongues is to be used. In the
> > Church, when there is an interpreter present, and in one's personal
> > prayer life. Not all have the ministry of giving tongues in the Church,
> > or in interpreting tongues. Interpretation is not translation. If
> > tongues could be "translated" it would not be an "unknown tongue," would
> > it? Before you read, pray and ask the Holy Spirit to open your
> > understanding, if you are a Christian. Reading with your own
> > understanding leaves the Bible a closed book, history only.
> >
Bonnie, I think you should take your own advice and do exactly as you
say; "Read the book of Acts, 1 Corinthians 12, 13 & 14 very carefully."
When you do you will see that the word "unknown" does not preceed the
word tongues (notice it is in italics in the KJV). The original greek
simply tells of tongues (glossa). The word _unknown_ was unnecessarily
added by the english translators. Sadly, some have based their beliefs
and arguments on the additions of translators rather than on what the
original language said.
Heath
> Heath, what you propose, may be likened to a psychic session. You fail
> to understand that the gift of tongues is a manifestation of the HOLY
> SPIRIT. Is a group of people going to orchestrate an experiment and tell
> God what to do?????? It is "as He will" and one can not turn off and on
> a message from God and the interpretation of it. The whole idea is
> totally ridiculous. Not everyone has the gift of interpretation. Not
> everyone is used in the ministry to give a "tongue" in a service. This
> manifestation comes forth according to God's will, when He wants to
> speak something. Are you going to tell Him when to speak? Give him a
> cue???? Be the director of some weird sort of stage performance?
> Automatic writing is a satanic imitation of the inspired writings of the
> prophets. The main benefit of tongues is the edification of each
> believer in a personal way. It is a form of prayer. If you have a
> sincere curiosity about tongues get a Bible and read it. You will find
> it is in no way comparable to what you are proposing. And by the way -
> there are a lot of spirits "out there" - they do much more than imitate
> tongues.
So _YOU_ say. But the bible still clearly says, "Dear friends, do not
believe every spirit, but TEST THE SPIRITS to see whether they are from
God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world (1 John
4:1).
Testing the spirit by which one claims to speak is not only right, it is
commanded. We are not told how to test them though. I still believe
that the way I suggested would be very effective at weeding out those
who claim a gift falsely. Of some are afraid to be tested because they
already know they are fakes.
>> Heath proposed:
Heath
Bonnie wrote:
> I have been a minister for many years and have absolutely every
> right to believe what the Holy Spirit has taught me.
Please tell us one thing the Holy Spirit has taught you that one cannot
learn from reading the Bible.
Heath
Do-no-do-u
HI!! I'm jumping in here...
One thing the Holy Spirit has taught me is to control my temper. There
is no "How to contol your temper" section in the Bible. I could not
have done it by myself, because frankly, at the time I didn't care. But
Jesus did, and he taught me to also.
Just my 2 pennies worth,
Rhonda.
lu...@ix.netcom.com
jeto...@ozemail.com.au (Michael Kennedy) wrote:
>att...@ix.netcom.com(Libertarius) wrote:
>> Try this experiment:
>> In a hypnosis session two individuals, A and B, enter into a
>> hypnotic state ("trance"). The hypnotist suggests that "A"
>> is a space alien from the Moon, and will deliver a message
>> to us in "Moon talk". He also suggests that "B" is a human
>> who can understand and interpret "Moon talk". On a signal,
>> "A" will start "speaking in tongues", i.e. "Moon talk", and
>> "B" will "interpret" what he hears, translating it into
>> English (or German or whatever the audience understands).
>> Many variations on this experiment have been tried!
>> QUESTION: How is that different from the above stated
>> case of "charismatic meetings"?
>One is a prayer language to God, one is NOT.
>Next Question please ?
>Michael.
You mean if I speak "Moon talk" God will hear my prayer better? Dang!
And I've been speaking "Earth talk" the whole time and nothing has
been answered! Thanks for the enlightenment, O Powerful Thinker!
lu...@ix.netcom.com
Heath <mhe...@apex.net> wrote:
Heath, Heath, poor chap! Haven't you understood yet that they are
invoking the famous "Faith Rule"? That if they can't worship out of
faith, then they can't worship at all? No need to show them scripture
aptly pointing out their proper duties as Christians, they only follow
up with "tsk, tsking" and finger waving because you are merely a
skeptic and not a "Spirit-filled Christian". "Why," they ask, "should
they listen to someone logical like you?" You're going to hell and
they won't have any part of you, just as long as the Jim Bakkers,
Jerry Falwells or Oral Roberts of the world bless them for their
generous contribution.
Libertarius
told to speak a "Prayer language to God" and the exact same
thing would happen!
Libertarius
Heath
Heath wrote:
> >So _YOU_ say. But the bible still clearly says, "Dear friends, do not
> >believe every spirit, but TEST THE SPIRITS to see whether they are from
> >God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world (1 John
> >4:1).
>
> >Testing the spirit by which one claims to speak is not only right, it is
> >commanded. We are not told how to test them though. I still believe
> >that the way I suggested would be very effective at weeding out those
> >who claim a gift falsely. Of some are afraid to be tested because they
> >already know they are fakes.
>
> Heath, Heath, poor chap! Haven't you understood yet that they are
> invoking the famous "Faith Rule"? That if they can't worship out of
> faith, then they can't worship at all? No need to show them scripture
> aptly pointing out their proper duties as Christians, they only follow
> up with "tsk, tsking" and finger waving because you are merely a
> skeptic and not a "Spirit-filled Christian". "Why," they ask, "should
> they listen to someone logical like you?" You're going to hell and
> they won't have any part of you, just as long as the Jim Bakkers,
> Jerry Falwells or Oral Roberts of the world bless them for their
> generous contribution.
>
always have a power failure when put to the test. They cry, "You
shouldn't test God," when it is not God we wish to test, but them. They
will never allow such a test because they fear the outcome. We have all
heard of "Blind faith." Well they have the blindest of all. They
assume everything they are told by one claiming the power of the Holy
Spirit to be absolutly true. In essence, they place their faith in a
man (or woman). They instruct them, guide them, and control them by the
use of "tongues" and "interpreters." Whatever these tongue talkers say
(prophsying) and the interpreters say, goes. Never follow 1 John 4:1.
Never!
No, they will never allow them to be put to the test. Blind faith.
Heath-
Any Colour You Like
Wahe ung ar dren aa aj ootan gor tanan ik cora foo tog wer E dos peka
int ounges.
Libertarius
In <32F544...@mailbox.uq.edu.au> Any Colour You Like
<l.b...@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes:
>
>Wahe ung ar dren aa aj ootan gor tanan ik cora foo tog wer E dos peka
>int ounges.
alm...@ix.netcom.com
On Wed, 29 Jan 1997 01:24:55 -0800, Bonnie H <bon...@cdsnet.net>
wrote:
>. To quote part of a passage of
>Scripture and leave it without reading the entire thing can lead you off
>in strange directions. It goes on to say in I Corinthians 13:9-13, for
>example: "For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that
>which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be taken
>away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I
>thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
>For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I
>know in part, but then shall I know even also as I am known. And now
>abideth faith, hope, charity, these three, but the greatest of these is
>charity (love)."
>
>"That which is perfect" has not yet come, and that is why tongues have
>not ceased. That which is perfect, is Jesus, and He will return. When He
>does, there will no longer be any reason for tongues, because we will
>see him face to face. We will no longer "see through a glass, darkly" -
>we will see clearly. We will no longer know "in part", but we will know
>even as we are known. And Thank God, we will no longer be childish.
Reading carefully I see the verse says that 'tongues shall cease'.
There is nothing saying when they will cease. IT SAYS that when that
which is perfect comes... that which is IN PART shall be done away.
This is defined as knowledge and prophecy. NOTICE...
tongues need not continue until 'that which is perfect' comes...
We know IN PART and we prophesy IN PART but ...
that which is IN PART shall be done away...
IT JUST SAYS that tongues shall cease... and we know they did...
It is good that you are reading carefully... Notice that nowhere does
it SAY that tongues must wait for 'that which is perfect' before
ceasing. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<AL>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Bonnie H
Bonnie H wrote:
Well, you silly boys have proven the Bible right. Thank you very much.
I Corinthians 2:14 declares, "But the natural (not spiritual) man
receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness
unto him: neither CAN he know them, because they are spiritualy
discerned."
I Corinthians 14:23, "If terefore 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?"
'nuf said. I'm done with this silliness.
Libertarius
I Corinthians. If you read a little further, it also
says that WOMEN SHOULD KEEP QUIET, THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED
TO SPEAK.
Libertarius
Alfred A. Kuhnert
alm...@ix.netcom.comwrote in article <32f5a320...@nntp.netcruiser>...
> On Wed, 29 Jan 1997 01:24:55 -0800, Bonnie H <bon...@cdsnet.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"That which is perfect" has not yet come, and that is why tongues have
> >not ceased. That which is perfect, is Jesus, and He will return. When He
> >does, there will no longer be any reason for tongues, because we will
> >see him face to face. We will no longer "see through a glass, darkly" -
> >we will see clearly. We will no longer know "in part", but we will know
> >even as we are known. And Thank God, we will no longer be childish.
Whoa ..... I'm confused. Did Jesus come already or not? Was He perfect
when He came before or flawed?
Are tongues not a sign that was used for a specific purpose in those
historical times to bolster the developing church?
Today we have God's Word which contains all the signs and truth necessary
for the building and developing of our faith.
Why would a Christian's faith be so weak that he/she needs further
evidence
such as 'I spoke in an unknown tongue therefore I must really be saved!' ??
Why don't 'tongue speakers' also drink poison to further bolster their
faith???
Libertarius
>
>Keep reading. There were woman who had churches in Paul's time, and he
>never rebuked them. Commentators have studied those "no-no" Scriptures
>very carefully and have lamented the fact that Timothy's letter to
Paul,
>that Paul was answering, has been lost. I have studied several
>well-respected Biblical scholars from all denominctions regarding
those
>verses. Remember that before formation of the "Church" the women were
>not allowed into the same area to listen, in the synagog. They were
>uneducated, unlearned, and apparently were asking questions about what
>was being said, causing disturbance during the preaching. This is why
>Paul said to let them keep silent, and let them LEARN at home. In the
>verses you referred to in fact, Paul turns right around and says
"What?
>Came the word of God out from you? Or came it to you only?" And by the
>way, read on. "...forbid not to speak in tongues."
>
>Paul also taught that in Christ there is neither male nor female, but
>Spirit. God is not sexist. Deborah was one of the most powerful judges
>in Old Testament times and led Israel to victory. Get real, silly. (Or
>perhaps better said ... do you really think you can shut this woman
>up???) :)
>
>Regards,
>Bonnie
>
NO WAY, BONNIE. Just thought it funny that you rely on that
arch-misogynist "Paul" for your arguments. You should read
Bishop Spong's book BORN OF A WOMAN to understand my point
of view. It's a marvelous analysis of the story of the
treatment of women among "Christians". No amount of blaming
things of "the Jews", etc. will clear "Paul's" reputation.
I put "Christian" in quotes, because as you probably know
from the work of Elaine Pagels, there were some other
Christians among whom women had a major role! But "Paul"
would naot have liked that, nor did the "orthodox" churches.
Libertarius
Bonnie H
alm...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> IT JUST SAYS that tongues shall cease... and we know they did...
> It is good that you are reading carefully... Notice that nowhere does
> it SAY that tongues must wait for 'that which is perfect' before
> ceasing. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<AL>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Bonnie H wrote:
About all that can be said, Al, is that all you can see - is all you can
see. If you can't see the correlation between fail, cease, and vanish
away - or the fact that Paul sums up what he is saying by commenting
that presently we only know things partly, see things darkly, (and don't
know it all), that is simply where you are. You seem sure that you have
learned the (unsearchable) depths of God and He has nothing more to
teach you. How small is your God? Do you have him well under control so
he can't do anything to upset your thelology?
John Barradale
Bonnie H wrote:
> Paul also taught that in Christ there is neither male nor female, but
> Spirit. God is not sexist. Deborah was one of the most powerful judges
> in Old Testament times and led Israel to victory. Get real, silly. (Or
> perhaps better said ... do you really think you can shut this woman
> up???) :)
>
> Regards,
> Bonnie
And we must not forget that dear Timothy was in fact taught by his
mother and grand mother, and NOT his father who was an unbelieving
Greek.
--
John Barradale
A Good For Nothing Slave of Jehovah God - Luke 17:10
Bonnie H
Any Colour You Like wrote:
>
> Wahe ung ar dren aa aj ootan gor tanan ik cora foo tog wer E dos peka
> int ounges.
Galatians 6:7 "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man
soweth, that shall he also reap."
Bonnie H
Alfred A. Kuhnert wrote:
; Whoa ..... I'm confused. Did Jesus come already or not? Was He perfect
; when He came before or flawed?
;
; Are tongues not a sign that was used for a specific purpose in those
; historical times to bolster the developing church?
; Today we have God's Word which contains all the signs and truth
necessary
; for the building and developing of our faith.
; Why would a Christian's faith be so weak that he/she needs further
; evidence
; such as 'I spoke in an unknown tongue therefore I must really be
saved!' ??
; Why don't 'tongue speakers' also drink poison to further bolster their
; faith???
Bonnie H wrote:
Yes, I would say that you might be a bit confused, Al. For example, when
Paul wrote those verses, had Jesus come already, or Not? He was speaking
about when He returns. Do we have a perfect world today? Do we see
clearly? Do we know as we are known? NOT. Was He perfect when He came?
Of course. Paul was not speaking about He who had come already.
Tongues are STILL a sign to bolster the developing Church. Take a look
around. Look at these newsgroups. Do you consider the Church well
developed???? Yes, we have the Word, thank God. And no one has said to
my knowledge that we cannot build and grow without tongues. It does
teach that tongues EDIFIES the Church. Builds it up. And builds up the
person using this gift. This does not mean as in the sense of ego, but
in understanding. You are kicking around a precious gift from the Lord,
shamefully, and just because you don't care to indulge in what is
foolishness to you, you might at least acknowledge that you don't have
all of the answers. If you did, you would express kindness, not
self-righteousness. Whoever said, anywhere, that tongues was a sign to
the believer, that he was really saved? Where did you dream that up? The
Bible says that tongues is a sign to the unbelievers, and additionally,
it edifies the speaker when he prays.
What on earth does drinking poison have to do with any of the gifts of
the Spirit????
If you stop and think a bit about any of these things, and God is able
to shake up your dogmatic theology a little, it will be the best thing
that ever happened to you. God has much more to teach you, and all of
us. The very fact that Paul tells us that we see through a glass,
darkly, should give you a clue that there is more to learn, and you
could just possibly be wrong.
Bonnie H
Libertarius wrote:
>
> NO WAY, BONNIE. Just thought it funny that you rely on that
> arch-misogynist "Paul" for your arguments. You should read
> Bishop Spong's book BORN OF A WOMAN to understand my point
> of view. It's a marvelous analysis of the story of the
> treatment of women among "Christians". No amount of blaming
> things of "the Jews", etc. will clear "Paul's" reputation.
>
> I put "Christian" in quotes, because as you probably know
> from the work of Elaine Pagels, there were some other
> Christians among whom women had a major role! But "Paul"
> would naot have liked that, nor did the "orthodox" churches.
>
> Libertarius
Bonnie H wrote:
Hummm. Are we having fun yet??? I know I am. As for the Apostle Paul,
methinks you and many have misunderstood the man. I and Paul get along
fine ... at least I and his writings. I don't believe any woman should
usurp authority over a man (who is authority over her) but there are
solid and valid reasons for that. I believe in headship and
accountability for all members of the Body of Christ. I minister in my
Church with complete freedom under the headship and covering of my
pastor. I would never usurp his authority, but am free to operate fully.
We are all accountable. Personally, I don't believe Paul would have
objected in any way to women in high places in the Church. He didn't
object in the Bible to those who had churches in their home, or those
who were pastors. So I think the Scriptures where Paul was instructing
that the woman LEARN at home had nothing to do with those learned women
who were competent to minister. And I think that a woman who teaches
when it is usurping authority is wrong.
The neatest thing about these newsgroups, to me, is just the fact that
it causes people to get into their Bibles and look again. And of course,
much difficulty is encountered between the Catholics and various
denominations, whose views are all so different. Still, I can't help but
think in the final analysis everyone will end up having learned
something.
As for Paul, if he is not a misunderstood man, why did God allow him to
write so much of the New Testament? I used to be mad at Paul. But the
more I studied, and prayed about these things, the more clear it became.
I just don't have an argument with Paul. In fact, me 'n him will have
some interesting discussions one day. I wonder if he can ride a horse?
Regards,
Bonnie
Mark Fuller
Alfred A. Kuhnert wrote:
>
> alm...@ix.netcom.comwrote in article <32f5a320...@nntp.netcruiser>...
> > On Wed, 29 Jan 1997 01:24:55 -0800, Bonnie H <bon...@cdsnet.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >"That which is perfect" has not yet come, and that is why tongues have
> > >not ceased. That which is perfect, is Jesus, and He will return. When He
> > >does, there will no longer be any reason for tongues, because we will
> > >see him face to face. We will no longer "see through a glass, darkly" -
> > >we will see clearly. We will no longer know "in part", but we will know
> > >even as we are known. And Thank God, we will no longer be childish.
>
> when He came before or flawed?
>
> Are tongues not a sign that was used for a specific purpose in those
> historical times to bolster the developing church?
>
> Today we have God's Word which contains all the signs and truth necessary
> for the building and developing of our faith.
>
> Why would a Christian's faith be so weak that he/she needs further
> evidence
> such as 'I spoke in an unknown tongue therefore I must really be saved!' ??
>
> Why don't 'tongue speakers' also drink poison to further bolster their
> faith???
I think you misunderstand the purposes of tongues. There seems to be
two types that were present in the early church -- one was a gift for
the edification of the church when practised in combination with
interpretation, and the other was for the edification of the individual
when no interpreatation was avaialbale. I personally don't believe
that either of these have ceased, since the section of Scripture
talking about toungues, knowledge and prophecy ceasing seems to clearly
indicate that "when the perfect comes" equals "when Jesus comes back
again." I also wouldn't want to box God in and say "God does not give
the gift of tongues anymore." Clearly, the church does not need any
more SCRIPTURE, which may have been an initial purpose of tongues
(although we have no record of any prophet saying, "I spoke in a tongue
and then wrote down the interpretation God gave me"). But, the church
surely needs EDIFICATION, both individually and corporately. When done
within the framework of orderly worship, both tongues and prophecy
should be exercised -- Pual says "do not forbid speaking in tongues"
and "do not treat prophecies with contempt."
-Mark
Bonnie H
Alfred A. Kuhnert wrote:
>
; Mark Fuller <mark_...@qmgate.anl.gov> wrote in article
; 32F639...@qmgate.anl.gov>...
; Alfred A. Kuhnert wrote:
: : :alm...@ix.netcom.comwrote in article
: :32f5a320...@nntp.netcruiser>...
: : I think you misunderstand the purposes of tongues. There seems to
; ; -Mark
; How come no one wants to take a real stand on 'tongue speaking'?
; For instance the denominations who teach EVERY believer has this
; gift are 100% incorrect. Therefore, members of the congregation are
; babbling
; an 'unknown tongue' and it is 'interpreted', and everyone goes merrily
; along with it. Why?
; How many people have been rebuked for speaking falsely in a
tongue?????
Hi Al:
I'm not sure what you mean by "take a real stand on tongue speaking."
I've been trying to explain a bit about it for days, and apparently am
not doing a very good job of it.
I don't personally know which denominations that teach that every
believer has this gift, but I'm sure they must exist. I agree with you -
they are incorrect. Not even every one in one of those churches speaks
in tongues. They are often looked down on as a person who just isn't
quite living right for the Lord, a sad and unfair attitude. The
Pharisees are still with us! What I have said is that the gift is
available to every believer. I think the bondage put on people by their
denomination is a sad plight, indeed. But thank the Lord there are other
churches one can go to, and many do.
Paul taught that everything should be done decently and in order. If
someone goes into a church that does not believe in tongues, it is very
uncharitible to do such a thing. I don't personally know of a person
doing that - but it probably has happened, and more than once. And I am
certain that many have been rebuked in such a case, and asked to leave,
and in such cases, they should have been rebuked. I have also many times
seen a person not use wisdom and start speaking loudly in tongues right
while the pastor was speaking. That is not of God. The message may have
been, but the timing of the person was out of order. This is why Paul
stated "The spirit of the prophet is subject to the prophet," meaning
that the speaker is in control. In such a case, I have seen that person
rebuked. The Holy Spirit does not interupt Himself. That tongues has
been misused by people who let spiritual pride carry them away, does not
mean tongues is not a valid gift of the Holy Spirit. "Decently and in
order" is the key phrase here. It simply means that they were not
willing to love, and do things decently and in order. Such people should
be rebuked. On the other hand, if you visit a "full-gospel" Church where
they believe in speaking in tongues, you should not be offended because
of it. One could learn a lot in such a church, however, over a few
Sundays, just observing. Oftentimes a word will come forth that everyone
in the room knows is not from the Lord. The speaker gets into the flesh,
and wants to appear "spiritual," so they plunge ahead and speak out. The
listeners simply let it go, or rebuke such a one. Christians can ask
for wisdom and receive it, and we need to learn to pick the bones out of
the fish. Why should anyone be afraid of some person in church speaking
in a language that makes no sense? On the other hand, I personally know
two Christian people who visited such a church, (separate occasions)
tongue-in-cheek, who had been praying very much about a specific thing.
No one in the church knew them, or about their prayers. Both times, the
prophecy that came was specifically about that very thing in such a
personal way, the listener was convinced and now goes to that sort of
Church. In both cases, these peole were visiting churches in a town away
from home.
The thing is, there is misuse of every gift God has given to us. There
are also satanic immitations, and with these the enemy attempts to lead
people away from God and into the occult, and many, not knowing the
Word, follow that leading, and think it is of God. I counsel many people
in that condition who have finally discovered they have been deceived
and need help getting free of the bondage it brings.
Bonnie H
Libertarius wrote:
> Funnie, Bonnie that you should quote that chapter from
> I Corinthians. If you read a little further, it also
> says that WOMEN SHOULD KEEP QUIET, THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED
> TO SPEAK.
>
> Libertarius
Dear (dear me!) Libertarius:
Keep reading. There were woman who had churches in Paul's time, and he
never rebuked them. Commentators have studied those "no-no" Scriptures
very carefully and have lamented the fact that Timothy's letter to Paul,
that Paul was answering, has been lost. I have studied several
well-respected Biblical scholars from all denominctions regarding those
verses. Remember that before formation of the "Church" the women were
not allowed into the same area to listen, in the synagog. They were
uneducated, unlearned, and apparently were asking questions about what
was being said, causing disturbance during the preaching. This is why
Paul said to let them keep silent, and let them LEARN at home. In the
verses you referred to in fact, Paul turns right around and says "What?
Came the word of God out from you? Or came it to you only?" And by the
way, read on. "...forbid not to speak in tongues."
Paul also taught that in Christ there is neither male nor female, but
Doug Oreck
On Sat, 01 Feb 1997 15:12:15 -0600, Heath <mhe...@apex.net> wrote:
>> Heath, what you propose, may be likened to a psychic session. You fail
>> to understand that the gift of tongues is a manifestation of the HOLY
>> SPIRIT. Is a group of people going to orchestrate an experiment and tell
>> God what to do?????? It is "as He will" and one can not turn off and on
>> a message from God and the interpretation of it. The whole idea is
>> totally ridiculous. Not everyone has the gift of interpretation. Not
>> everyone is used in the ministry to give a "tongue" in a service. This
>> manifestation comes forth according to God's will, when He wants to
>> speak something. Are you going to tell Him when to speak? Give him a
>> cue???? Be the director of some weird sort of stage performance?
>> Automatic writing is a satanic imitation of the inspired writings of the
>> prophets.
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Which is why the Bible
sometimes appears to be against it, and sometimes for it. It all
depends on who you're communicating with...
The main benefit of tongues is the edification of each
>> believer in a personal way. It is a form of prayer. If you have a
>> sincere curiosity about tongues get a Bible and read it. You will find
>> it is in no way comparable to what you are proposing. And by the way -
>> there are a lot of spirits "out there" - they do much more than imitate
>> tongues.
>
>
>So _YOU_ say. But the bible still clearly says, "Dear friends, do not
>believe every spirit, but TEST THE SPIRITS to see whether they are from
>God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world (1 John
>4:1).
>
>Testing the spirit by which one claims to speak is not only right, it is
>commanded. We are not told how to test them though. I still believe
>that the way I suggested would be very effective at weeding out those
>who claim a gift falsely. Of some are afraid to be tested because they
>already know they are fakes.
>
From Angelic Revelations of Divine Truth, a collection of messages
received through automatic writing by James Padgett:
(question by Mr. Padgett regarding 1 John 4: "... believe
not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of
God...")
I meant that many spirits would try to communicate with man and
attempt to teach false doctrines as to Jesus and his mission, and
that the only spirits who were capable of conveying the truth,
and worthy of belief, were those who should acknowledge that
Jesus was the son of God in the way that it has been explained to
you (not that Jesus or Jesus Christ was God). Only those spirits
who acknowledge Jesus as the son of God, and have received the
New Birth, and know something about the Kingdom of Christ, or of
the Gift of the Divine Love of the Father and the Way to obtain
It (as taught by Jesus) should be acknowledged. All other spirits
who have not this knowledge, and consequently would not
acknowledge Jesus as the son of God, are not to be trusted as
being true followers of Jesus.
This is nothing mysterious or contrary to the laws governing
the conduct or beliefs of men. If a spirit, or man either, knows
nothing about a certain subject, he certainly cannot teach others
its qualities or merits; hence I was applying an ordinary law of
nature to the way in which spirits should be tried. For I must
tell you now-- and it is a truth, and was a truth at the time I
wrote my gospel and epistles just as it is a truth now, and
always will remain a truth-- that every spirit who acknowledges
Jesus as the son of God is a redeemed spirit, and has received a
portion of the Divine Love, and is progressing in the Kingdom
which Jesus is now forming. And when I gave those instructions to
my "children," as I called them, I intended that their
communications should be only with those spirits or men who had
received this New Birth.
I know that all the spirits who have received this Divine Love
in sufficient abundance are good spirits, free from sin and
error, and that they have the power or inclination to influence
mortals not to sin or to do anything which is contrary to the
Will of the Father; while all the other spirits may or may not
exercise the influence of evil upon mortals.
Hence, try the spirits, and if they do not acknowledge Jesus as
the son of God, let them alone, and do not receive their
communications or teachings, because they are not believers in
Christ and the New Birth.
Among my children, or believers in the Christian religion, were
many persons who had the power or gift of communicating with the
spirits of the departed, and they did so communicate; and such
communications were made known to the rest of the congregation
and were believed by them. And hence my injunction against
communion with those spirits who were not believers in Christ.
You must not think that this is the only age in which spirits
communicate with mortals, for I must tell you that in my time
it was much more common than now. And when worshiping in our
congregations and in our other gatherings, and often in private,
we had these communications.
This was an important part of the services of our meetings, and
one that kept us in constant harmony with the soul power of those
who lived in the spirit form, and from whom we received powers of
healing and of doing good in many other ways.
In those days, healing the sick and doing kindred things were a
very important part of our work as Christians. We believed what
Jesus had told us on earth, and we increased our faith, and
performed many works which the people who did not believe as we
did thought were miracles.
To us, the healing of the sick and the doing of these other
things were just as natural as eating and sleeping. I tell you
that our faith then was a certainty. We possessed the Substance
that Paul speaks of, and we expected to do these things, just as
we expected to breathe and be able to do material good to our
brothers.
But after a few centuries, when men came into the church for
other purposes than to receive the New Birth and to do the Will
of the Father, faith such as I speak of died. And the power to
do these things was taken away from men, and the church became a
congregation of men having the mere lip worship.
And all through the centuries from then until now this power
has not been with men, except that here and there some true
believer with a faith such as we had has appeared and has done
wonderful things.
So I say, let not what the Bible may say about Jesus being
God, and having those other qualities with reference to the
salvation of men, disturb you in your beliefs in what the Master
may write to you.
I will not write more tonight, but will say good night.
Your brother in Christ,
John.
http://www.truths.com
Alfred A. Kuhnert
Libertarius
In <32F679...@sover.net> John Barradale <home...@sover.net>
writes:
>Bonnie H wrote:
>
>> Paul also taught that in Christ there is neither male nor female,
but
>> Spirit. God is not sexist. Deborah was one of the most powerful
judges
>> in Old Testament times and led Israel to victory. Get real, silly.
(Or
>> perhaps better said ... do you really think you can shut this woman
>> up???) :)
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bonnie
>
>mother and grand mother, and NOT his father who was an unbelieving
>Greek.
>
>--
>
>John Barradale
>A Good For Nothing Slave of Jehovah God - Luke 17:10
===>Funny how people come to the defense of that arch-misogynist
Saul, a.k.a. Paul. Y'all should read bishop Spongs book:
BORN OF A WOMAN for a true confession of the misogyny of the
entire main-line Church.
Libertarius
Libertarius
nutty behavior?
Libertarius
Libertarius
Christians", so he probably could. But, unlike what he expected,
he's dead.
Libertarius