Speaking in tongues and other interesting things

[jedi]

Re: Speaking in tongues and other interesting things

My answer is yes, the only evidence the Apostles recognised for the baptism of the Holy Ghost after Pentecost was the speaking in tongues.



Naturally back then. But now we live by faith in those former things. And unless I see a tongue of fire coming down from heaven on top of someone's head today or unless I understood clearly what they were saying to be certain that that person was not speaking jibberish. Forget the interpreter because you are saying the Holy Spirit baptism is not the same as the speaking in tongues of the congregation which Paul says in 1 Cor. 14 there needs be interpreters or be quiet. So unless this Holy Spirit Baptism is like the one in Acts of the Apostles I won't believe it.

I believe speaking in an Angelic language is a Holy State of being and not a common thing and certainly not something that is going to happen to a newly regenerate believer who has much "dross" yet to burn off.

[NotkaTAA]

Re: Speaking in tongues and other interesting things

Maybe Mutty -The Returm may help your topic is curiously interesting, as I never saw any of such thing. I just wonder if this people actually sane and not on drugs or buzz in real, maybe hallucinate or they are on LSD, speed or something... there is many things that I am missing... I use to thing maybe they are induced by hypnosis.

I might need some real insight in this one, maybe someone who is first hand experiment. I will appreciate your help.

[jedi]

Re: Speaking in tongues and other interesting things

Originally posted by NotkaTassili:
[qb]Maybe Mutty -The Returm may help your topic is curiously interesting, as I never saw any of such thing. I just wonder if this people actually sane and not on drugs or buzz in real, maybe hallucinate or they are on LSD, speed or something... there is many things that I am missing... I use to thing maybe they are induced by hypnosis.

I might need some real insight in this one, maybe someone who is first hand experiment. I will appreciate your help.[/qb]

Have you thought of seeking professional help? May not be a bad idea.

[Jaysan]

Re: Speaking in tongues and other interesting things

Originally posted by Jedi:
[qb]
Have you thought of seeking professional help? May not be a bad idea.[/qb]

BOAL...wwaiiieeee [img]/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[accepted77]

Re: Speaking in tongues and other interesting things

Act 17:6
And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also;
Act 17:7
Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus

.

((Jedi)),

Contrary to what you said earlier I am not only debating scripture I am working in hope that I can pull the wool from over your eyes regarding the baptism of the Holy Spirit..

All that you say I have heard.
I used those same arguments myself.

For everybody and their brother have known them since the 4th century, when the church changed from being Apostolic to become One Holy Catholic (read Roman) and Apostolic Church.

This was not an innocent change of Name.
It was a fundamental change of Doctrine.

Peter became Roman instead of Jerusalemian, the 'little stone' (peter) became the Rock.
'O pray for the peace of Jerusalem', became 'pray for Rome the eternal city'.

Speaking in tongues became speaking in Latin.

The word of God became the word of the Pope speaking 'ex cathedra'.

The Apostles Doctrine became the Apostles Creed, and the Oneness of God became a Trinity of Beings.

Sixteen centuries later, these new doctrines have become the fondation of all the churches coming out of the reformation.

You see, there have always been a Church of God and a Church of Caeser.

The church of God went underground and persecuted almost out of existence, and openly resurfaced in strength in the eighteeneth century when religious liberty was pronounced by the founding fathers of this Nation.

So you have two churches, the original and the alternative.

Don't believe me read Encyclopedia Britannicia, look up tongues, and history of.

Act 17:8
And they troubled the people and the rulers of the city, when they heard these things.
Act 17:9
And when they had taken security of Jason, and of the other, they let them go.
Act 17:10
And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
Act 17:11
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

or read this link

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pentecostal/New-ch11.htm

and

http://www.jayforrest.org/tongues.htm

finally

Augustine wrote other things which indicate the speaking in tongues belonged to the past, but these references also include the laying on of hands on infants for them to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit; as well as the spurious thought that the Holy Spirit could only be gotten from the Catholic Church. These statements open up whole new cans of worms which I do not wish to get into right now. However, they may be found in Glossolalia by Frank Stagg, E. Glenn Hinson, Wayne E. Oates, p. 52. Augustine also wrote: For when the Catholic Church had been diffused and established through the whole world, these miracles were no longer permitted to continue in or time, lest the mind should always seek visible things. In Retractions, he writes: For those that are baptized do not now receive the Spirit on the imposition of hands, so as to speak in the tongues of all the peoples; neither are the sick healed by the shadow of the preachers of Christ falling on them as they pass; and other such things as were then done, are now manifestly ceased.

My last word, lets part as bretheren.

God Bless.

[jedi]

Re: Speaking in tongues and other interesting things

[QUOTE]Originally posted by accepted:
[qb]

Act 17:6

And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also;
Act 17:7
Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus

.

What does this have to do with the discussion? Is this part of your belief in tongues?

((Jedi)),

Contrary to what you said earlier I am not only debating scripture I am working in hope that I can pull the wool from over your eyes regarding the baptism of the Holy Spirit..

{Jedi: I find that very condescending and overly presumptious (((Accepted))). At what point have you even considered anything that I have pointed out to you. You it would seem are the one that needs to read the scriptures without the wool over your eyes instead of trying to indoctrinated me to your belief system.}

All that you say I have heard.
I used those same arguments myself.

{Jedi: (((Accepted what did I say that you have heard, the scripture I cited is there plainly for you to see and compare. Again very condescending. Reasonable debate requires that we look at both sides of the coin and plainly you are not doing so because you are already biased.}

For everybody and their brother have known them since the 4th century, when the church changed from being Apostolic to become One Holy Catholic (read Roman) and Apostolic Church.
This was not an innocent change of Name.
It was a fundamental change of Doctrine.

{Jedi: So then you are of the opinion that the bible doctrines that I have read are erroneous. Is this true? because I didnot arrive at my conclusion based on any of the above. Therefore it is either that you believe the bible to be in error or you are again ASSUMING.}

Peter became Roman instead of Jerusalemian, the 'little stone' (peter) became the Rock.
'O pray for the peace of Jerusalem', became 'pray for Rome the eternal city'.

Speaking in tongues became speaking in Latin.

The word of God became the word of the Pope speaking 'ex cathedra'.

The Apostles Doctrine became the Apostles Creed, and the Oneness of God became a Trinity of Beings.

Sixteen centuries later, these new doctrines have become the fondation of all the churches coming out of the reformation.

You see, there have always been a Church of God and a Church of Caeser.

The church of God went underground and persecuted almost out of existence, and openly resurfaced in strength in the eighteeneth century when religious liberty was pronounced by the founding fathers of this Nation.

So you have two churches, the original and the alternative.

Don't believe me read Encyclopedia Britannicia, look up tongues, and history of.

{Jedi: Wonderful history lesson and based on all that you have written then you assume that my response to the question of tongues is founded on a religious system of traditions not on what the bible says in plain english. You are wrong. But again you refuse to read anything I have written or to compare scripture with scripture. So I wonder who has wool over their eyes me or you.
You are assuming that I am the product of the Anglican-Catholic faith? WRONG}

Act 17:8
And they troubled the people and the rulers of the city, when they heard these things.
Act 17:9
And when they had taken security of Jason, and of the other, they let them go.
Act 17:10
And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
Act 17:11
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

{Jedi: Since I have searched the scriptures as did the Bereans to come to my conclusions again for you to put this here is again a false conclusion. In fact I believe that you are so indoctrinated by a denomination of belief that you are not ready or able to read scripture and make a comparison and draw a right conclusion for yourself which clearly I did. Your responses time and again shows that you are not even giving an ounce of thought to any other scripture references on the matter of the Holy Spirit or on the gift of tongues since you seem to equate the Holy Spirit with the gift of tongues as one and the same. }


finally

Augustine wrote other things which indicate the speaking in tongues belonged to the past, but these references also include the laying on of hands on infants for them to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit; as well as the spurious thought that the Holy Spirit could only be gotten from the Catholic Church. These statements open up whole new cans of worms which I do not wish to get into right now. However, they may be found in Glossolalia by Frank Stagg, E. Glenn Hinson, Wayne E. Oates, p. 52. Augustine also wrote: For when the Catholic Church had been diffused and established through the whole world, these miracles were no longer permitted to continue in or time, lest the mind should always seek visible things. In Retractions, he writes: For those that are baptized do not now receive the Spirit on the imposition of hands, so as to speak in the tongues of all the peoples; neither are the sick healed by the shadow of the preachers of Christ falling on them as they pass; and other such things as were then done, are now manifestly ceased.

{Jedi: Wonderful information, now perhaps you can go back and read what all I have written or ask me what it is I believe in totality before you place me into a category of belief system. Very biased (((Accepted))) and I dare say a poor defense for not being able see any other view point but your own.}

My last word, lets part as bretheren.

God Bless.[/qb]

You've got to be kidding! I have yet to see such and out pouring of bias. And bias based on your denominational belief not on any agreement with scripture, so tell me how are you different than people who will die for the rites or rituals of a particular denomination while denying the truth of the scripture, the whole word of God not just a book or verse? Did you at anytime consider that my belief is based strictly on the Word of God not on any religious tradition? Sorry to disappoint you (((Accepted))) but you are totally wrong and I stand by what I say. See my last post and take it on face value. Do not read anything else into it. I am the product of a church that taught the Bible as the Word of God and nothing else no traditions, no rituals, no statues, saints, nothing not even ritually repeating the Apostles Creed which is a man made document- but one which we accept as truth based on the Word of God. Accepted I believe you owe me an apology.

P.S. correction the term catholic church - means worldwide church, unless it says Roman before it so that is an error.

[WitchyOoman]

Re: Speaking in tongues and other interesting things

Originally posted by Jedi:
P.S. correction the term catholic church - means worldwide church, unless it says Roman before it so that is an error.[/QB]

Actually, Jedi is right, here. The very definition of the Greek word [from where we get ours] "catholic" is "universal". Universal; no more no less. It has absolutely NOthing to do with the Roman Church. The phrase "... one Holy catholic and apostolic Church..." merely means (as I posted before) "... one Holy universal and apostolic Church..."!

But, then, accepted, you and I have never agreed on anything, have we? I can't expect that, after all this time, that will have changed...

Accepted, your history is... er, flawed (at best).
Ex: "Speaking in tongues became speaking in Latin."
Rubbish!! (And laughable. Are you seriously trying to tell us all that anyone who can speak Latin is a faker who is falsely claiming to be 'speaking in Tongues'???)
Ex: "the Oneness of God became a Trinity of Beings."
Rubbish!! The Trinity is not about three separate Beings, and you know this, as I have explained it to you (as have others) before. Certainly, you may choose to believe what you like... but please don't say things that simply aren't true in your attempt to justify your own beliefs.
Ex: "The church of God went underground and persecuted almost out of existence, and openly resurfaced in strength in the eighteeneth century when religious liberty was pronounced by the founding fathers of this Nation."
Pure fantasy!
Ex: "So you have two churches, the original and the alternative."
More fabricated fantasy!!!

Are you seriously trying to say that the original Church 'went underground' for 18 centuries, and that the founding fathers of -- which country? The USA? -- brought it back? Recusitated it???

The oldest still-existing Church would be... the Coptic Church. And, even that isn't exactly what Jesus practiced or taught. (ie. it had changed)

The fallacy of so-called primitive Christianity is totally specious. Mind you, I am not saying, and I won't say, that it is anti-Christ to practice that form of Christianity -- All I AM saying is that it is most certainly NOT what Jesus himslef taught or practiced! Jesus was a Jew, and, as such, he believed -- and followed and practiced -- ORGANIZED RITUAL RELIGION. EVERYthing he did was proof of this statement. All of the things he did were highly ritualized, and he never taught or gave any indication of beliving otherwise. The idea that so-called 'primitive Christianity' was the original form of Christianity practiced (ie. taught be Jesus and carried on by the apostles, and practiced by the early Christians) is simply not the truth.

Now, I have no more problem with people who want to 'reform' Christianity into something 'more modern' or into something 'simplified' than I do with people who 'reformed' Judaism. Remember, I was raised as a Reform Jew. However, I DO think of Reform Judaism as a "failed experiment", and I view "reformed versions of Christianity" in pretty much the same way. Of course THAT is my own personal opinion, and nothing more; I'm not passing judgement on anyone. (I DO however intensely dislike when people start slinging untruths around!)

[Diplomat]

Re: Speaking in tongues and other interesting things

accepted: Good work, brother.

[jedi]

Re: Speaking in tongues and other interesting things

You know (((CEW))) I sincerely hope you are not taking this as an opportunity at divisiveness amongst us Christians on this forum. (((Accepted))) has been my constant friend and ally on this forum, and although we are at loggerheads over this issue, by no means does it make him less a friend in my eyes. I still hold him in highest regards and have nothing but tenderness and compassion in my heart towards him. So let me make that perfectly clear right here.

[accepted77]

Re: Speaking in tongues and other interesting things

Jedi,

Normally I would not go back on my word, but I do treasure the friendship we have developed on this forum and it would have been rude of me to make a point of resoluteness, without answering your call for biasedness.

Let me expand a little on what I was saying in the post above.

While you and W.O defend the word catholic as universal, the only church that have ever made claim to this is the Roman Catholic Church.

By the sixth century any other christian church existed in oposition to the Catholic church and was either dammed as heretics, or were in the process of being excommunicated and dammed as heretics.

The catholic church was the only christian universal church and then set out to persecute the pagans.

The reformation of the Waldenses, Calvinites and Lutherans all took aspects of the mother church with them.

Contrary to W.W comments Jesus never set up any doctrine, the church's doctrine was set up by the Apostles.

As early as the General Epistle of John there is mention of the spirit of Anti-christ creeping into the church. The doctrine of the trinity is not an original doctrine held by the Apostles, the early church fathers Origen, Polycarp, Ignatius, all write that the Apostles baptised in Jesus name and the gifts of the spirit was manifest in the church including tongues.

Greek philosophy was to introduce the logos as the eternal son first by Origen. It was St. Athanatius who later developed this doctrine based on writings by Jerome into the creed of St. Athanatius where first, the terms of the same substance(hyposthosis) and "persons" developed.

St. Athanatius first created the idea of the Holy Ghost being a distinct "person" in the Godhead and with the logos tied the three "persons" into a trinity.

No apostle ever made God into three persons, they would not being Jews, they had recited the 'shema' from youths. The idea of three persons was not taught by the Apostles and where it does appear in John there is evidence of tampering after the fact.

So Luther posted his thirteen eddicts on the door of the church, but kept the mass, and the creeds.

Calvin developed his doctrine of original sin but held to the creeds.

Waldensenes fearing excommunication from the Pope held to the mass, somewhat, and to the creeds.

The Anglican fiasco was a rebellion of a British Monarch (Henry VIII) wanting to divorce his catholic wife Katherine and Marry Anne Boelin, his persistence finally ended up divorcing his nation of the power of the Pope but the Anglo Catholic church kept most of the creeds and the mass of the Roman church.

While it can be said the Anglican church gave the world the Bible, KJV, the old order held sway.

Wesley while acknowledging the gifts of the spirit, also clung to the Doctrines of the Mother church.

What I am saying here is that many orders sprung up but they all chose what of the Roman culture to throw away and what to keep.

All that time the original doctrines established by the apostles were held in obscurity, christians going around in caves and holes in the ground being beaten and persecuted, men of whom this world was not worthy. Meeting in homes in secret holding onto the baptism of the Holy spirit and the baptism in Jesus name and the oneness of God.

There have been many episodes of outburst of tongues throughout history the apostles doctrine never died.

What I was alluding to in the birth of this nation is that here these dispossed doctrines found a place of refuge from the persecution in Europe. Here in the new world the Quakers could be 'Lord of the dance' could 'quake' under the infilling of the spirit. Here these communities were not mocked or stoned or their members burnt as heretics.

((WW)) the early church was not a primitive church they were alive with the study of scripture and the wisdom of the spirit. They had power that we today do not.

They did not have to wait for no statue to cry blood, nor do pennance, they danced in the spirit sometimes so much to excess that Paul had to corral the Corinthians.

Slowly the church is returning to the roots as these 'fringe' churches grow in numbers. Slowly the stone that the builders rejected is once again becoming cheif of the corner.

A wise Jew Gamaliel once said about the christians, do not fight them least in our Zeal we fight God. His words ring true today. If this is true it will last.

Act 5:35
Act 5:34 Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;
Act 5:35
And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men.
Act 5:36
For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.
Act 5:37
After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.
Act 5:38
And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
Act 5:39
But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.
Act 5:40
And to him they agreed: and when they had called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.
Act 5:41
And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name.
Act 5:42
And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.

(((Jedi)))
My post was not meant to be condescending at all, I speak what I know and testify of what I have experienced, if it offends you, treat it as Gamaliel did.

Peace.

[jedi]

Re: Speaking in tongues and other interesting things

(((Accepted))) As you stand on what you believe so I also stand on what I believe. I didnot form by belief based on any of that history of which you speak, but based on reading the scripture.

I am going to say this boldly again. I donot deny the gift of tongues nor do I deny speaking in tongues. But I do no equate the indwelling Spirit of God to be one and the same as speaking in tongues for the gift and the giver are not the same. I.E. God is not the Gift of Tongues. I donot believe that speaking in tongues is the only manifestation of the spirit filled life. I donot see any evidence to convince me that what I have observed so loosely practiced as tongues is of any value to the salvation of a mans soul nor any indication of spiritual growth or maturity. I do believe that the gifts of the Spirit come with spiritual maturity, and that God does not need an outward sign men do. God searches the heart of men. Men look on the outward appearance which can be false and misleading for while speaking in tongues may be evidence of the indwelling Spirit of God it is not the only evidence and only those that have true spiritual discernment can tell an Angelic tongue from a spirit of divination or of demonic origin. I reached that conclusion by searching the whole New Testament not based on any history of the church. To so align me with church traditions and such is biased because you did not ask me what all I believe nor did you take the time to examine the scriptures that I have outlined. Furthermore if you believe what it is you believe I will not refute that but you also need to give me the same respect and agree to disagree without further insulting me. And yes I am willing to do what Gamiliel did that is why I will agree to disagree without maligning you as you did to me.

[britisha]

Re: Speaking in tongues and other interesting things

Dang!!

[iches]

Re: Speaking in tongues and other interesting things

as how i know it to be - there has to be another person translating for it to be real ! [img]/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[kthydvs]

Re: Speaking in tongues and other interesting things

Speaking in tongues was a special ability given through the Holy Spirit to some disciples in the early Christian congregation that enabled them to preach or otherwise glorigy GOD in a language other than their own. Jesus commissioned his followers to go out and preach the Good News to all nations (Mathew 28:19). In order to be able to do that, the disciples would have had to have the ability to speak other languages other than their own. What they spoke had meaning to the people who knew those languages (Acts 2:4,8).