Welcome, Guest: Join Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 2,483,207 members, 5,623,095 topics. Date: Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 09:40 AM

I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? - Religion (10) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? (2960 Views)

Do People Who Speak In Tongues Fake It Or Understand It? / 7 Reasons Why Every Believer Should Speak In Tongues - Kenneth E Hagin / Daddy Freeze: "Speaking In Tongues In Nigerian Churches Is Fake” (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (3) ... (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) ... (19) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by hoopernikao: 1:12pm On May 23
Myer:


Here in lies the dilemma in 1 Corinthian 14.
Did Paul distinguish between known and unknown tongues?
Clearly he does not forbid speaking in tongues. But rather that it should be moderated.

1 Cor 14:2 seems to be referring to unknown tongues. Which no human can understand except interpreted by one with the gift of interpretation.

This obviously contrasts with Acts 2:6 where unbelievers could understand the tongues without the need for gift of interpretation.

Hence it seems Paul concludes that speaking in tongues for personal edification should not be a public affair but a private affair. Except there is an interpreter.

While speaking in tongues for evangelism should be towards unbelievers in their own language. Hence why it is indeed a sign. Something they would have no choice but to accept as being supernatural.
Whether they end up believing or not.

Yet, you feign ignorance of our bone of contention as you continue to evade providing answer to a question I have repeated in every post on this topic.

Have you personally spoken in another tongue (lamguage) as a sign to an unbeliever?

Bro. where exactly did you see speaking in tongues for evangelism in the scriptures? When you make a claim always add scriptures please. Kindly show that.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Finallydead: 1:18pm On May 23
MuttleyLaff:

I can't believe what my eyes are seeing.
What have I just read there. This is preposterous.

1/ Who advised you to pray in an angelic tongue, lmao?
2/ Where from did you learn that using angelic tongue, is about your spirit man itself praying and sanctioned by the Spirit to do so?
3/ Have you biblical proof or instance of anyone using angelic tongue/language to pray?
4/ To what end is the use of angelic tongue/language praying?
5/ Did God or any of the Apostles sanctioned this as a preferred mode of praying or recommendation?

Believing is impossible before the eyes(spiritual or at least physical) perceive the object of belief.
Mutt, when you come to a public forum littered with people who have read the Bible as you also have, be careful to present your perspective with modesty. Also, remember we all know only a bit and can learn while we teach.

Assuming you believe Paul wasn't pulling legs when he said "tongues of men and of angels" (1Cor13:1), let me answer you.
Answers
1.)Paul 1Cor14:5a,15a. Also everyone who said we should pray in the Spirit
2.)1Cor14:14a
3.)1Cor14:18(both Paul and also they all in the church in Corinth whom he corrected for using it publicly)
4.)1Cor14:4a(personal edification, your spirit expresses itself in its native(heavenly) language, it fellowships with Divinity)
5.)1Cor14:5a,15(pray and sing with his spirit). Praying in the Holy Spirit, meaning whatever manifestation of His in prayer, whether tongues, groans, burdens, substantiated faith etc. was the standard of all the apostles (Jud:20, Eph6:18)

Now Mutt, let me undertake to show how flawed the thought is that the tongues here are human.

First we can all agree that all humans on earth can be broadly categorised into two according to the gospel as also here in 1Cor14- believers and unbeliever

Is this language for the unbeliever?
Clearly answered by Paul. By quoting the prophet Isaiah, Paul shows that God's judgement on the rebellious/unbeliever is that "...YET they will not hear..."(1Cor14:21) hence the tongues here are a sign showing/pointing out that humanity in its separation from God can never hear/understand the divine. This tongues is a sign/pointer to that fact. So, this is not tongues with any intention to communicate to humanity but a different purpose.
One might ask but even the believer himself may not understand. Yes, the believer's mind is unfruitful but it is the same believer who spoke the divine language, hence the believer has at least a something of divinity in him, albeit yet to be developed to the point of hearing unlike the unbeliever who can neither hear nor speak the divine.

Notice also that Paul clearly says the unbeliever(note that this is ALL unbelievers as he does not specify a unique category, i.e. all anywhere on earth) a.k.a unlearned will NOT be able to relate when these tongues are spoken(1Cor14:23)





Is this language when spoken understandable to the believer?
1Cor14:19 makes it clear that it will not readily be understandable to the believer except with translation hence Paul would rather speak just a single understandable word in the congregation than tongues and he makes them desist from public use of the gift.
1Cor14:2 makes it equally clear that it is NOT TO MEN but only to God and in fact NONE understands the tongues. Furthermore the gift is said to be a speaking forth of MYSTERIES not knowledge(hence hidden from the congregation) and not to the audience but IN THE SPIRIT



A Useful Illustration
Imagine we all on this thread meet in person for a closed room fellowship and our present written conversation is as our spoken exhortation to one another.

Scenario A
So we've all been flowing up to this point when suddenly Acehart ceases speaking in English because God initiates Korean tongue through him(I assume none of us understands). What would God be achieving but speaking into the air(1Cir14:9)? Neither Acehart nor anyone else will be blessed.
Then again, if hoopernikao(because it sounds a bit Korean, lol) understands Korean. Then we would assume God was trying to pass a message to hooper that even Acehart himself would be ignorant of. Now, God would have achieved something(for hooper). Let this be Scenario A.

Scenario B
Consider then scenario B, where rather than Korean, Acehart begins to speak angelic tongue(not the mimicked gibberish promoted in several churches tho) which of course NONE understands, not even Acehart's mind but only his spirit man(1Cor14:14) partaking of the divine nature.

If scenario A was what spoken of in 1Cor14, take note Myer, Paul would be wrong to advise 1Cor14:28 that for a lack of a Korean-to- English translator to help the rest of us, Acehart shouldn't have spoken. As a matter of fact, if God did the tongues, He was intent on getting hooper's attention.
So, Paul wasn't referring to scenario A, but to scenario B(tongues of angels as well as all through 1Cor14), hence he recommends only private use where your spirit, being a partaker of divine nature, speaks it's native heavenly language/hence gaining the liberty of expression and refreshing itself in that.

And to quell Myer's fear, let me answer his question clearly. Yes, it is a common experience for people to speak unlearned foreign human tongues in preaching the gospel similar to scenario A or Acts2. This is at best called tongues of men. But what Paul referred to in 1Cor14 was tongues of angels.


Consider also this gift according to the 1Cor12:10 pairs with another gift- "translation of tongues" as also 1Cor14:5,15. This is also why we know Paul is not referring to human tongues. You see there's no use interpreting a human tongue which has already reached God's target audience in their learned language as it would already be a prophecy to them just as in Acts2, nobody had to translate. Translation only goes with tongues of angels.

Let me pause here so as to not disturb Mutt and Ace's, cricket match on a tongues thread field since they both believe tongues has reached its best before date. Maybe Goshen360 will come around with more questions to restore both to the purpose of the thread.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Bodydialect57: 2:22pm On May 23
Interesting!
Kobojunkie:


I have on several occassions read the books in question, and don studies on how we arrived at noting them as Paul's writings.
I like to read the books of the bible as if reading through a novel, and so have come to detest the way folks are quick to pull verse out of context to bolster whatever idea they have in their heads, abandoning the very meaning the writer of the full book had for including the verse in question.

"Tongue" refers to a full blown language ofcourse(in it's completeness); and not a bunch of syllables spliced together,and repeated over and over for the sake of attention -- it is nothing more than jibberish (also referred to as glossolalia).

As for speaking in tongues, I do speak a full blown language. In my case, I know the name of the language, and the place and time during which the language was likely spoken. There is no "spiritual" angle to my speaking of this language that I am aware of. It does not only come on when I pray... it comes on whenever and wherever and it does not seem to give a damn who is listening, when or why. On several occassions been given the ability to understand the meaning of the words that flow out of my mouth, and it is refreshing during those times.

I am a curious soul, so I continue to investigate it.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Myer: 2:23pm On May 23
hoopernikao:


Bro. where exactly did you see speaking in tongues for evangelism in the scriptures? When you make a claim always add scriptures please. Kindly show that.

Acts 2:6
The disciples preached to the unbelievers about Christ.
What is evangelism?
Is it no longer preaching the gospel?

Ok, forget I used the word evangelism. Have you preached to any unbeliever in another language?
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Acehart: 2:45pm On May 23
Finallydead:


Let me pause here so as to not disturb Mutt and Ace's, cricket match on a tongues thread field since they both believe tongues has reached its best before date. Maybe Goshen360 will come around with more questions to restore both to the purpose of the thread.


Nay. Don’t you see what we are doing? We speak about an “unknown” wonderful game in a known tongue but it seems like gibberish to many. Whether we speak about the “unknown” beautiful game in a known or unknown tongue, we would sound gibberish until the “unknown” game becomes “known” especially in known tongues. Oops! undecided

1 Like

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by hoopernikao: 6:05pm On May 23
Myer:


Acts 2:6
The disciples preached to the unbelievers about Christ.
What is evangelism?
Is it no longer preaching the gospel?

Ok, forget I used the word evangelism. Have you preached to any unbeliever in another language?

Did disciples preached with tongues in Acts 2? It is clear now where your misconception is carried from. You are using Acts 2 to interpret 1 Cor 14.

Proper bible study implies that you use teachings, doctrines to interpret events not the other way round. When your doctrine is built on experience and events confusion lies ahead. Epistles are teaching to the church not events. They are primarily instructions to believers.

You are using Acts 2 to interpret Paul, no sir. Doctrine arent established by events, events will be interpreted based on what was taught as doctrine.

Reread Acts 2 again putting Paul's teaching on tongues as a guide. All Acts events on tongues complied with Paul's doctrine. And no where did Paul says any man understood tongues. That mindset us carried from Acts 2. Paul's doctrine never ever mentioned such.

You will only wrestle human tongue into Paul's doctrine based on your bias on Acts 2.

Let me guide you.

Acts is not a book of doctrine or teaching, it is a book of historical events of the early Church, including evolvement and practices. Hence you will see progressive revelations even in the acts of the Apostles themselves.

You can't build a doctrine on any events in Acts except it was taught by Jesus or the Apostles in the epistles.

So, Acts 2 must be read looking at 1 Cor 14 not the other way.

Primarily, Paul never mentioned that tongue is understood by anyone. In fact he rather established that tongues cannot be understood by any man. Please first remove your glasses of Acts and read Paul well.

Also, note Paul always teaches Tongues together with Interpretation and Prophecy, why? They are always in same events. It should be obvious to you that this 3 function together for edification of the hearer.

Paul's doctrine
1. Tongues edifies no second party, either believer or unbeliever, Acts can't be different.

2. Tongue interpreted is prophecy and bring edification to all and all can magnify God. Acts must be read this away and all that are well seen in Acts if you read properly.

There is no basis again doctrinally if you contradict the above.

So, when you have found yourself where Paul is in knowledge, then read Acts with same eye.

Tongues, Interpretation and Prophecy must be seen in all places mentioned in Acts, the reason they were edified in all places mentioned in Acts can't be because of tongue since tongue edifies no one.

You will only confuse yourself to say unbeliever heard tongues in Acts but say you are mad in 1 Cor 14: 22.

Have you also observe Peter's explanation of the events? He never mentioned tongues as explanation, he said prophecy. He pointed to Joel prophecy not tongues.

So, where you must find yourself is to read Paul well and unravel Acts 2 without confusing yourself by taking events above doctrine.

And don't ever say again that gospel was preached in tongue, you are only contradicting yourself or denying Paul. Gospel are in clear words.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by MuttleyLaff: 6:14pm On May 23
Finallydead:
Believing is impossible before the eyes(spiritual or at least physical) perceive the object of belief.
Mutt, when you come to a public forum littered with people who have read the Bible as you also have, be careful to present your perspective with modesty.
In regards to what specifically does the emboldened mean please because I don't follow

Finallydead:
Also, remember we all know only a bit and can learn while we teach.

Assuming you believe Paul wasn't pulling legs when he said "tongues of men and of angels" (1 Cor 13:1),
"What if I could speak all languages of humans and even of angels?
If I did not love others, I would be nothing more than a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
(i.e. If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels,
but have not love, I am only a ringing gong or a clanging cymbal.)
"
- 1 Corinthians 13:1

You ought to have quoted that Corinthians 13:1 in its entirety.
Why have you cropped out and leave what's left that suits your preconceived idea, hmm?
Tsk, tsk, tsk, that is naughty, dishonest and insincere. I sure hope you know the implication of those two above emboldened and underlined word in grammar sha. That is talking of do you understand what "What if" and "If I" means, hmm?

Finallydead:
let me answer you.
Thank you for your generosity in answering the questions. This isn't something that often happens, as questions are either ignored, over looked or half heartedly answered, so much appreciated you answered them. Let me now review your responses

Finallydead:
Answers
1.)Paul 1Cor14:5a,15a. Also everyone who said we should pray in the Spirit
"I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, (i.e. note, pray in an angelic tongue) but I would rather have you prophesy.
The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues,
unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified
"
- 1 Corinthians 14:5

"So what shall I do?
I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding;
I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my understanding.
"
- 1 Corinthians 14:15

Smh, just as I thought. Where in the so call 1 Corinthians 14:5a and 1 Corinthians 14:15a is "... pray in an angelic tongue" hmm?

Finallydead:
2.)1Cor14:14a
"For example, if I use an unknown language in my prayers, my spirit prays but my mind is useless.
(i.e. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind (i.e. understanding) is unfruitful.
"
- 1 Corinthians 14:14

Smh, again I ask where in 1 Corinthians 14:14a is there angelic tongue, is about your spirit man itself praying and sanctioned by the Spirit to do so

Finallydead:
3.)1Cor14:18(both Paul and also they all in the church in Corinth whom he corrected for using it publicly)
"I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you"
- 1 Corinthians 14:18

I can't believe you'll have the cheek to produce 1 Corinthians 14:18 as your biblical proof or instance of anyone using angelic tongue/language to pray, smh. Speaking in tongue/language (i.e. speaking in English) has now become praying and no more speaking. Where is angelic tongue in that verse?""

Finallydead:
4.)1Cor14:4a (personal edification, your spirit expresses itself in its native(heavenly) language, it fellowships with Divinity)
"The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself,
but the one who prophesies builds up the church
"
- 1 Corinthians 14:4a

Smh. Totally flabbergasted. It just renders me speechless

Finallydead:
5.)1Cor14:5a,15(pray and sing with his spirit). Praying in the Holy Spirit, meaning whatever manifestation of His was the standard of all the apostles (Jud:20, Eph6:18)
"I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy.
The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues,
unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified.
"
- 1 Corinthians 14:5a

"So what shall I do?
I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding;
I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my understanding.
"
- 1 Corinthians 14:15

"Pray in the Spirit at all times and on every occasion.
Stay alert and be persistent in your prayers for all believers everywhere
"
- Ephesians 6:18

"But you, beloved, by building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit,"
- Jude 1:20

With the manner you've answered the whole five questions, I've now got to understand the meaning of the tone at the beginning now and why. Smh.

Where in any of those verses, does God or any of the Apostles, sanctioned praying in angelic tongues, as a preferred mode of praying or recommendation?

Finallydead:
Now Mutt, let me undertake to show how flawed the thought is that the tongues here are human.
Please be my guest and on the conditions you tell
1/ Why is it necessary to pray in angels' tongue/language?
2/ Why is praying in my spirit (i.e. not audibly praying, meaning praying silently in the spirit) if not better than, not as good as this your imagined angels' tongue/language?

Finallydead:
Is this language for the unbeliever?
Clearly answered by Paul. By quoting the prophet Isaiah, Paul shows that God's judgement on the rebellious/unbeliever is that "...YET they will not hear..."(1Cor14:21) hence the tongues here are a sign showing/pointing out that humanity in its separation from God can never hear/understand the divine. This tongues is a sign/pointer to that fact. So, this is not tongues with any intention to communicate to humanity but a different purpose.
One might ask but even the believer himself may not understand. Yes, the believer's mind is unfruitful but it is the same believer who spoke the divine language, hence the believer has at least a something of divinity in him, albeit yet to be developed to the point of hearing unlike the unbeliever who can neither hear nor speak the divine.

Notice also that Paul clearly says the unbeliever(note that this is ALL unbelievers as he does not specify a unique category, i.e. all anywhere on earth) a.k.a unlearned will NOT be able to relate when these tongues are spoken(1Cor14:23)

Is this language when spoken understandable to the believer?
1 Cor14:19 makes it clear that it will not readily be understandable to the believer except with translation hence Paul would rather speak just a single understandable word in the congregation than tongues and he makes them desist from public use of the gift.
1 Cor14:2 makes it equally clear that it is NOT TO MEN but only to God and in fact NONE understands the tongues. Furthermore the gift is said to be a speaking forth of MYSTERIES not knowledge(hence hidden from the congregation) and not to the audience but IN THE SPIRIT


A Useful Illustration
Imagine we all on this thread meet in person for a closed room fellowship and our present written conversation is as our spoken exhortation to one another.

Scenario A
So we've all been flowing up to this point when suddenly Acehart ceases speaking in English because God initiates Korean tongue through him(I assume none of us understands). What would God be achieving but speaking into the air(1Cir14:9)? Neither Acehart nor anyone else will be blessed.
Then again, if hoopernikao(because it sounds a bit Korean, lol) understands Korean. Then we would assume God was trying to pass a message to hooper that even Acehart himself would be ignorant of. Now, God would have achieved something(for hooper). Let this be Scenario A.

Scenario B
Consider then scenario B, where rather than Korean, Acehart begins to speak angelic tongue(not the mimicked gibberish promoted in several churches tho) which of course NONE understands, not even Acehart's mind but only his spirit man(1Cor14:14) partaking of the divine nature.

If scenario A was what spoken of in 1Cor14, take note Myer, Paul would be wrong to advise 1Cor14:28 that for a lack of a Korean-to- English translator to help the rest of us, Acehart shouldn't have spoken. As a matter of fact, if God did the tongues, He was intent on getting hooper's attention.
So, Paul wasn't referring to scenario A, but to scenario B(tongues of angels as well as all through 1Cor14), hence he recommends only private use where your spirit, being a partaker of divine nature, speaks it's native heavenly language/hence gaining the liberty of expression and refreshing itself in that.

And to quell Myer's fear, let me answer his question clearly. Yes, it is a common experience for people to speak unlearned foreign tongues in preaching the gospel similar to scenario A or Acts2. This is at best called tongues of men. But what Paul referred to in 1Cor14 was tongues of angels.


First we can all agree that all humans on earth can be broadly categorised into two according to the gospel as also here in 1 Cor14- believers and unbeliever

So? After you've mixed apples with oranges, abi?

First as early as Genesis human according to Israelites customs were categorised as descendants of Abraham and then Gentiles (i.e. Genesis 22:18, "goy" is the Hebrew word for Gentile) same Hebrew "goy" used for heathen, then da da da da da used for unbeliever, as in unbelieving Jew(s), not believing the Messiah and the gospel He proclaims, then after the flood gates were flung open, anyone thats anyone out yet to believe the gospel, as there now is no Jew or Gentile,

Consider also this gift according to the 1 Cor12:10 pairs with another gift- "translation of tongues".
This is also why we know Paul is not referring to human tongues. You see there's no use interpreting a human tongue which has already reached God's target audience in their learned language as it would already be a prophecy to them just as in Acts2, nobody had to translate. Translation only goes with tongues of angels.
As I've said above, you are conflating two things, lmao and you are doing this so to engineer towards your pre-conceived notion of imagined angelic tongues/language

You are combining Acts 2:8, Acts 10:46 and Acts 19:6 which had a best-before date with the no best-before date, no used-by date spiritual gift of speaking in tongues. The former was specifically "neos" "kainos-ed" for the lost sheep of Israel first. Jesus always gave the lost sheep the first serving. The Samaritian lady wanted to jump the queue, He declined saying no that He came for the lost sheep, only to relent and yield to the woman's determination. Jesus, sent the 12 disciples to the lost sheep first, (i.e. Matthew 10:5-15) warning them not to attend to anyone else, saying "... Do not go onto the road of the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans" It was after they returned back from their training expedition amazed of what they achieved that He now thereafter sent out the 70 disciples, saying "... Go! I am sending you out like lambs among wolves .." to preach to everyone (i.e. Luke 10:1). It has always been the Israelites/Jews first before anyone, before the floodgates were flung open. It is just protocol, nothing else more to it than that, lmao.

Anyway, Jesus upon resurrection, before ascending to heavens. Remember He was killed before the Passover, was in the tomb just before the Sabbath and rose on Sunday after the Sabbath, meanwhile non-Jerusalem Jews have converged into Jerusalem for the Passover festive. Meanwhile, the Passover Lamb has just been sacrificed for the sin of the whole wide word, the Ha Mashiach, aka the Messiah aka Christ, the Yahushua, aka Jesu, aka Saviour has advanced advised the disciples to wait in Jerusalem, so to receive power from on high (i.e. Acts 1:4, cool and so they did, that on the 50th day, the day of Pentecost, with a loud audible sign, they heard a gust of wind, run sweepingly into the house they were in, fill the whole place up, then people in attendance saw a visible manifestation of a flame of fire shaped in the form of a human being's mouth tongue, forked in shape (i.e. two-pronged) descended on the disciples heads seating there, of which thereafter from this powerful and visible unction, they began to speak in tongues/languages they have never learned before, so much to the surprise of the pilgrim Israelites/Jews in attendance (i.e. Acts 2:4)

Now there was the chance, to have the Gospel proclaimed and announced to the pilgrim Israelites/Jews, and so it was done in their different and individual languages (i.e. Acts 2:7-12). This was best-before date #1 rolling out of the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues/languages.

The second best-before date, happened at Cornelius' place, who happened to be a welcoming and generous Roman Gentile, but who had the fear of God in him. It was Apostle Peter, who had the honours, albeit, he first was dilly dallying, anyway he went there inside and found many people, already there gathered together (i.e. Acts 10:27). To cut a long story short, Peter began as if like a singing canary bird preaching about the Messiah et cetera, soon the power of the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius, his household and other believing Gentiles so much that they tools in Acts 2:4 earlier were speaking in tongues, that the Jewish believers who came with Peter were amazed that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles, too (i.e. Acts 10: 44-46)

Swiftly, to the third and final best-before date spiritual gift of speaking in tongues/languages. Here again cutting to the chase. It was Apostle Paul, involved in this one and it had to do with the yet unbelieving John the Baptist disciples. Please go read Acts 19:1-7 for the full gist. Long story short, after preaching, Apostle Paul laid his hands on them, that the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied too.

So there we have it the two-pronged spiritual gift of speaking in tongues. The cloven or two pronged earlier shape signified a split as in divided in two. Those first three were the first leg or first part of the split, the second leg or second part of the split tongue/language was what's given and/or made available, as a general spiritual gift of the other part of speaking in tongues/languages, as we now have for building the church with


"For with stammering lips and another tongue He will speak to this people,
(i.e. Indeed, with mocking lips and foreign tongues, He will speak to this people)
"
- Isaiah 28:11

"20Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature.
21It is written in the Law:
“By strange tongues and foreign lips, I will speak to this people,
but even then they will not listen to Me, says the Lord.”
22Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers, but for unbelievers.
Prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers
"
- 1 Corinthians 14:20-22

Fast forward to the second leg of the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues symbolised by a cloven/forked/two-pronged human mouth organ tongue unctioning/anointing. We now have Apostle Paul almost grovelling and almost literally on his knees trying to make the Corinthians see sense and spiritually grow up. He then launched into Isaiah 28:11 quoting it but stripping out "stammering lips" or striking out "[i]mocking lips[/I]" because that bit wasn't relevant nor related to his present situation, to say that so it was written in law, that God will have it the people spoke to in tongues/languages that are foreign/unlearned/new/another tongue, but that sadly in spite of that His people will hear but won't listen. After Apostle Paul conceded that, yeah the benefit of speaking in tongues/language is not for the one who already has faith, who believes, but that rather it was for the one without faith, the unbelieving. Prophecy, he concluded, is whats for the one with faith, believers, but not the already lacking faith unbeliever, who does in first place believes

Finallydead:
Let me pause here so as to not disturb Mutt and Ace's, cricket match on a tongues thread field since they both believe tongues has reached its best before date.
Are you really like this in real life. Smh.

Will you quit showing yourself up in public. Please stop making out as if best-before dates means the gift of speaking in tongues is not/no more available. As I have explained above best-before date speaking in tongues and the one of the nine manifestations of the Holy Spirit, the gift of speaking in tongues is what the two-pronged human being mouth organ tongue symbolised. Phase one has gone, we are with phase two of the unction/anointing.

The problem with most guys on here, is aren't familiar with Jewish custom, idioms, festive et cetera. Most don't even know what Pentecost is. They don't know about the "Feast of Weeks" and/or the "Feast of 50 days" that every Jew is expected to travel down to Jerusalem as pilgrims to come celebrate. People with al sort of foreign language, dialect, accents et cetera. I am sure they don't even know that all Jesus' disciples were from the tribe of Benjamin, hence had a Galilean accent, ring or twang of speaking, that was how Apostle Peter was caught out from his speech when he denied Jesus three times and even swearing just to save his dear old skin, lmao. Now c'mon, lets be real here, there is going to be some real potent effective new improved upon thing going on to make these Galilean village disciples have clout to effectively and efficiently do this business of God for Him

Finallydead:
Maybe Goshen360 will come around with more questions to restore both to the purpose of the thread
Did you have to end your post with such sarcasm. So Acehart educating me on cricket was that so bad paining you, you had to become irritable. It is a different light of you, I am first seeing and a side of you I never knew. I didn't know you had. Smh.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by MuttleyLaff: 6:35pm On May 23
Acehart:
Nay. Don’t you see what we are doing? We speak about an “unknown” wonderful game in a known tongue but it seems like gibberish to many. Whether we speak about the “unknown” beautiful game in a known or unknown tongue, we would sound gibberish until the “unknown” game becomes “known” especially in known tongues. Oops! undecided
This is beautiful. I stood clapping, giving it a standing ovation. Just so succinct and brilliant.

Maybe we should do angelic tongues next time Acehart, lmao grin grin grin
Could you believe that Juanita Bynum, the other day on Facebook was praying and typing out tongues displayed. She packed it quickly after the backlash and advice that she was taking the piss and pushing the thing too far
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Goshen360(m): 7:06pm On May 23
Eyin people yi, ( My brother MuttleyLaff; my brother that sounds like Pst Abel Damina, hoopernikao; our dearest Acehart; Finallydead and Myer) ti da ile ru gan ooo.... grin

Anyway, great and excellent job you all have done and so far an insightful discussion and thread, plus it's being peaceful and mature so far aside some side kicks loosed name calling....such as we know sometimes could happen in discussions on this forum.

Most questions in my mind are already answered and I don't know about anyone else that has followed this discussion from beginning. I hope to come up with my contribution in the light of our generation discussion here so far.

It is great fellowship so far!

2 Likes

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Myer: 7:08pm On May 23
hoopernikao:


Did disciples preached with tongues in Acts 2? It is clear now where your misconception is carried from. You are using Acts 2 to interpret 1 Cor 14.

Your evasive skill is second only to a shrewd politician.

Just answer the simple question already.

Have you ever spoken in another tongue (which you never knew) for an unbeliever to understand?

1 Like

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Myer: 7:31pm On May 23
Goshen360:


First, I completely agree that what was spoken in Acts was understood by other foreign nationals. However, can you explain:

1. How it is a "new" (kainos) language the Apostles spoke as against an already existing foreign (allotrios) language which others could understand......as per the explanation of hupernikao

2. The language the Apostles spoke to other men was spoken men to men. Is it the same language Paul taught about in 1 cor 14vs2?

For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God:
for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries"



3. If you say it's the same, please explain why one was spoken to God and the other spoken to men....that is, 1 cor 14vs2 says, the speaker does not speak to men but to God

3b. Why doesn't any man understand the speaker of 1 cor 14vs2 but the speakers Acts 2 was understood by the foreign nationals that was present?


Good question. hupernikao is suffering from a chronic eisegesis disorder. He wants to read his meaning into the scriptures rather than reading what the scripture says.

Clearly, there are two types of tongues, some bible scholars have carefully named these Known tongues (lord tongues of men) and Unknown tongues (or tongues of angels).

Apparently from the interaction in Acts 2:6 we can induce that the tongues spoken by disciples here were tongues of men, as various unbelievers from the corners of the world heard each his own language.

This is different from speaking tongues of angels which would require someone also given utterance of interpretation to understand.
Tongues of angels cannot be understood which is why Paul exhorts that it should be done in private except there be an interpreter, lest unbelievers think the person is mad.
A recent example is a woman who survived a car crash and burst into tongues. While believers understood her worship others thought she had gone crazy.

That is simply what Paul is saying. Tongues of angels are private affairs except there is an Interpreter.
But today the case different, the whole church is full of tongue-totting believers yet not one interpreter.

Makes you wonder how come the gift of tongues is in abundance while there's paucity of the gift of interpretation.

What then is the essence of all the mysteries being spoken in tongues if no one understands it?

Or maybe no one understands it because not one of them is actually speaking in tongues but everyone has been taught this charade we nowadays call tongues.

1 Like

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Finallydead: 9:33pm On May 23
MuttleyLaff:
In regards to what specifically does the emboldened mean please because I don't follow...
You'll remember it, when it happens again, Mutt.

Okay then, Mutt. If you still can't see Paul was picking some of the different gifts he had mentioned in 1Cor12, here in 1Cor13:1-3 and showing that without love, these gifts yield no gains. Then I'm done here after this because those who want to understand will.
So here goes,
First, in 1Cor13:1, he picks out "sorts of tongues"(1Cor12:10,28) by breaking it down into its two categories "... tongues of men and of angels...".

N.B: Mutt, you have deliberately added "all the tongues of men...or even of angels..." which makes it a loose generalisation and not a strict categorisation.
No, it is strictly "Though I speak with tongues of men AND of angels..."(no "all the" and no "or even" ), making a STRICT categorisation of "sorts of tongues" into two rather than a generalisation.

In 1Cor13:2, he picks out prophecy(1Cor12:10), word of wisdom(mysteries), word of knowledge(1Cor12:8 ) and faith(1Cor12:9)

In 1Cor13:3, he picks out helps(1Cor12:28) and governments (1Cor12:28).

ALL the comparisons he made, from 1Cor13:1-3 were on the different gifts(all mentioned in 1Cor12) vs love and their worthlessness without love. His use of "If" wouldn't change that fact. It would only mean if he does these gifts without love, then...
So if you rule out tongues of angels being a gift under sorts of tongues, you can as well rule out every other gift in 1Cor12 mentioned in 1Cor13:1-3 as not being legitimate gifts.
Now read my answers again with this at the back of your mind that Paul spoke of angel tongues in 1Cor14

You said so much while avoiding my clear questions.
1.) What does God gain in giving Acehart a Korean tongue if no one there including Ace understands it. Couldn't He have received the prayer/praise in Acehart's native language. Why change from native to Korean if none understands Korean.
2.) If at least any e.g. hooper alone understands Korean, then we have scenario A, where God gave the Korean tongue because He was sending a message to hooper.
Tell me then, why in scenario A above, Paul would advise that if none can interpret from Korean-English, Acehart should keep silence and no longer speak the word for hooper who understands Korean and would have been blessed as Paul advised in 1Cor14:28, to keep silence?

So if you answer 1 and 2, you would see that they both can't be the situation Paul was addressing, hence with all other indication in 1Cor14, Paul was speaking of angel tongues which profits NONE except the speaker's spirit( and not mind btw)

You also ignored what I said about the sign of tongues to unbelievers which clearly shows that it is not to be understood by humans. Don't skip these.


Did you have to end your post with such sarcasm. So Acehart...
C'mon Mutt. Don't only learn cricket from Ace, lol, learn humor too. I know you have a lot of it deep down inside. Why so serious? (with a joker smile and in Joker's voice). Ace played along with my humor and I thought it was cool, so why didn't you?
Anyways, my bad. Should have ended that statement with "lol" or a smiley.

But don't also expect Ace to laugh with you like you quoted his counter joke now he has begun to see the light about the angel tongues that you deliberately refuse to see, lol.

For some reason, Myer keeps harassing hoopernikao with a question I already answered in my last post and I think my first post here.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by MuttleyLaff: 10:00pm On May 23
Myer:
Good question. hupernikao is suffering from a chronic eisegesis disorder. He wants to read his meaning into the scriptures rather than reading what the scripture says.
It is a smh malaise.

Myer:
Clearly, there are two types of tongues, some bible scholars have carefully named these Known tongues (lord tongues of men) and Unknown tongues (or tongues of angels).
With all due respect, does hyperbole, at all have any meaning you're familiar with?

Myer:
Apparently from the interaction in Acts 2:6 we can induce that the tongues spoken by disciples here were tongues of men, as various unbelievers from the corners of the world heard each his own language
"They gathered when they heard the wind.
Each person was startled to recognize his own dialect when the disciples spoke
(i.e. And when that noise occurred, the entire populace gathered and was agitated,
because each one of them heard that they were speaking in their dialects.
"
- Acts 2:6

The language spoken by the disciples were in dialects of the listing pilgrim Israelites/Jews and likely proselytes too. The Hebrew word used translated as language by some translation bible version is "dialektos" (i.e. speech, conversation, manner of speaking or language)

Myer:
This is different from speaking tongues of angels which would require someone also given utterance of interpretation to understand.
Tongues of angels cannot be understood which is why Paul exhorts that it should be done in private except there be an interpreter, lest unbelievers think the person is mad.
Where is the biblical reference for this ludicrous claim

Myer:
A recent example is a woman who survived a car crash and burst into tongues. While believers understood her worship others thought she had gone crazy.
Our God is not a God of confusion. To what end and/or purpose was this woman going batty like that for

Myer:
That is simply what Paul is saying. Tongues of angels are private affairs except there is an Interpreter.
But today the case different, the whole church is full of tongue-totting believers yet not one interpreter.
I am 1000% certain that Apostle Paul never categorically said anything about tongues of angels are private affairs and except there is an Interpreter.
When Angel Gabriel visited Mary, what sort of language were they both conversing in? What tongue? Angelic language or tongue of man?

Myer:
Makes you wonder how come the gift of tongues is in abundance while there's paucity of the gift of interpretation.
It is because its easier to fake the former

Myer:
What then is the essence of all the mysteries being spoken in tongues if no one understands it?
I want you to please recite this prayer:
"Ya Ubangiji, ka taimake ni kar na dogara da fahimta ta amma ka fahimci komai domin ka iya sarrafa maganata, tunanina da ayyukana. Da sunan Yesu, Amin."

1/ Did you recite it?
2/ Did you understand the prayer above you just recited?
3/ If your answer to #2 above is No, then what was the essence of all the mysteries in the prayer you recited above, if you didn't understand it?

Myer:
Or maybe no one understands it because not one of them is actually speaking in tongues but everyone has been taught this charade we nowadays call tongues.
Gbam!
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Acehart: 10:16pm On May 23
Finallydead:

You'll remember it, when it happens again, Mutt.

Okay then, Mutt. If you still can't see Paul was picking some of the different gifts he had mentioned in 1Cor12, here in 1Cor 13:1-3 and showing that without love, these gifts yield no gains. Then I'm done here after this because those who want to understand will.
So here goes,






C'mon Mutt. Don't only learn cricket from Ace, lol, learn humor too. I know you have a lot of it deep down inside. Why so serious? (with a joker smile and in Joker's voice). Ace played along with my humor and I thought it was cool, so why didn't you?
Anyways, my bad. Should have ended that statement with "lol" or a smiley.

But don't also expect Ace to laugh with you like you quoted his counter joke now he has begun to see the light about the angel tongues that you deliberately refuse to see, lol.

For some reason, Myer keeps harassing hoopernikao with a question I already answered in my last post and I think my first post here.



Hi,

Hope your day was spent in the best way you could? Concerning the angel question, Paul had made a similar statement in Galatians 1:8: But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!

Paul wasn’t saying an angel would come from heaven to preach another gospel; He was just stressing the form of creatures who have the capacity of speech to the superlative degree; a statement made by conjecture. Paul definitely knows he wouldn’t teach anything contrary yet he brings up the sanctity of the gospel and how it should be protected in the hearts of those in Galatia (against men and creatures). The same tone is used in 1 Corinthians 13:1. In both cases, Paul is using an “if” condition; I mean: “if” is used introduce possible or impossible situations or conditions and their results. The situations or conditions can be real, imagined or uncertain. I could tell a conductor who insults me after his bus driver hits my bike: if I slap you, you go die. I am referring to a possible condition of him dying if I slapped him. Did I slap him? Yes, two dirty slaps, but he didn’t die. That means the result was imagined.

I hope you understand.

1 Like

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by MuttleyLaff: 10:20pm On May 23
Finallydead:
You'll remember it, when it happens again, ...
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by MuttleyLaff: 10:25pm On May 23
MuttleyLaff:
"What if I could speak all languages of humans and even of angels?
If I did not love others, I would be nothing more than a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
(i.e. If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels,
but have not love, I am only a ringing gong or a clanging cymbal.)
"
- 1 Corinthians 13:1

You ought to have quoted that Corinthians 13:1 in its entirety.
Why have you cropped out and leave what's left that suits your preconceived idea, hmm?
Tsk, tsk, tsk, that is naughty, dishonest and insincere.

I sure hope you know the implication of those two above emboldened and underlined word in grammar sha.
That is talking of, do you understand what "What if" and "If I" means, hmm?

Acehart:
Hi,

Hope your day was spent in the best way you could? Concerning the angel question, Paul had made a similar statement in Galatians 1:8: But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!

Paul wasn’t saying an angel would come from heaven to preach another gospel; He was just stressing the form of creatures who have the capacity of speech to the superlative degree; a statement made by conjecture.

Paul definitely knows he wouldn’t teach anything contrary yet he brings up the sanctity of the gospel and how it should be protected in the hearts of those in Galatia (against men and creatures)
One word: Hyperbole

Acehart:
The same tone is used in 1 Corinthians 13:1. In both cases, Paul is using an “if” condition; I mean: “if” is used introduce possible or impossible situations or conditions and their results.

The situations or conditions can be real, imagined or uncertain. I could tell a conductor who insults me after his bus driver hits my bike:
if I slap you, you go die. I am referring to a possible condition of him dying if I slapped him.
Did I slap him? Yes, two dirty slaps, but he didn’t die. That means the result was imagined.

I hope you understand.
May God continue to increasingly richly bless you with much more understanding
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by hoopernikao: 10:36pm On May 23
Myer:


Your evasive skill is second only to a shrewd politician.

Just answer the simple question already.

Have you ever spoken in another tongue (which you never knew) for an unbeliever to understand?

You are actually the one avoiding all my questions. I have given you not less than 4 questions you have avoided now.

Kindly pay attention.

What you ask me is not a question because if you are reading my writings well you wont even ask such question. The question is from the result of not reading properly and paying attention.

See it here
Your question: Have you ever spoken in another tongue (which you never knew) for an unbeliever to understand?

I have consistently maintain in all scriptures that tongues werent met to be understood. That Paul's explanation of tongues to anyone is that it is not to be understood. So, asking the above is because you arent paying attention. How do you want me to practice what wasnt documented in the scriptures.

You are the one who hold such view that tongue can be understood by unbeliever, you are the one who explained that tongues was used for preaching, therefore you should be the one answering that. Hope you are satisfied now. Always read before having to ask.

Now,

Back to our discussion.
Does Paul's unbeliever understood tongues? Show me that from the scriptures.
Did Paul' tongue (his teaching on tongue) teaches that tongue can be understood by any (unbeliever/believer) without interpretation?
Explain how tongue was used for preaching and saving souls considering Paul's stand on tongues.

I am currently pointing you back to the very scriptures you started from which you think will solve the issue, but alas, you arent ready to stay on it again.


Also in separate post, i have raised you questions so as not to mix thing up. I need your answers to them.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Myer: 10:49pm On May 23
hoopernikao:


You are actually the one avoiding all my questions. I have given you not less than 4 questions you have avoided now.

Kindly pay attention.

What you ask me is not a question because if you are reading my writings well you wont even ask such question. The question is from the result of not reading properly and paying attention.

See it here
Your question: Have you ever spoken in another tongue (which you never knew) for an unbeliever to understand?

I have consistently maintain in all scriptures that tongues werent met to be understood. That Paul's explanation of tongues to anyone is that it is not to be understood. So, asking the above is because you arent paying attention. How do you want me to practice what wasnt documented in the scriptures.

You are the one who hold such view that tongue can be understood by unbeliever, you are the one who explained that tongues was used for preaching, therefore you should be the one answering that. Hope you are satisfied now. Always read before having to ask.

Now,

Back to our discussion.
Does Paul's unbeliever understood tongues? Show me that from the scriptures.
Did Paul' tongue (his teaching on tongue) teaches that tongue can be understood by any (unbeliever/believer) without interpretation?
Explain how tongue was used for preaching and saving souls considering Paul's stand on tongues.

I am currently pointing you back to the very scriptures you started from which you think will solve the issue, but alas, you arent ready to stay on it again.


Also in separate post, i have raised you questions so as not to mix thing up. I need your answers to them.

But I read them. Painstakingly if I must add.

You clearly don't want to acknowledge the obvious fact. That there are 2 types of tongues- known and unknown tongues.

You can't explain away the obvious exegesis in Acts 2:6. Tongues spoken here were clearly in various human dialects that were understood by those who heard them. Without the need of an interpreter.

But since you would rather choose your eisegesis, let me change my question then.

Have you ever interpreted anyone speaking in tongues?
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by hoopernikao: 10:54pm On May 23
Myer:


Clearly, there are two types of tongues, some bible scholars have carefully named these Known tongues (lord tongues of men) and Unknown tongues (or tongues of angels).

Apparently from the interaction in Acts 2:6 we can induce that the tongues spoken by disciples here were tongues of men, as various unbelievers from the corners of the world heard each his own language.

This is different from speaking tongues of angels which would require someone also given utterance of interpretation to understand.
Tongues of angels cannot be understood which is why Paul exhorts that it should be done in private except there be an interpreter, lest unbelievers think the person is mad.

grin grin grin grin

Bro, this your exegesis nah wah o. Tongues of angels kwa?

Dont you read bible again? I hope you havent started reading Gretchen and Hansel type of book. You need to calm down and start reading properly.

All you put above are just assumptions. You are only trying to defend what isnt there. Wondering who exactly is reading his own meaning into the scriptures.

So, now, Acts 2 and 1 Cor 14 tongues are different? grin grin grin grin 1 Cor 14 isnt human tongue again as you said?
You must be from the other side serously. grin

See, how you started.
You mentioned that unbeliever in Paul's doctrine understood tongues. That Paul taught tongues as human language, that is where you started from. And i have challenged that without you having an explanation, now you then turn now that it is angels language. You will soon see Lucife r language.

Apparently, you couldnt defend 1 Cor 14 with your "tongue is human langauge" again. So, firstly accept your error. That is Christiany

I maintain and tell you, that without reading Acts 2 meaning into your explanation, you cannot find anywhere Paul taught tongues as human language. No where. And to start splitting tongue to angel and human is both a lazy approach to Bible study and lack of sincerity to understand Bible language and style .



Tongues in Acts is what Paul explained., no difference. Go and get that down into you. Jesus didnt promise two different tongues. Stop confusing yourself.

I gave you a clue to Paul's' explanation and writing on tongues but you dont pay attention. Paul taught tongues with interpretation and prophecy, Peter explained Acts 2 as prophecy, other places in [b]Acts has prophecies and interpretation. Cant you read it well.[/b]



Well, we will get there. I think 1 Cor 14 is already getting clearer to you since you have opt that it is now ANGELIC TONGUE and not human. shocked shocked shocked

But please read well, again and again, So, that you dont manipulate Paul's teaching.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by MuttleyLaff: 10:59pm On May 23
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Myer: 11:02pm On May 23
hoopernikao:


grin grin grin grin

Bro, this your exegesis nah wah o. Tongues of angels kwa?

Dont you read bible again? I hope you havent started reading Gretchen and Hansel type of book. You need to calm down and start reading properly.

All you put above are just assumptions. You are only trying to defend what isnt there. Wondering who exactly is reading his own meaning into the scriptures.

So, now, Acts 2 and 1 Cor 14 tongues are different? grin grin grin grin 1 Cor 14 isnt human tongue again as you said?
You must be from the other side serously. grin

See, how you started.
You mentioned that unbeliever in Paul's doctrine understood tongues. That Paul taught tongues as human language, that is where you started from. And i have challenged that without you having an explanation, now you then turn now that it is angels language. You will soon see Lucife r language.

Apparently, you couldnt defend 1 Cor 14 with your "tongue is human langauge" again. So, firstly accept your error. That is Christiany

I maintain and tell you, that without reading Acts 2 meaning into your explanation, you cannot find anywhere Paul taught tongues as human language. No where. And to start splitting tongue to angel and human is both a lazy approach to Bible study and lack of sincerity to understand Bible language and style .



Tongues in Acts is what Paul explained., no difference. Go and get that down into you. Jesus didnt promise two different tongues. Stop confusing yourself.

I gave you a clue to Paul's' explanation and writing on tongues but you dont pay attention. Paul taught tongues with interpretation and prophecy, Peter explained Acts 2 as prophecy, other places in [b]Acts has prophecies and interpretation. Cant you read it well.[/b]



Well, we will get there. I think 1 Cor 14 is already getting clearer to you since you have opt that it is now ANGELIC TONGUE and not human. shocked shocked shocked

But please read well, again and again, So, that you dont manipulate Paul's teaching.

No need to argue whether there are tongues of men and Angels. Read it yourself.

1 Corinthians 13:1
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

I am curious to hear your eisegesis on this one.

1 Like

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by orisa37: 11:10pm On May 23
AS THE LORD DIRECTS.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by hoopernikao: 11:12pm On May 23
Myer:


But I read them. Painstakingly if I must add.

You clearly don't want to acknowledge the obvious fact. That there are 2 types of tongues- known and unknown tongues.

You can't explain away the obvious exegesis in Acts 2:6. Tongues spoken here were clearly in various human dialects that were understood by those who heard them. Without the need of an interpreter.

But since you would rather choose your eisegesis, let me change my question then.

Have you ever interpreted anyone speaking in tongues?

You consistently ask question without answering my. It is not my exegesis, it is Bible exegesis.

Firstly, you must understand that teaching (epistles) as i have told you must take preeminence on events. You must use teaching to explain events because it is doctrine that brings knowledge and stability. You already have a wrong bias of Acts 2 and that is affecting all your interpretation.



1. Tongues as taught in the bible is ONE. Except we want to start looking at what is not lost. You will need to re-read the only place Paul mentioned "tongues of angels" and read well in context. He wasnt discussing tongues rather.



2. Paul took time to explain tongues in 1 Cor 14, and all his explanation points to the facts that no one can understand it except interpreted. This is what i have passed across in this thread over 100 times. Anyone who says Paul taught tongues as human language carried the bias and wrong interpretation of Acts 2. By Paul's teaching tongues is not human language and it cant be understood by unbeliever or believer.



3. Tongues exegesis was fully taught by Paul side by side with INTERPRETATION AND PROPHECY. I have said this 4 times now. That is the key to unravel your thoughts. Where tongue exist, interpretation and prophecy must be present for others to be blessed. Acts 2, they were blessed, Acts 8 same, Acts 10, same, Acts 19 same. Tongues will bless no man except the speaker. This is a foundational doctrine on tongues you must first accept.. and then read other places in scriptures as such.



4. In Bible interpretation, know that bible has what with called GENRE. That is, the style of writing and type of writing. You must fully understand this to know how to handle each book of the bible. Not all books of the bible are doctrine. We have Genre: Prophecies, Psalms, Epistles, Proverbs etc. The moment you start treating a non doctrinal book as doctrine you will have issues.
I have mentioned to you how book of Acts must be handled. It is an historical record of the early churches, including practices, pattern and events. You will also know that their was progressing knowledge in how they handle things overtime. That must be understood well.



Epistles are doctrines, teachings to you and i, to the church. They are direct instructions to you and i. They give you knowledge. That is where you must established all doctrine. When it is not taught dont go there, when it is stay there. But the challenge you have hard over time is you cant differentiate this so you end up mixing things up.

You must first understand tongues as doctrine (Epistles) before understanding its events in Acts. And you cant ever established in Epistles that tongue is heard by any human. Never. Take this to the bank.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by hoopernikao: 11:18pm On May 23
Myer:


No need to argue whether there are tongues of men and Angels. Read it yourself.

1 Corinthians 13:1
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

I am curious to hear your eisegesis on this one.

This should be handled differently. I wont look into this to avoid distraction. We have a serious view at hand and must keep that focus.

All i would say for now on this is proper context is key.
And also, by rule of bible interpretation, you cant build a doctrine from a single mention activities that have no corroboration. Such doctrine will fall flat when questioned.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Myer: 11:23pm On May 23
hoopernikao:


You are actually the one avoiding all my questions. I have given you not less than 4 questions you have avoided now.

Kindly pay attention.

What you ask me is not a question because if you are reading my writings well you wont even ask such question. The question is from the result of not reading properly and paying attention.

See it here
Your question: Have you ever spoken in another tongue (which you never knew) for an unbeliever to understand?

I have consistently maintain in all scriptures that tongues werent met to be understood. That Paul's explanation of tongues to anyone is that it is not to be understood. So, asking the above is because you arent paying attention. How do you want me to practice what wasnt documented in the scriptures.

You are the one who hold such view that tongue can be understood by unbeliever, you are the one who explained that tongues was used for preaching, therefore you should be the one answering that. Hope you are satisfied now. Always read before having to ask.

Now,

Back to our discussion.
Does Paul's unbeliever understood tongues? Show me that from the scriptures.
Did Paul' tongue (his teaching on tongue) teaches that tongue can be understood by any (unbeliever/believer) without interpretation?
Explain how tongue was used for preaching and saving souls considering Paul's stand on tongues.

I am currently pointing you back to the very scriptures you started from which you think will solve the issue, but alas, you arent ready to stay on it again.


Also in separate post, i have raised you questions so as not to mix thing up. I need your answers to them.

Why will you limit a discussion on tongues to only 1 Corinthians 14? Or to only Paul's teachings?

Like I have already answered you earlier in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost when the gift of tongues was first recorded in the scriptures, we see clearly that it was indeed a sign to unbelievers as they were each preached to in their various dialects. It is noteworthy that they understood the tongues without the need of an interpreter. Hence it was tongues of men.

Acts 2: 6-13
Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,

10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,

11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?

13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

If I must add, some believed and were converted but still there were those who didn't believe.

I do hope this answers all your questions.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Finallydead: 11:28pm On May 23
Acehart:


Hi,

Hope your day was spent in the best way you could? Concerning the angel question, Paul had made a similar statement in Galatians 1:8: But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!

Paul wasn’t saying an angel would come from heaven to preach another gospel; He was just stressing the form of creatures who have the capacity of speech to the superlative degree; a statement made by conjecture. Paul definitely knows he wouldn’t teach anything contrary yet he brings up the sanctity of the gospel and how it should be protected in the hearts of those in Galatia (against men and creatures). The same tone is used in 1 Corinthians 13:1. In both cases, Paul is using an “if” condition; I mean: “if” is used introduce possible or impossible situations or conditions and their results. The situations or conditions can be real, imagined or uncertain. I could tell a conductor who insults me after his bus driver hits my bike: if I slap you, you go die. I am referring to a possible condition of him dying if I slapped him. Did I slap him? Yes, two dirty slaps, but he didn’t die. That means the result was imagined.

I hope you understand.

My day is blessed, thanks a lot. Wish you grace and peace from the Father as well.
Acehart, you must, if you're willing to, learn to put all scriptures in their context. Only an unskilful workman(2Tim2:15) does otherwise.

You just by comparing 1Cor13 with Gal1:8, discarded the context of 1Cor13. You are now guilty of inserting those seeming insignificant words from Gal1:8 that completely change its idea, like Muttley did that I was correcting.
An emphatic NO. It is not one bit the same tone that Paul uses in both.
And how can we confirm that? Follow the two different stories.
In Gal1:8, Paul used those words Mutt was trying to add to 1Cor13
Gal 1:8 KJV BUT EVEN IF we, OR an angel from heaven...
You see those bolded words there, they make it only an unrealistic example flowing with the context that "...some were perverting the gospel of Christ..."(v7).

That was why I had to make sure Muttleylaff got caught trying to add those.


But 1Cor13 is very different.
1Co 13:1 KJV If(no "but"/no "even" ) I speak with the tongues of men AND (no "or even" ) of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
You see the absence of those words make a huge difference when you put the text in its context from 1Cor 12:31. The "and" also is very important because it shows a strict pairing and joining of the two into the gift called "sorts of tongues".
The even larger context of 1Cor13:1 begins in 1Cor12:1, which is a branch/new string in the entire letter. We can title this segment "Concerning the Spiritual...(1Cor12:1)". So in 1Cor12, he goes on to list out gifts. After all that, he ends the chapter by saying

1Co 12:31 KJV But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet(or plus) shew I unto you a more excellent way(love)

So in 1Cor13:1, he describes a scenario (not an impossible one but a very possible) hence "if" in which the best gifts(from 1Cor12) are used minus love to show that these plus love is the more excellent way.

With all the explanation I did up there about 1Cor13:1-3, you ought to have already seen that Paul is calling REAL gifts already listed in 1Cor12 in 1Cor13:1-3, not some impossible scenarios. Not one of the gifts listed there was an impossible gift. So, if you want to single out tongues of angels as impossible, do it for every other gift listed in v1-3. Mutt, of course, knows better than to cheerlead you for that.
It's plain and simple, if you are humbly and objectively searching for truth and not trying to hold on to a position.
One last thing, on a field of search for truth, try not to be distracted by cheers and hugs. Maintain your focus until you find truth. If you still honestly don't know, I advise you go back to God in prayer.

God bless you.

1 Like

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Myer: 11:32pm On May 23
hoopernikao:


You consistently ask question without answering my. It is not my exegesis, it is Bible exegesis.

Firstly, you must understand that teaching (epistles) as i have told you must take preeminence on events. You must use teaching to explain events because it is doctrine that brings knowledge and stability. You already have a wrong bias of Acts 2 and that is affecting all your interpretation.



1. Tongues as taught in the bible is ONE. Except we want to start looking at what is not lost. You will need to re-read the only place Paul mentioned "tongues of angels" and read well in context. He wasnt discussing tongues rather.



2. Paul took time to explain tongues in 1 Cor 14, and all his explanation points to the facts that no one can understand it except interpreted. This is what i have passed across in this thread over 100 times. Anyone who says Paul taught tongues as human language carried the bias and wrong interpretation of Acts 2. By Paul's teaching tongues is not human language and it cant be understood by unbeliever or believer.



3. Tongues exegesis was fully taught by Paul side by side with INTERPRETATION AND PROPHECY. I have said this 4 times now. That is the key to unravel your thoughts. Where tongue exist, interpretation and prophecy must be present for others to be blessed. Acts 2, they were blessed, Acts 8 same, Acts 10, same, Acts 19 same. Tongues will bless no man except the speaker. This is a foundational doctrine on tongues you must first accept.. and then read other places in scriptures as such.



4. In Bible interpretation, know that bible has what with called GENRE. That is, the style of writing and type of writing. You must fully understand this to know how to handle each book of the bible. Not all books of the bible are doctrine. We have Genre: Prophecies, Psalms, Epistles, Proverbs etc. The moment you start treating a non doctrinal book as doctrine you will have issues.
I have mentioned to you how book of Acts must be handled. It is an historical record of the early churches, including practices, pattern and events. You will also know that their was progressing knowledge in how they handle things overtime. That must be understood well.



Epistles are doctrines, teachings to you and i, to the church. They are direct instructions to you and i. They give you knowledge. That is where you must established all doctrine. When it is not taught dont go there, when it is stay there. But the challenge you have hard over time is you cant differentiate this so you end up mixing things up.

You must first understand tongues as doctrine (Epistles) before understanding its events in Acts. And you cant ever established in Epistles that tongue is heard by any human. Never. Take this to the bank.

Does doctrine change the meaning of what was written in the bible?

An account was given of the event that happened in Acts 2 where the promise of the Holy ghost was fulfilled and descended on the disciples. With it the signs followed as the prophecy of Joel came to pass and the spoke with new tongues.

Do you mean because it was not an epistle written by Paul, this book is irrelevant in understanding the gift of tongues?

At this point, I may need to digress and ask you a more important question. Are you a follower of Paul or Jesus Christ? Just checking oh.
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Myer: 11:38pm On May 23
hoopernikao:


This should be handled differently. I wont look into this to avoid distraction. We have a serious view at hand and must keep that focus.

All i would say for now on this is proper context is key.
And also, by rule of bible interpretation, you cant build a doctrine from a single mention activities that have no corroboration. Such doctrine will fall flat when questioned.

Lol I see. Can you pleeeease expatiate on your meaning of context is key?

Paul here highlights the various spiritual gifts and clearly stated distinctly the tongues of men and angels.
If you read further you will see him list the various spiritual gifts while pointing to how Love is above all.

I have of course heard some still explain this away, which is why I was curious to hear yours.

1 Like

Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by MuttleyLaff: 11:39pm On May 23
Finallydead:
My day is blessed, thanks a lot. Wish you grace and peace from the Father as well.
Acehart, you must, if you're willing to, learn to put all scriptures in their context. Only an unskilful workman(2Tim2:15) does otherwise.

You just by comparing 1Cor13 with Gal1:8, discarded the context of 1Cor13. You are now guilty of inserting those seeming insignificant words from Gal1:8 that completely change its idea, like Muttley did that I was correcting.
An emphatic NO. It is not one bit the same tone that Paul uses in both.
And how can we confirm that? Follow the two different stories.
In Gal1:8, Paul used those words Mutt was trying to add to 1Cor13
Gal 1:8 KJV BUT EVEN IF we, OR an angel from heaven...
You see those bolded words there, they make it only an unrealistic example flowing with the context that "...some were perverting the gospel of Christ..."(v7).

That was why I had to make sure Muttleylaff got caught trying to add those.


But 1Cor13 is very different.
1Co 13:1 KJV If(no "but"/no "even" ) I speak with the tongues of men AND (no "or even" ) of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
You see the absence of those words make a huge difference when you put the text in its context from 1Cor 12:31. The "and" also is very important because it shows a strict pairing and joining of the two into the gift called "sorts of tongues".
The even larger context of 1Cor13:1 begins in 1Cor12:1, which is a branch/new string in the entire letter. We can title this segment "Concerning the Spiritual...(1Cor12:1)". So in 1Cor12, he goes on to list out gifts. After all that, he ends the chapter by saying

1Co 12:31 KJV But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet(or plus) shew I unto you a more excellent way(love)

So in 1Cor13:1, he describes a scenario (not an impossible one but a very possible) hence "if" in which the best gifts(from 1Cor12) are used minus love to show that these plus love is the more excellent way.

With all the explanation I did up there about 1Cor13:1-3, you ought to have already seen that Paul is calling REAL gifts already listed in 1Cor12 in 1Cor13:1-3, not some impossible scenarios. Not one of the gifts listed there was an impossible gift. So, if you want to single out tongues of angels as impossible, do it for every other gift listed in v1-3. Mutt, of course, knows better than to cheerlead you for that.
It's plain and simple, if you are humbly and objectively searching for truth and not trying to hold on to a position.
One last thing, on a field of search for truth, try not to be distracted by cheers and hugs. Maintain your focus until you find truth. If you still honestly don't know, I advise you go back to God in prayer.

God bless you.
Finallydead, do everyone a favour and yourself, please pull out your best ever interlinear to paste here 1 Corinthians 13:1, for a word for word peer review
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Myer: 11:45pm On May 23
Finallydead:


My day is blessed, thanks a lot. Wish you grace and peace from the Father as well.
Acehart, you must, if you're willing to, learn to put all scriptures in their context. Only an unskilful workman(2Tim2:15) does otherwise.

You just by comparing 1Cor13 with Gal1:8, discarded the context of 1Cor13. You are now guilty of inserting those seeming insignificant words from Gal1:8 that completely change its idea, like Muttley did that I was correcting.
An emphatic NO. It is not one bit the same tone that Paul uses in both.
And how can we confirm that? Follow the two different stories.
In Gal1:8, Paul used those words Mutt was trying to add to 1Cor13
Gal 1:8 KJV BUT EVEN IF we, OR an angel from heaven...
You see those bolded words there, they make it only an unrealistic example flowing with the context that "...some were perverting the gospel of Christ..."(v7).

That was why I had to make sure Muttleylaff got caught trying to add those.


But 1Cor13 is very different.
1Co 13:1 KJV If(no "but"/no "even" ) I speak with the tongues of men AND (no "or even" ) of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
You see the absence of those words make a huge difference when you put the text in its context from 1Cor 12:31. The "and" also is very important because it shows a strict pairing and joining of the two into the gift called "sorts of tongues".
The even larger context of 1Cor13:1 begins in 1Cor12:1, which is a branch/new string in the entire letter. We can title this segment "Concerning the Spiritual...(1Cor12:1)". So in 1Cor12, he goes on to list out gifts. After all that, he ends the chapter by saying

1Co 12:31 KJV But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet(or plus) shew I unto you a more excellent way(love)

So in 1Cor13:1, he describes a scenario (not an impossible one but a very possible) hence "if" in which the best gifts(from 1Cor12) are used minus love to show that these plus love is the more excellent way.

With all the explanation I did up there about 1Cor13:1-3, you ought to have already seen that Paul is calling REAL gifts already listed in 1Cor12 in 1Cor13:1-3, not some impossible scenarios. Not one of the gifts listed there was an impossible gift. So, if you want to single out tongues of angels as impossible, do it for every other gift listed in v1-3. Mutt, of course, knows better than to cheerlead you for that.
It's plain and simple, if you are humbly and objectively searching for truth and not trying to hold on to a position.
One last thing, on a field of search for truth, try not to be distracted by cheers and hugs. Maintain your focus until you find truth. If you still honestly don't know, I advise you go back to God in prayer.

God bless you.

QED.
I couldn't have said it better.

Permit me to mention hoopernikao.
This is how to read the meaning of scripture (exegesis) and not read your own meaning into scriptures.(eisegesis)
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by Acehart: 11:53pm On May 23
Finallydead:


My day is blessed, thanks a lot. Wish you grace and peace from the Father as well.
Acehart, you must, if you're willing to, learn to put all scriptures in their context. Only an unskilful workman(2Tim2:15) does otherwise.

You just by comparing 1Cor13 with Gal1:8, discarded the context of 1Cor13. You are now guilty of inserting those seeming insignificant words from Gal1:8 that completely change its idea, like Muttley did that I was correcting.
An emphatic NO. It is not one bit the same tone that Paul uses in both.
And how can we confirm that? Follow the two different stories.
In Gal1:8, Paul used those words Mutt was trying to add to 1Cor13
Gal 1:8 KJV BUT EVEN IF we, OR an angel from heaven...
You see those bolded words there, they make it only an unrealistic example flowing with the context that "...some were perverting the gospel of Christ..."(v7).

That was why I had to make sure Muttleylaff got caught trying to add those.


But 1Cor13 is very different.
1Co 13:1 KJV If(no "but"/no "even" ) I speak with the tongues of men AND (no "or even" ) of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
You see the absence of those words make a huge difference when you put the text in its context from 1Cor 12:31. The "and" also is very important because it shows a strict pairing and joining of the two into the gift called "sorts of tongues".
The even larger context of 1Cor13:1 begins in 1Cor12:1, which is a branch/new string in the entire letter. We can title this segment "Concerning the Spiritual...(1Cor12:1)". So in 1Cor12, he goes on to list out gifts. After all that, he ends the chapter by saying

1Co 12:31 KJV But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet(or plus) shew I unto you a more excellent way(love)

So in 1Cor13:1, he describes a scenario (not an impossible one but a very possible) hence "if" in which the best gifts(from 1Cor12) are used minus love to show that these plus love is the more excellent way.

With all the explanation I did up there about 1Cor13:1-3, you ought to have already seen that Paul is calling REAL gifts already listed in 1Cor12 in 1Cor13:1-3, not some impossible scenarios. Not one of the gifts listed there was an impossible gift. So, if you want to single out tongues of angels as impossible, do it for every other gift listed in v1-3. Mutt, of course, knows better than to cheerlead you for that.
It's plain and simple, if you are humbly and objectively searching for truth and not trying to hold on to a position.
One last thing, on a field of search for truth, try not to be distracted by cheers and hugs. Maintain your focus until you find truth. If you still honestly don't know, I advise you go back to God in prayer.

God bless you.

Please permit me to change the word “tongues” in chapter 12 to the word “Voice”. Also permit me to change the word “angels” in chapter 13 to “Lucifer”; and the word “men” to “Mariah Carey”. I would also like to change the word “speak” to “sing”; and “love” to “humility”. If you permit, I would like to carry on with the paraphrasing of 1 Corinthians 13.1.

If I sing with the voice of Mariah Carey(s) and of Lucifer (since many say he led the heavenly choir), but do not have humility, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

Is it possible that I will sing with the voices of Mariah Carey or Lucifer, the Choir master?
Re: I Should Speak In Tongues, Right? by MuttleyLaff: 12:17am On May 24

(1) (2) (3) ... (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) ... (19) (Reply)

Crucifixion Of Jesus In Err - Bible / You Rob God, When You Refuse To Help Others By Azemobor Gregory / Your Quiet Time With God. How Interesting?

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2020 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 737
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.