₦airaland Forum

orunto27:
Hebrew don't have vowel sound.Yeshua has three vowels and that is too many for a word in Hebrew. Issve is simply issue in English language and means "Jesus is the Issue in Christianity". Issv in Hebrew is pronounced Yeshua in Greeks, Joshua in Aramaic and Jesus in KJV. These are just tribal tongues and pronunciation s for a word that simply means "anointed".

Great contribution

christemmbassey:
I believe, 'cessationism' is another gosgei, jjust like prosperity, Mary, and die die by fire, holy ghost fire,, assignents etc etc. @WINSOMEX, sorry, i've nt bn aftive on fb and Nl recently, and must av missed ur position on cessationism. Pls can u, in a very words let me in to ur mind as regards cessationists' perpective. Jesus is Lord!

The thread is about spiritual abuse in churches. Please make time and study the book. Am very much interested in your views. Stay blessed

WinsomeX:
The simplest way of exegesis of biblical doctrine is to have at least two scriptures to support it. If Pentecostals use only 1 Cor 14:4 as basis for edification of self and can find no other scripture to either support it or even find some other scriptures that speak of other gift edifying self, they must rest content on the fact that Tongues for Self Edification is false doctrine. Paul stated tongues edifying self in 1 Cor 14:4 in a negative context in contrast with prophesy edifying the church, which is positive.

Winsomex,
Unfortunately this is your own rule. And am surprised you would invoke it seeing you have derived unknown tongue vs tongues distinction WITHOUT a single verse to support your Eisegesis. This broda can't keep his own rules,and he expects us to observe them failure to which we are labeled as peddlers of false doctrine

A simple question I leave you with is, what is 1 Corinthians 14:4 saying?
Once you gain enough courage to answer that, please tell me what scripture 14:4 contradicts or appears to contradict.


Cc Gombs

WinsomeX:
[size=3pt]Vooks, Let me respond to the matter of pagan worship and the fact that modern tongue speaking is one and the same. My reference remains 1 Cor 14:2 -

1 Corinthians 14:2 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.

In the opening statement of this thread, I showed clearly that the tongue or language Paul describes in this verse has 3 xtics:

1. They're not understandable.
2. They were mystery languages.
3. They were spoken to "theo": God or a god - the context telling us which is which.

The testimony of Acts 2 and 1 Cor 14 shows clearly that true biblical tongues are understandable. That these tongues were not mystery languages but languages that could be interpreted. This is the scripture modern Pentecostals latch on to justify unintelligible gibberish. Unfortunately no scripture tells us tongues are unintelligible. No one prayed with unintelligible tongues in the bible. Jesus never did. Where then do Pentecostals get there example: pagans. Consider this quote from the an article online:

But this practice(tongues) is not only a recent phenomenon, but was common in pagan worship long before Christ came. Robert G. Gromacki, in The Modern Tongues Movement
(pp 5-10), documents the history of “speaking in tongues” in antiquity. Some of these ecstatic babbling were reported in the “Report of Wenamon” (about 1100 BC), Plato’s Dialogues (5th century BC), and Virgil’s Aeneid (1st century BC). The Graeco- Roman mystery religions before and after the Christian era most probably practiced these babbling utterances.

The article is titled: THE PAGAN ORIGIN OF MODERN TONGUES. Note the fact that it was a cultural norm in the first century. www.twoagespilgrims.com/doctrine/the-pagan-origin-of-modern-speaking-in-tongues/

When we read the NT we must understand that the epistles were written to a people, with a challenge, living within a defined culture. Corinth was a cosmopolitan city with pagan worship everywhere. The biggest challenge of that church was divorcing pagan/worldly influences from its style of worship. Consider this long quote from John MacArthur as he introduces his sermons on 1 Cor 14 -

"Now, such ecstasies and ecstatic speech is very common in pagan religion. And I’m not going to take the time this morning to go from one end of the world and one end of history to the present to prove that, but I want you to understand that. That this is a very common thing in pagan religion. I was reading an article this week about how common it is among the Zulus in Africa, this kind of ecstatic, gibberish speech. And we’ve discussed that in the past. But let me give you a little background on the Corinthian situation. Remember that, for the most part, the Corinthians had allowed the entire world system in which they existed to infiltrate their assembly. For example, they were all hung up with human philosophies, the first four chapters say. They had a hero worship cult just like their society did; Chapter 3 talks about that. They were involved in terrible, gross, sexual immorality; Chapters 5 and 6 talks about that. They were suing each other in the court; Chapter 6 talks about that. They had fouled up the home and marriage and misevaluated that whole thing; Chapter 7 talks about that. They were all confused about pagan feasts and idolatry and things offered to idols; Chapters 8, 9 and 10 talks about that. They had goofed up the proper place of women in the church; Chapter 11 talks about that. They had misconstrued the whole dimension of spiritual gifts; Chapter 12 talks about that. And they had lost hold of the one great thing, love; Chapter 13 talks about that. They had let the entire mass of the Satanic system that existed in their society infiltrate the church. And once it came in, in with it came pagan style of religion, with all of the ecstasies and all of its eroticisms and all of its sensualities. They bought the whole bag, and so the whole thing is a confused amalgamation of truth and error.

A modern parallelism would be that of Roman Catholicism, which is a combination of Christianity out of the Bible and ancient Baal worship, and the Mother and Child cult that was originally known as Ashtoreth and Tammuz. The same thing occurred in the Corinthian church. It was Christianity in part and paganism in part, all wedded together.

If you study the Greco-Roman world in the time of the Corinthian church, you would know that they had various priest and priestesses, and people who were devotees of the gods would go to these great temples and they would worship these priests and priestesses. And it was very common for a devotee would go into an ecstasy. And ecstasy means “to go out of oneself.” That’s the literal meaning of the word, to go out of yourself. They would literally flip out and they would go into an unconscious state, in which they would have all kinds of phenomena occur, a psychic kind of phenomena. They would believe that when they went out of themselves, they literally left the body, and they ascended into space and they connected to deity, whatever deity they were worshiping, and they began with the deity. And once they began to commune with that deity, they would begin to speak the language of the gods. This was a very common thing in their culture. So the term used in Corinthians, glssais lalein, to speak in tongues, was not invented by Bible writers, but was a term used commonly in the Greco-Roman culture to speak of pagan ecstasy and going out of the body, connecting with the deity and, in a mystical way, beginning to speak the language of the gods, which came out as some kind of gobbledygook and gibberish.

Now, the Greeks even had a word for this ecstatic religious experience. You’ll be interested to know what the word was. It was the word “eros.” Remember that word? We sometimes translate it as sensual love. But the word is a bigger word than that; it has a broader meaning. The word eros simply means “the desire for the sensual” or “the desire for the erotic,” or “the desire for the ecstasy,” or “the desire for the ultimate experience or the feeling.” And the kind of religion they had was erotic religion. It was religion designed to be felt. It was sensual, ecstatic kind of religion. And you’ll remember, if you studied those religions, that when they went to those temples and to those priestesses to worship, they actually entered into orgies, didn't they. And that whole idea of erotic and sexual and sensual and ecstatic and the gibberish that went on with divine utterances, all was rolled into one big ball under the mystery religions that had spawned in Babylon and had come into the Corinthian society. And I’m not going to take the time to read you all of the information on that, but there is tremendous historical information that tells us that this did occur.

Now, I’m afraid that what has happened today in the Charismatic movement is just a reproduction of exactly what happened in Corinth. The church, because of a deadness and because of years of ignorance of the true work of the Holy Spirit, and because of a lack of really fine Bible teaching in many places, and because of the, just the dearth of anything really significant going on, people in the church began to reach out and to want to feel God and to sense reality. And Satan’s counterfeit came flooding in the door, and what happened now, in the Charismatic Movement, is simply Corinth revisited. The church has married the system of pagan religion again, and we have developed a sensual, feeling, experiential, erotic kind of approach to religion. Only we call it the work of the Holy Spirit when, in fact, it is the counterfeit of Satan. If you were to find time to talk with various people who have been involved in it, you would find that some of their experiences are very much in that way, very sensual, very feeling-oriented.

I have a letter in my hand, which I won’t take time to read…but probably will incorporate in the book…which is from a lady in our church who was sharing with me the amazing experience that she had when they tried to get her to speak in tongues. And there was the lying on the floor, and all kinds of various things that occurred that were very much oriented toward the emotion and stimulating the feeling, and not the thinking and the mind, as the Word of God would indicate.

Now, to give you another illustration, there is the…there's a pamphlet written by a former leader of the Pentecostal movement in which he gives a testimony, and this is what he says: “Finally, I went to the mission at 328 W. 63rd Street, Chicago, and asked only one question. ‘Why do I not receive the baptism? What is the matter with me?’ The good friends prayed with me and said nothing was wrong, I only needed to wait. “Praise the Lord they were right. “For the first time I knelt at the altar on Sunday afternoon, March 17, the power began to seize me and I laughed all through the following communion service. In the evening, about 11 p.m., I knelt with a few of the friends praying for me (Elder So-and-So placed his hands on my head for a short time, several times during the afternoon and evening). And after some little waiting I began to laugh, or rather my body was used to laugh with increasing power until I was flat on my back laughing at the top of my voice for over half an hour. “On raising, I found that I was drunk on the new wine, acting just like a drunken man in many ways and full of joy. On kneeling to meet the Lord again, I was suddenly seized with irresistible power of beseechings with groanings that could not be uttered, asking the Lord to have mercy on me a sinner, and telling Him that I wanted to go all the way with Him. The power of this praying was too great for me to endure, and suddenly my eyes opened to see Elder So-and-So, who had been standing a few feet away, fall as though he had been struck. I was relieved, and in a few seconds was straight up in the air screaming ‘Glory!’ at the top of my voice. “Again kneeling, my eyes grew dark, and I was rolled over to the floor, lying there for some time nearly unconscious. Then coming to and kneeling, I felt my jaws and mouth being worked by a strange force. In a few seconds, some baby gibberish was uttered, then a few words in Chinese that I understood, and then several sentences in a strange tongue. This turned into singing, and I did not again speak in tongues until Wednesday, three days later.” Now, what is going on there? All kinds of feeling experiences, all kinds of emotionalism, all kinds of sensual things in the broadest term of sensual, that is, apprehended by the senses rather than the mind. This was very common to pagan religion. Plato, in his dialogues…and, incidentally, Plato lived from 429 to 347 B.C., before Christ. And in his Dialogues, he has page after page after page describing these pagan ecstasies of speech. This was not anything that belonged to Christianity. In Christianity, it was the true gift of languages, used only when somebody who spoke the language was present in order that it might be a sign that God was there and that God’s people were speaking God’s truth. Never was it intended to be confused with paganism. But, as always, whenever God does something, Satan counterfeits it, doesn’t he? And that confuses the issue. And so Satan’s smokescreen to cloud the true revelatory work of the Holy Spirit in the early church were phony revelations and phony visions and phony tongues. And that’s why, 1 John, John says when somebody comes along and starts telling you they speak for God, you’d better “test the spirits.” It’s easy to fall prey to the phony. And the Corinthians, because they had decided to marry the spirit of the age, were victims. Now remember, Satan is called “the god of this age,” Satan is called “the spirit who energizes the children of disobedience.” Satan is the one who wants to be like God and Satan appears “transformed as an angel of light.” He wants to counterfeit reality; he wants the church to buy a phony. That’s his business.

And so we see in heathenism all that fake, and here, in Corinth, it had engulfed the church. And I’m afraid it’s doing the same today. There are no ecstasies, no sensualities, no eroticisms, no going out of yourself ever associated in the New Testament with the true work of the Holy Spirit. Never. Never. In fact, in 14:32 it says, “The spirits of the prophets must be subject to the prophets.” Nobody ever gives up his spirit; nobody ever loses control; nobody ever goes out of himself in terms of that which God has designed. And that’s why, at the end of the 14th chapter, the final word of the apostle Paul’s final is, “Let everything be done decently,” and what? “in order.” This is not the Holy Spirit’s way. It is not the Holy Spirit’s way to have everybody jumping up, and everybody has a Psalm – “ verse 26 “ – and everybody a doctrine and everybody a revelation and everybody an interpretation, and everybody wanting to speak in ecstasy, and everybody wanting to have a vision, and so forth. That’s the confusion of paganism that has engulfed the church. And I mean it was sophisticated stuff. The mystery religions of Babylon that had dominated the time of the Corinthian culture, they had developed all kinds of rites and rituals and vows and baptisms, and animal sacrifices and feasts and fasts and ablutions for sin, like dunking in a frozen river or crawling on your knees for miles. They had all kinds of things that were phony religious things, and ecstatic speeches and visions and prophecies were all a part of it. And they had all come to Corinth, and to assemble with the Corinthian Christians was to enter a situation of absolute chaos, total chaos. Do you know that 12th chapter says that people were actually standing up and cursing Jesus in tongues, and people were saying, “Oh, it must be the Holy Spirit”? That’s why he says, “The Holy Spirit doesn't call Jesus accursed.” Just confusion. The wild frenzy of the Greek paganism became madness in the Corinthian church.” And one writer says, “They, like the pagans, no doubt uttered And one writer says, “They, like the pagans, no doubt uttered their ecstatic speech with foaming lips and streaming hair.” And, beloved, as much as I wish it weren’t true, I’m convinced that today what we see in the Charismatic movement is the same kind of engulfing of the church in pagan religion. A counterfeit has been accepted because it impacts the emotions of people, who for a long time have sat in a church where they never got anything that changed their lives. And so Paul writes the 14th chapter to correct it."

My apologies for such a lengthy lost but it was needed seeing that I'm being accused of blasphemy already.

Now my summation on this thread is simple: 1 Cor 14 teaches two types of tongues and virtually on Pentecostals agree to this. One is the prayer tongue directed to God, unintelligible, not subject to interpretation, etc. The other is the interpretable tongue. My contention is that Paul was talking of two tongues also, but one is pagan babble. The other the genuine tongue. I'm saying that the pagan babble is what modern Pentecostals speak. If this is not so then respond to my three points challenge earlier:

1. Show us where else the bible teaches that tongues or any other gift of the Spirit where given for self benefit or edification?
2. Tell us what tongues spoken today by Pentecostals cannot be interpreted.
3. Tell us in honest fact if you cannot see a similarity BTW the Corinthian Confusion and modern Charismatic Chaos.

To avoid repetition, I shall not be discussing matters I've trashed on this thread. And I'm convinced I am done with the matter of tongues being pagan babble. Everyone has a right to their opinion.

Cheers.[/size]

The lengthy diatribe is unnecessary
You had a simple job; withdraw the claim you are regurgitating here that 1 Corinthians 14:2 is referring to a pagan experience complete with a pagan deity.

Why withdraw? Because it is baseless and a figment of some fertile imagination, and necessarily blasphemous

Existence of pagan tongues in first century is no proof.

Cessationism has extremely WEAK or non-existent exegetical basis. This is its achille's heel. Seeing no scripture supports them, they must resort to theological gymnastics we are seeing and invoke every imaginable EXTRA-BIBLICAL argument.

WinsomeX:
Vooks, I accept the fact that "unknown" is an interpolation. I also accept the fact that "unknown tongue" is not sufficient evidence to label something pagan, whether as singular or plural as the text clearly shows (And do remember that had used "may" in my OP to suggest this earlier). I however have stated the reason above I'm convinced modern tongues is pagan. Refer.

Winsomex,
This is not a case of insufficient evidence but ZERO evidence at all. There is no possibility that ANY of the 6 instances of UNKNOWN tongues refer to anything other than the gift of the Holy Spirit. So your fence-sitting 'may' does not count unless you demonstrate how, which you haven't so far. When busy filling up yourself with knowledge, you need to be impartial enough to call out heresies and lies. You also owe it to your fellow brothers in Christ a duty of care so you don't peddle them. You are stumbling some who can't see through these lies.

One other thing I might have left out is this: the fact that modern tongue is used as a means for self edification. I have asked above where else can we find spiritual gifts being used for self edification as all gifts are meant for the body or church edification.

You want to ask yourself why you are looking for this ELSEWHERE. Exactly what does Paul mean by this verse? Why would you run all over while ignoring this verse? Is there a better depiction of intellectual dishonesty? This is worse; this is scoffing the very Word of Life
1 Corinthians 14:4 (KJV)
He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church

And suddenly I have an epiphany. I now know why your sources vainly strive to distinguish UNKNOWN tongue from tongues; the whole point is to neuter this verse!

While ideally tongue(s) should be interpreted so all can be edified just as prophecy, the gift in and of itself doth EDIFY the speaker.

The point I need make here is this; the self edification aim of modern tongue speakers is at the root of the prosperity message that has turned the Christian gospel to a self benefitting one. Pentecostalism leads ultimately to Prosperity Preaching. It is this direct fruit bearing quality of pentecostals that is rock proof that the self edifying aim of their movement through tongues has no root in scripture neither is it authored by God's Holy Spirit.

The point I must make is uninterpteted tongue edifies the speaker alone while interpreted tongue edifies the hearers just like prophecy. What some make of this edifying is IRRELEVANT to this simple truth. One does not study doctrine from practice but practice proceeds from doctrine. All those arguments you have just strung together are IRRELEVANT in unraveling 1 Corinthians 14:4

ABDULADINO:
Thanks vooks, you have enlightened me here.

Not unto me but to God be the glory if I have shared a truth with you sir

christemmbassey:
@winsomex, longtime! @Vooks, kudos!

Welcome back

Briefly,
1. UNKNOWN is translator's interpolation
2. UNKNOWN is used 6 times in 1 Corinthians 14 and without exception with the singular tongue-v2,4,13,14,19,27
3. There are 2 instances of singular tongue in the same chapter without the UNKNOWN interpolation- v13 and v26, and v26 is beyond doubt talking about the gift.
4. Tongue and tongues are used for individuals
5. There is ZERO basis for isolating one of the 6 UNKNOWN tongue instances and reading paganism in it
6. No gift of tongue or tongues is forbidden, they are just regulated

And this is specifically for Winsomex. Cessationists love vilifying and ridiculing exercise of spiritual gifts and MacArthur has said worst things about them. But you cross the line when you ascribe to Paul things he never said just to bolster your 'modern tongues are/resemble pagan practices' narrative

WinsomeX:
Now if you're talking about inconsistency, this is first verse you should have thrown up. But all the same we can still find consistency in it.

Remember the inconsistency is in your constructs not the verse. To me and all honest believers, the verse has some simple truths that even a heathen can comprehend namely, praying in tongues is not a mental exercise.

Note first, the three inconsistencies of modern tongues, which i mentioned earlier, which this passage clearly defines.

Apples to oranges. I can't note any of your points from this verse. Whether they are right or wrong is another thing altogether

Secondly, Paul is speaking here about tongues. Note that the word "unknown" is suggested by the interpreters.

No sir, Paul is talking about an unknown tongue while Winsomex is reading tongues. Did Holy Spirit inspire the plural or was it interpolation?
1 Corinthians 14:14 (KJV)
For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

Could it be that the inconsistency is not in the original intent of the passage but in the interpreter's. Obviously that verse 14 should have read:

1 Corinthians 14:14 (KJV)
For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

If you read it without the "unknown", the consistency return except that the singular is an obvious reference to a singular Paul speaking a singular tongue or language which he can interpret.

My broda you need to make up your mind on whether UNKNOWN are accurate interpolations or not. This poses a huge dilemma for you because if we removed them as you are trying here, we should remove EVERY instance of the word UNKNOWN. This means you should never use UNKNOWN to point out to fake pagan tongues. You now have tongue and tongues alone to advance your theory,and I will gladly ask you to point out genuine tongue(s) from the fakes. On the other hand if you accept the interpolation as accurate, your distinction of the two types of tongues falls flat on this verse.

Secondly and most importantly, you err in claiming that the singular is an 'obvious reference to a singular Paul speaking a singular tongue or language'. It just,man sorry to say, don't make ANY sense.

The 'singular Paul' in v18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: uses plural. This tells me the singular tongue and the plural tongues can be used for an individual.

Here the unknown is very rightly not placed by the interpreters of the KJV and a singular person is seen to bring a singular tongue here.

But this is unfounded because a singular person Paul utilizes BOTH tongues and tongue when referring to himself

V6 (KJV) Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues,
V14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
v18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:

Interesting enough,
1 Corinthians 12:10 (KJV)
to another divers kinds of tongues
A singular person gets plural tongues. So the plural/singular tongue(s) is not dictated by pthe number of individuals exercising the gift. This in turn means your claim that v26 singular tongue was Tongues and not UNKNOWN Tongue but utilized the singular because one individual was the subject of the statement is false

My broda there are times am highly persuaded you are interested in the Truth but at other times as this, you convince me beyond doubt that you have little interest outside toying with the most CURRENT fad theology you came across.

WinsomeX:
Now if you're talking about inconsistency, this is first verse you should have thrown up. But all the same we can still find consistency in it.

Note first, the three inconsistencies of modern tongues, which i mentioned earlier, which this passage clearly defines.

Secondly, Paul is speaking here about tongues. Note that the word "unknown" is suggested by the interpreters. Could it be that the inconsistency is not in the original intent of the passage but in the interpreter's. Obviously that verse 14 should have read:

1 Corinthians 14:14 (KJV)
For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

If you read it without the "unknown", the consistency return except that the singular is an obvious reference to a singular Paul speaking a singular tongue or language which he can interpret.



Here the unknown is very rightly not placed by the interpreters of the KJV and a singular person is seen to bring a singular tongue here.

It is disingenuous of you to dismiss UNKNOWN as erroneous when it does not serve your purposes and correct when you think it does.

Will respond more fully later

WinsomeX:
Thank you vooks for your well defined observation. I have learnt on public forum not to begin to mention names of sources of teachings bc nl has a way of leaving the doctrine and attacking the source. So to answer your "non-committal" question, I admit immediately that some part of this teachings are not originally mine but others. I have particularly gleaned heavily from John Macarthur's "Truth about Tongues" as he taught on 1 Cor 14. I however I'm committed to the teaching and I consider everything written here as my doctrine not Macarthur's.

Fair enough

One other thing I must say as a matter of introduction is that 1 Cor 14 is a difficult passage of scripture. The inconsistency you have mentioned in all the use of "unknown tongue" following my suggestion that it might be pagan gibberish has been noticed by me too.

Am struggling to see any difficulty in 1 Cor 14. The difficulty is in seeing your 'difficulties'

Nonetheless, I consider these 'inconsistencies' less of a trouble compared with the glaring more inconsistencies in the practice of modern tongues as practiced today. Some are:
1. The fact that tongues are used as personal edification today when all spiritual gifts, including tongues, were meant to edify others, that's the church.
2. The fact that modern tongues comes with no interpretation.
3. And the similarities BTW the old Corinthians disorder and modern Charismatic Chaos.

When you say scripture has reference to paganism and it is referring to the work of Holy Spirit, you do blaspheme greatly. This is why I narrowed down to your claims. Your position on tongues is secondary to me for now.

Paul is quite clear that uninterpreted tongues have no place in public worship. It is plain impolite speaking a language your hearers can't understand. But one need not invent and insert paganism in 1 Cor 14:2 to arrive at this. This is wresting with scriptures

Note this. Paul does not dismiss unknown tongues that is uninterpteted, he relegates them to private worship

Having said that, let me attempt to put some consistency in the "inconsistencies" you pointed out.

Great. Just to mention the inconsistency is with your particular (mis)understanding of a simple text and not the text itself.

In the Corinthian confusion, what we had was unknown tongues and genuine tongues. So far, one could assume that Paul was looking at the gathering and saying in the above verse: "guys, only one thing can make this "unknown tongues" of yours genuine: interpret. As long as there is no interpreter he should speak to himself or to whatever god is influencing it. The church does not need it"

You need to come CLEAR on this. Are UNKNOWN tongues fake?

And no, Paul is not giving a test of genuine tongues, he simply regulates exercise of the gifts including prophecy

I'm not driving at a distinction. The text clearly shows it. Our own understanding has been beclouded by years of false practice. 1 Cor 14:2 clearly shows that the unknown tongues could not be understood. But the same chapter still describes another "tongues" that can be interpreted and understood. Even Pentecostals admit there are two tongues here: one for prayers that cannot be understood and one for church edification that can be understood. What they never knew was that the former, the one they think they can use to pray, is actually pagan gibberish bc all true biblical tongues were understood in the last analysis.

First,
Am familiar with tongues for prayers and tongues for prophecy distinction and it is as baseless as your 'unknown tongue are fake while tongues are genuine'. Yours unfortunately I find more confused. Your own understanding had equally been beclouded by your sources.

There is a gift of interpretation of tongues. And it is clear not ALL have it. It is also clear that those speaking in tongues were to pray for interpretation, and until then they were to remain silent in public worship. If tongues were always understood, there would have been no need for these instructions by Paul. Interpretation is a gift that elevates the gift of tongues to prophecy.

Like I have said, my teachers vary but Macarthur's been very helpful. I'm indeed committed to this doctrine.

Does MacArthur specifically teach that 1 Cor 14:2 is a reference to pagan worship, and that theo there is a god?

sportsmaster:
lemme book this space .till I get a new laptop charger.
WinsomeX just said nonsense all through that Post.

I will do a series on the subject of tongues for him.

cc vooks, I just finished exams.I will have time to complete my abandoned threads.

He has made many outrageous claims;
1. UNKNOWN is inserted to distinguish genuine spiritual gift of Holy Spirit and pagan experiences
2. UNKNOWN tongue is pagan and different from tongues
3. 1 Cor 14:2 is describing a pagan practice
4. 1 Corinthian 14 mentions (at least) two types of tongues

Shdemidemi was the first guy I met on NL who attempted to distinguish UNKNOWN tongue from tongues. Like I said, the distinction must be so vital to his present beliefs that he is prepared to adopt a baseless and inconsistent position.

Here is the truth;
1. Tongue(s) whenever used with regard to spiritual gifts ALWAYS refer to the Holy Spirit inspired gift
2. There is no paganism in 1 Cor 14:2. Whether there were such pagan practices is irrelevant
3. Tongue,tongues,unknown tongue ALL without exception refer to one and the same gift of the Holy Spirit
4. Winsomex's claims on 1 Cor 14:2 is INTERNALLY inconsistent. It mysteries are hidden truths initiates into cults utter, how come no man understands them? And how different is UNKNOWN tongue of 14:2 from other instances of the same such as v4 where it EDIFIES, v13 where interpretation is prescribed,v14 where where it is praying with one's spirit, and v27 where Paul regulates exercise of the same?
5. Twice in chapter 14 Paul states that speaking in tongues is speaking to God, in verse 2 and verse 28. On what basis is one pagan and not the other? And if BOTH are pagan, why is Paul directing the believer to this instead of censuring idolatry?

Winsomex,
I would love to hear your understanding of the following verse from your unknown tongue vs tongues perspective;

1 Corinthians 14:14 (KJV)
For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

And also this;
1 Corinthians 14:26 (KJV)
How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying

Is this tongue your 'unknown tongue (singular) or 'tongues (plural)'?

WinsomeX:
But even more: 1 Cor 14 teaches two types of tongues: 1. Unknown tongue (singular). 2.Tongues (plural). The unknown tongues is believed to be Paul referring to the pagan type of tongues. That was practiced in the same manner modern Pentecostals do. The other, tongues, is genuine. But it ALWAYS came with an interpretation.

But my broda,
1 Corinthians 14:27-28 (KJV)
If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. 28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

How is it that this 'pagan' tongue CAN be interpreted? And according to you, the theo in this verse, is it God or god? If god, isn't that Paul indifference to believers talking to other gods? Is Paul saying that if the UNKNOWN tongue can't be interpreted, the speaker should weak to god(s)?

It is true there are UNKNOWN tongue and tongues but they refer to the same supernatural manifestation of Holy Spirit. Am still wondering why you are driving at this distinction. It must be so important in supporting your position that you don't hesitate to force it and adopt glaring inconsistencies while at it

Just wondering. Do you BELIEVE this yourself, that UNKNOWN tongues are pagan? I notice you are non-commital, you won't outrightly state it as a fact or say you believe it but you ascribe it to others.

Winsomex,
In another whatsapp group I belong a member 'pondered' what is in a name. He 'wondered' why the name of God/Jesus changes across languages while our names remain the same. The fella is Robert and he insisted that since he remains Robert whether in Mandarin or Arabic, Jesus' 'original' name should remain. He then 'wondered' what Jesus' original name is. A quick look at his posts and I knew my buddy had fallen for the SNM (Sacred Name Movement) wiles. Robert would not admit that he was exploring this new doctrine but rather he presented the questions as his own. The problem is I have heard these questions and arguments so many times before him and I don't believe in coincidences. He got caught up in another wind of doctrine, and he took to it like a duck to water.

Obviously you have stumbled into ANOTHER attempt to explain away 1 Corinthians 14:2. In a nutshell, this theory claims that sandwiched between Holy Spirit gifts is a parenthesis that briefly touches on paganism.

According to this theory, Paul is saying v1- Pursue Love/charity and desire spiritual gifts especially that you may prophesy v2-BECAUSE whoever speaks in a pagan gibberish language does not speak to men but to gods because nobody understands that rubbish because he speaks hidden truths known to initiates in a cult, v3-but whoever prophesies speaks to others for edification,exhortation and comfort


'Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts especially prophecy [because nobody understands the gibberish pagans are telling their gods] but when you prophesy you edify,exhort and comfort'

'The REASON you should pursue love and desire spiritual gifts especially prophecy is, nobody understands pagan gibberish as it is addressed to gods, but prophecy speaks to others for edifying,exhortation and comfort'

'Pagan gibberish is just for gods, so desire spiritual gifts especially prophecy as prophecy edifies,exhorts and comforts others'

Can you see the logic atrocities you are subscribing ? You are claiming that the BASIS for desiring prophecy is paganism.

Is the subject of verse 2 a Christian, a pagan or a Christian dabbling in paganism?

Look at verse 4
He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church

How can pagan mysticism EDIFY?

Winsomex,

The translators of the KJV introduced the word unknown possibly to make a distinction between a false type of tongues that was common among pagan worshippers and the true type of tongues that existed in the first century. Later in the chapter, the translators used just "tongues" (eg: verse 5) which is believed o refer to the genuine gift of language or tongues. "Unknown tongue" which is singular may be regarded as negative as practiced by pagans and was wholesome gibberish. Tongues on the other hand was genuine.

It is true UNKNOWN is interpolation but the purpose is not to distinguish between false and true tongues but rather to distinguish between the supernatural languages and natural learned languages.

UNKNOWN tongues are not 'negative as practiced by pagans' but INCOMPLETE and unhelpful to all (public) but the speaker. This is why Paul prescribes interpretation for these- v13. Why would God add to the 'negative' by having them interpreted?

What is so repulsive in 14:2 that you must twist and wrest it away from its natural context? What are so so determined to avoid?
Please my broda, I know you are busy filing yourself with 'knowledge' but on this matter you are 102% wrong and inconsistent. Study all the occurrences of the UNKNOWN tongue and see there is no paganism there nor is it directed to gods. Whether pagans had tongues as well is not the question, the fact is Paul never even remotely hints at it. Besides, pagans also pray to their deity. Pagans speaking in unknown tongues would not tender the practice unscriptural on this account alone.

Conclusion
1. UNKNOWN tongue(s) as used in the NT wholly refer to a Holy Spirit inspired experience among believers and there is absolutely no basis in isolating a single instance of the phrase and applying it to paganism. This is simply unfounded.

2. There is no distinction between 'tongue', 'tongues', 'unknown tongue' and 'unknown tongues'.

PastorAIO:
I'm beginning to suspect that there is a babbling spirit of incoherence that possesses people in these churches nowadays.

What is the English word for whatever rocks congenial spammers and idlers dhow? IDLElatry

Scholar8200:
Thanks a lot. God bless you too!

All spiritual warfare aficionados need to read it. Especially the Nigerians and our indiginized brand of Christianity

Scholar8200:
Thanks a lot; will be looking forward to it.

Man of God,
I have chapters in pdf from this site.
http://www.heavensfamily.org/ss/spiritual_warfare

I humbly request you bear with me and work with these as I look for the full book.

Stay blessed

PastorAIO:
I don't know, maybe you stole their wives and daughters.

Once you read the book try and see if I will have some idle time to engage you. My precious pearls!

PastorAIO:
Yeah, let's degenerate into name calling. After all you have nothing else to actually say.

What did pigs do to Jews to warrant such spite

Sarassin:
I could take you up on this but I won't. Just so I don't derail your thread.

Thus saith cowards

Scholar8200:
First Class! This book is excellent I must say, just finished the Introduction. Please do you have the link to the Myths on Spiritual Warfare by the same author?

I will look for it, just for you man of God

PastorAIO:
You obviously haven't been paying attention.



The apostles were all against Whom? What are you talking about? You cannot even stay coherent.

What has who Peter is preaching to got to do with anything?

How is hebrew Non-pauline?

What's curious is your inability to make sense? What persecution pressured what christians to slip back to what?

This your so called pearls are cankerous balls of poo, it seems.

Swine, how appropriate

ABDULADINO:
Vooks, do summarise the book.Thanks.

Great idea but no I won't summarize. Read all of it. I said it is not for the lazy

Sarassin:
You mean as opposed to those who drink their bath water......?

And what exactly is unsubstantiated about the Hebrew Matthew or is it that you only preach to the converted?

There is NOTHING substantiated about a Hebrew Matthew

PastorAIO:
What is unintelligent is your reading anywhere that Matthew refuted Paul? I was referring to a well documented conflict that occurred in the church, Paul's doctrine versus the 'Judaizers'.


Ps. You've got this amazing ability to talk out of both sides of the same mouth, and all in the same post.

First you'll post a rebuttal of anything I throw at you

and then in the same breath you can't answer a simple question citing 'casting pearls to swine'.

It all makes sense.

What has Paul anti-Judaism got to do with Matthew?
Spend some time in Acts and appreciate the apostles were ALL against them for start. Peter preached primarily to Jews so his run ins with them was minimal. Next study the book of Hebrews which is certainly non-Pauline and see anti-Judaizing. What's curious is while Gentiles were pressured by Jews to Judaism, persecution pressuredChristian Jews to slip back.

Spend a few weeks meditating on this pearl

PastorAIO:
It is interesting that you dismiss them as rumours. Interesting on many levels.

A little off topic but interesting all the same is that the source of these 'rumours' is the same source of the 'rumours' (?) that the gospels were penned by Matthew Mark Luke and John and the 'rumours' that Christ appointed disciples to carry out the work of the church.

Interesting that you feel the way you do about Unintelligent conspiracy theories. What would you think of a conspiracy theory that said that the evils of this world is due to an invisible being that is in conflict with another invisible being and they fight for our souls and one day one will win and destroy the other one and then in the end we will live happily without sin forever. Would you find that intelligent or not?

I feel a tiny urge to post up links and quotations about the Hebrew origin of Matthew, but when I consider the effort it would take, I don't think that I can be bothered. Perhaps you could explain instead why the 'rumour' is unintelligent and less valid than any of the other 'rumours' that we've been told about the gospels.

I would sooner post rebuttals of anything you attempted to throw at me.

What is unintelligent is the idea that Matthew refuted Paul. Why is it unintelligent? If you can't tell, explaining it is casting precious pearls to swine

Sarassin:
If you will forgive me, I will say that this a most appalling statement. You really should do some research into the antecedents of the Gospels.

I have far little respect for those who preach water and drink rum

PastorAIO:
It is interesting that in this passage the very thing that people are condemned for is LAWLESSNESS. The very thing that Pauline christianity extols.

Could it be that the Gospel of Matthew is written as a response to Pauline christianity. After all [b]we know [/b]that the Gospel was originally written in hebrew and so written for Jews, while Pauline christianity caught the ear of the gentiles.

Without a doubt it is addressing other so called christians who claim great things in the name of Jesus.

There are unsubstantiated rumors Matthew was penned in Hebrews. And apparently rumors is what you 'know'.

Am a big fan of conspiracy theories but I like them intelligent

For those who have ears and are not too lazy to read

“Many will say to Me on that day, ‘”Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?” And then I will declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness” (Matt. 7:22-23).”

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxrT0F-mwJf1c3VJTTNXdFRjMjg

Highcuerayte:
The stature of Christ is exercising the fruit "Self control" Perfectly. Solitude,Hunger,Pain,Tongue,Emotions and Sexual Urge. That is the stature of Christ and those to be chosen as the two witnesses will have perfect control over these things.

Where is that in the scriptures? Did some spirits whisper this to you?
And are you one of those chosen 'as the two witnesses'?

Why do Nigerians fall in love with every brand of madness?