Speaking in tongues

[roberterasmus]

No problem RobertErasmus. I do very much enjoy your sharings. But I do like the doctrinal section here and don't want anyone to be intimidated to say what they think. Of course there are going to be disagreements. The doctrinal section here to me is simply the Body of Christ talking among itself. And its lovely. Its also something we never could have done in TWI because we were all in lockstep to VPs doctrine.

I find it very interesting where people's spiritual quests have taken them after TWI and how their view of the Bible has evolved. I think God works with us in different ways. Yes, I know exactly what my view of the Bible is called and trust me, I didn't arrive there overnight, it was more like decades - but I see it in everything I read in the Bible - to me - it is obvious. To others - something else is obvious.

As I said, we are the Body of Christ talking among ourselves, and I love it.

Well, with that writ of indulgence, I will engage a bit on this subject, poppycock comments aside. You have said, “from my study, I do not believe tongues today is what it was then”. Would you please allow us to see this “study” so we may comment? Or at least lay it out for the layman.

You further say, “I believe the manifestation of interpretation was when they were preaching to people via tongues, in their language, and there were others standing near who didn't understand, thus, interpretation was needed”. Where did this occur in the book of Acts as “interpretation of tongues” and if this is merely an observation (without the words themselves), how does this square with the Pauline corpus, which, IMHO states quite succintly what “interpretation of tongues” is for. It is quite different from what you are stating and the Corinthian church was surely operating “during the book of Acts”, was it not?

Certainly the “kingdom of God” was “at hand”, as you say. The Hebrew Scriptures fairly scream the nearness of the anticipted “day of the Lord” and the kingdom life in the age to come. It’s the greatest theme in the Scriptures. Kingdom given (“they shall have dominion”), kingdom lost (“for that is delivered unto me”), kingdom regained (a million places in Scripture through where Jesus hands it back to God – 1 Corinthians 15: 24). Now, that’s something that was not only missed in TWI, but we were like blind men following other blind men.

You also say, “We live in an age of grace that was not prophesied about or spoken of in the OT”, and while this language speaks to a dispensational view of the Scriptures, with the life in the heavenlies (only?), I’d ask you to flesh out this theory a bit for us. I’m dispensational, but do not hold to the final location for all believers (saints) being anywhere but the earth with Jesus and his Father (“so shall we ever be with the Lord”).

BTW, there were many who were not in lock step with VP on a lot of things, but I quite understand your sentiment.

Bob

[sirguessalot]

I believe the manifestation of interpretation was when they were preaching to people via tongues, in their language, and there were others standing near who didn't understand, thus, interpretation was needed

me too

and without interpreting the interpretation...

...Peter's interpretation in Acts 2:14 and following

at least made enough sense to convert 3000 devotees

from all over the world...and give birth to the christian church

of course...there are now over 2 millenia of interpretations of that interpretation

...including each of our own

imo, pfal seemed to dodge and skip a lot of it

...but then again peter says some strange stuff

[TrustAndObey]

I'm guessing I was too facetious in my last post.. I apologize for that if it was offensive since I do realize many do believe in tongues as TWI or Stiles or BJ leonard or the Pentecostals, etc, teach...

But in all honesty I have to ask the question, what real benefit has anyone see the Tongues do for anyone today?

Outside of possibly building up your human spirit just like telling yourself many other "positive" things..(or building up God's spirit that in TWI we called our spirit), is there really any tangible and external proof of a benefit from it?

Let's just say for instance TWI is right, the spirit with groanings that cannot be uttered refers to SIT, honestly, does God even need you to SIT so he can hear about something you have no clue about so he can do something about which he already would know, because you certainly don't! That to me just doesn't quite make sense.

So I am just asking, honestly, what is the purpose then?

[waysider]

So I am just asking, honestly, what is the purpose then?

When you speak in tongues, silently, in the manner we were taught in The Way, your mind becomes more malleable and less resistant to suggestion. This has been demonstrated with scientific studies. Remember our "lift lists"? We were told to picture the leaders in a very positive light as we "lifted" (spoke in tongues for) them. So, if you habitually pictured VPW as some great person while your mind was in a malleable state, it became more and more difficult to accept any sort of negative, contradictory criticism of him.

I doubt that Wierwille was clever enough to understand this on a cognizant level. I think he did, however, almost instinctively understand that people who spoke in tongues "much" became more compliant and devoted. Hence, he admonished us to speak in tongues much and "lift" the leaders.

That may not be the "purpose" you were looking for; but I think it bears some consideration.

[cman]

I think the major failure in twi's s.i.t. is in tongues being unknown to the one who is speaking. Why was it set to be that the "unknown tongue" is unknown by the one speaking, when the scriptures more clearly state that it's unknown to the one hearing, not the one speaking.

[waysider]

I think the major failure in twi's s.i.t. is in tongues being unknown to the one who is speaking. Why was it set to be that the "unknown tongue" is unknown by the one speaking, when the scriptures more clearly state that it's unknown to the one hearing, not the one speaking.

This is something I, too, have thought about often.

Suppose I stand before an audience and deliver a message in English. Problem is, the audience is comprised of people who only understand Japanese, Farsi and German. But, somehow, they are all able to understand my message in English. Hmmmmmm. So, then, what about tongues of angels? Consider, too, that "angel" can also be translated messenger"

Suddenly, it's not so clear cut as it all seemed in TWI, when all we had to do to qualify was to speak glossolalia.

[sirguessalot]

regarding pentecost (and later with peter and the greek)

...what if language translation was not the issue?

seems to me

a lot of different kinds of jewish pilgrims

and a lot of different kinds of non-jewish pilgrims

from all over the world

already speaking many of the same languages

heard words they all already knew quite well

being used in ways they did not know at all

but somehow reawakened the original fundamental wisdom

behind the symbols of their languages and histories

both enlightening and reconciling

...jews with jews

...jews with non-jews

...non-jews with jews

...and non-jews with non-jews

...

that we can tame our tongues

to bring peace to the world

need not be supernatural

to be miraculous

but if religions stopped fighting

there would be peace on earth, no?

and if this can be done with mere words

is that not fundamental to Christianity?

is it possible

that the introduction of a better way of talking to each other

generated the original christian experience?

Edited February 17, 2010 by sirguessalot

[roberterasmus]

me too

and without interpreting the interpretation...

...Peter's interpretation in Acts 2:14 and following

at least made enough sense to convert 3000 devotees

from all over the world...and give birth to the christian church

of course...there are now over 2 millenia of interpretations of that interpretation

...including each of our own

imo, pfal seemed to dodge and skip a lot of it

...but then again peter says some strange stuff

Sir,

Acts 2:11 says quite distinctly that the people in Jerusalem heard the speakers in tongues proclaim the "wonderful works of God", yet what Peter preached (it doesn't say he interpreted what the 12 were speaking in tongues, BTW) was an explanation of what was occurring. Sure it made sense to convert, but it wasn't an "interpretation" of a tongue. The record does not say this. Further, if this were an interpretation it would not square with the methodololgy of Paul in his assertions in instructing the Corinthian church on the "hows" of doing it.

What is the "strange stuff" that Peter says?

RE

PS - Still waiting for Sunesis'explanations. Anybody seen him/her?

[sirguessalot]

hi robert...thanks for entertaining the questions

and sorry...edited my response to try something else...

...

seems we prefer different methods of interpreting the interpretations of interpretations

and are starting off lacking a common enough ground to go anywhere

correct me if im wrong, but i sense from other posts you are not into doing this

so if there are no objections...i will refrain from attempting to answer your last response to my post

...

except to say to everyone in general, that Peter's whole explanation seems quite strange, no?

i dunno, someone tell me...

and some of what peter said seems even stranger than the rest

specifically "blood, fire, vapor, darkened sun, bloody moons" and such

...

how do the words interpret themselves?

how is "translation" and "interpretation" different?

or "interpretation" and "explanation?"

Edited February 20, 2010 by sirguessalot

[geisha779]

² For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries. ³ But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men. ⁴ He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. ⁵ I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification.

Where in the bible is it recorded that anyone ever spoke to the God of scripture in any other than a normal known language? Because, the way I, me, moi, read what Paul is saying is a bit different than what we learned in PFAL. When Paul is using the singular for tongue it means one thing, and when he is using the plural it means another. The King James version even puts unknown before the singular to differentiate.

I believe this chapter is about genuine and counterfeit.

In verse 2 when he says. . . . does not speak to men but to God.. . . . . it is a similar translation to Acts 17:23 and the unknown god. Little "g" because the article A is not supplied but implied. It goes on to say. . . . in the spirit he speaks mysteries. Paul was associating some of this stuff with the Pagan mystery religions.

A mystery in scripture is always something that has been hidden, but is now revealed.

Paul was being sarcastic. It was a big dramatic display that only drew attention to them as the initiated ones. The whole chapter is talking about drawing attention to oneself INSTEAD of building up the church. At least that is the way I read it.

In verse 4 Paul is again being sarcastic when he says. . . . he who speaks in a tongue edifies himself . . . .selfishly. . . ego. Remember, they were ecstatic at times when Pagans. He keeps drawing a contrast between edifying the church and edifying ones own self.

They had fallen back into these pagan practices.

Seems, by the first use of tongues that it was never intended for a bunch of gibberish, but a human language to be translated. How can anyone say Amen to nonsense?

When Paul quotes Isaiah 28 that says to me that the gift of tongues comes from God to some. . . . and is not connected to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. But IS connected to Israel. Paul was quoting Isaiah's words of warning . . . . . Isaiah 28, I believe is a cursing, blessing and warning. . . . after God having men speaking to them unknown tongues. . . . languages. . . . .they STILL would not listen. . . . . and because the blessing was a new church with Jews and gentiles. . . . the sign was repeated.

Acts. .. neat and orderly. . . .Corinth. ...Pentecostal chaos.

Lots of ways to read scripture.

Edited February 20, 2010 by geisha779

[year2027]

God first

thanks geisha779

Is God speaking or the man

God speaks and the man speaks also

God/man speaking in tongues/interprets

God controls what the man speaks and the man controls that God speaks

with love and a holy kiss Roy

[roberterasmus]

hi robert...thanks for entertaining the questions

and sorry...edited my response to try something else...

...

seems we prefer different methods of interpreting the interpretations of interpretations

and are starting off lacking a common enough ground to go anywhere

correct me if im wrong, but i sense from other posts you are not into doing this

so if there are no objections...i will refrain from attempting to answer your last response to my post

...

except to say to everyone in general, that Peter's whole explanation seems quite strange, no?

i dunno, someone tell me...

and some of what peter said seems even stranger than the rest

specifically "blood, fire, vapor, darkened sun, bloody moons" and such

...

how do the words interpret themselves?

how is "translation" and "interpretation" different?

or "interpretation" and "explanation?"

Yes, sir,

My confession over in the other thread on “nostalgia” notwithstanding, I’ll attempt a little doctrinal dialogue and see if doctrine is the issue or not. As you may have noticed, I’m not into recriminations or hashing over spilt milk, but rather serious discussions over what the texts themselves say and how to best understand them. I’m sorry I missed your former unedited post here (if it was a reply to my minor discourse in Acts), but if you don’t feel you want to answer I understand.

I may be able to help in your question about the strangeness of Peter’s explanation, however. If you’ll turn to a translation like the New American Standard Bible (or another that has the Hebrew Scriptures capitalized or in quotes) you’ll note that around Acts 2:17-21 is all from there (Joel 2: 28-32 generally) and then verses 25 – 35 (interspersed with more of his own explanations) are more quotes from Hebrew Scripture (Psalm 16: 8-11, blah, blah, blah…you can look them up). Peter is trying to make a case that what his audience is witnessing is a fulfillment of prophecy, even with the “bloody moons” (which fact I love to see here).

Point is that the “great and glorious day of the Lord” was in view by Peter (seven year hence, BTW) and yet if you read the book of Acts, the mess that was predicted by the Hebrew prophets to come before that did not come to pass (yet). There’s a lot more to this (a discussion of the unfulfilled 70 weeks of years (from Daniel), the “abomination of desolation being set up (which has not yet happened - Matthew 24: 15), the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, the kingship of the Messiah (ruling from his throne in Jerusalem), etc.

Yeah, it’s strange, in one sense, that it did not happen yet. And the question becomes…why not? That’s a great question and the answer has to do with the intercalation (big theological word meaning “time out for this commercial” (in the Israel TV show)) of the Church.

This is why Paul, in Romans 8:23 says that the Church has only the “firstfruits of the spirit” and why later he says (in Hebrews 6:5) that we have only “tasted (literally a “sipping to taste” (see Matthew 27:34) …of the powers of the age to come”. There’s a lot more than meets the eye in Peter’s “first sermon” in Acts 2.

Bob

[sirguessalot]

thanks Bob

not much into hashing over spilt milk either.

and i appreciate your attempt to help me understand the explanation, but i also feel i at least owe it to you to say that you did not.

i am already familiar with the interpretations you offered...and the methods...and feel they are valid and vital parts of interpretation...but i can no longer limit my self to them.

thus, my point about not having common methodology being more-or-less of a roadblock to effective mutual scriptural reasoning and such.

almost as if the topic of conversation must first switch to 'interpretive methods' until some common ground is found...prior to comparing interpretations of content.

otherwise we seem to be putting the proverbial 'cart before the horse'...and in a way that perpetuates more of the same religious misunderstanding and conflict most of us seem to have come to accept as a norm.

i am interested in finding a better way than that.

thanks

Edited February 21, 2010 by sirguessalot

[cman]

The meaning, or interpretation as it is referred to here, is not translation to me.

And putting any events into the future makes their meanings quite unattainable.

Conveniently leaving open any man's opinion on the matter without actual evidence.

Which brings me to the point, that these things have happened are happening and will happen again.

Otherwise why even bring it up.

Lack of understanding Time has left prophesy without it's true nature.

One can only tell the future if they have been there.....now.

[roberterasmus]

thanks Bob

not much into hashing over spilt milk either.

and i appreciate your attempt to help me understand the explanation, but i also feel i at least owe it to you to say that you did not.

i am already familiar with the interpretations you offered...and the methods...and feel they are valid and vital parts of interpretation...but i can no longer limit my self to them.

thus, my point about not having common methodology being more-or-less of a roadblock to effective mutual scriptural reasoning and such.

almost as if the topic of conversation must first switch to 'interpretive methods' until some common ground is found...prior to comparing interpretations of content.

otherwise we seem to be putting the proverbial 'cart before the horse'...and in a way that perpetuates more of the same religious misunderstanding and conflict most of us seem to have come to accept as a norm.

i am interested in finding a better way than that.

thanks

So, sir, then...

In a doctrinal thread, how do we proceed? Granted, I'm only into the historical/ grammatical/logic hermeneutic. To what do you ascribe?

RE

[sirguessalot]

i can suggest starting with a mutual consent based-process for any adult discussion

...including doctrinal..

rather ordinary...and any good marriage or friendship is based on it

illustrated by asking: "any objections to ___________?"

if not...we proceed

if so...we negotiate til we find consent again.

"may i_______?" also works once all parties know how "no" is as important as "yes"

clumsy and countercultural at first...but eventually our original voice and vocabulary jumps right in.

...

so...i'll play canary here and ask:

...do you or does anyone here mind if we attempt to proceed via consent?

if we were in person, i would just wait a moment and give everyone a chance to consider.

here, i may have to wait a week until i felt everyone has had a chance to read and type their objections.

so i hope no one minds that we just pretend a week has passed. you can still say no.

...

and i certainly have no objections to your hermeneutic, Bob...because mine does include them...and not casually.

i mentioned a developmental hermeneutic elsewhere...which i feel is valid and valuable.

but i also ascribe to more of an ecumenical approach.

...

if i may ask...do you have any objections to comparing the world's ancient scriptures as a way to understand the bible?

...or pentecost?

perhaps even using that same historical/grammatical/logic for all of them?

Edited February 21, 2010 by sirguessalot

[roberterasmus]

i can suggest starting with a mutual consent based-process for any adult discussion

...including doctrinal..

rather ordinary...and any good marriage or friendship is based on it

illustrated by asking: "any objections to ___________?"

if not...we proceed

if so...we negotiate til we find consent again.

"may i_______?" also works once all parties know how "no" is as important as "yes"

clumsy and countercultural at first...but eventually our original voice and vocabulary jumps right in.

...

so...i'll play canary here and ask:

...do you or does anyone here mind if we attempt to proceed via consent?

if we were in person, i would just wait a moment and give everyone a chance to consider.

here, i may have to wait a week until i felt everyone has had a chance to read and type their objections.

so i hope no one minds that we just pretend a week has passed. you can still say no.

...

and i certainly have no objections to your hermeneutic, Bob...because mine does include them...and not casually.

i mentioned a developmental hermeneutic elsewhere...which i feel is valid and valuable.

but i also ascribe to more of an ecumenical approach.

...

if i may ask...do you have any objections to comparing the world's ancient scriptures as a way to understand the bible?

...or pentecost?

perhaps even using that same historical/grammatical/logic for all of them?

Thanks sir, but I'm not into Deism (or a particular Theism, as the case may be) except for the God (and gods) of the Scriptures of the Hebrews and Christians. Others may take you up on your invitation.

Bob

[year2027]

God first

thanks Bob

how do you know your God is not same God as others have

and what is scripture to God?

with love and a holy kiss Roy

[waysider]

and what is scripture to God?

Think of all the millions of illiterate people who have walked (or are currently walking) this planet.

Are they S.O.L. because they can't read? Maybe they "hear" His voice in the roar of a waterfall or "see" His presence in the helplessness of a newborn.

[cman]

Bob, you claim scriptural Hermeneutics here-

I'm only into the historical/ grammatical/logic hermeneutic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics

But a much broader vision is involved then scriptures alone.

To which sirg has opened the door to communication to it, and not limited to it alone.

Deism or a particular Theism is a small part of a greater understanding.

Neither can they be counted out of any broader discussion.

But also need not even be touched upon.

To limit what has been opened to unlimited communication is your misunderstanding.

Knowing sirg, I know his very broad knowledge of more fields of study then I care to list.

His point being as stated to have some common ground to start with, not to stay in.

If the intention is to stay in one field or another then it's nonproductive.

Because there are so many that overlap that they are to be considered as well,

if it's an honest attempt at growth, and not to build walls of separation,

ignoring what is blatantly apparent in all fields of study.

[geisha779]

Think of all the millions of illiterate people who have walked (or are currently walking) this planet.

Are they S.O.L. because they can't read? Maybe they "hear" His voice in the roar of a waterfall or "see" His presence in the helplessness of a newborn.

If they can hear God in a waterfall ... . can't they hear the gospel and believe? Isn't God big enough to let them hear about His Son? If He went to all that trouble of sending Jesus to die for our sins. . . I wonder why He bothered when we have access to so many newborns and waterfalls?

[waysider]

If they can hear God in a waterfall ... . can't they hear the gospel and believe? Isn't God big enough to let them hear about His Son? If He went to all that trouble of sending Jesus to die for our sins. . . I wonder why He bothered when we have access to so many newborns and waterfalls?

Moot point

Not everyone has access to "The Gospel".

Conversely, if God is omnipresent, everyone has access to something that is a product of God's "handiwork".

Edited February 22, 2010 by waysider

[year2027]

God first

thanks waysider and geisha779 and cman and Bob

yes the waterfall becomes their Gospel

the green grass or blue sky or life itself

the list is growing as we study

become are in a box that they we have no control over

a box of no sound, not being able to talk

i been this way for nine days when i had the Stoke

not saying this for everyone but some

with love and a holy kiss Roy

Edited February 22, 2010 by year2027

[roberterasmus]

Bob, you claim scriptural Hermeneutics here-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics

But a much broader vision is involved then scriptures alone.

To which sirg has opened the door to communication to it, and not limited to it alone.

Deism or a particular Theism is a small part of a greater understanding.

Neither can they be counted out of any broader discussion.

But also need not even be touched upon.

To limit what has been opened to unlimited communication is your misunderstanding.

Knowing sirg, I know his very broad knowledge of more fields of study then I care to list.

His point being as stated to have some common ground to start with, not to stay in.

If the intention is to stay in one field or another then it's nonproductive.

Because there are so many that overlap that they are to be considered as well,

if it's an honest attempt at growth, and not to build walls of separation,

ignoring what is blatantly apparent in all fields of study.

Hi Cman,

I'm not qualified to speak to much more than I know. Maybe others want to engage with Sirg in his broad fields of knowledge and that's their prerogative. You seem to want to. I'll observe. The common ground in which I'm willing to engage conversation is Biblical (doctrinal, but Biblical). That's my training and that's my interest. IMHO, it's not "nonproductive" in any way. I'm not trying to build "walls of separation" and I'm all for growth, but "in Christ". And in certain things I'll engage a broader field of research. I'm not incapable (usually...).

But when the subject is "speaking in tongues" I'll stay Biblical.

RE

[waysider]

The problem with tying to keep it "Biblical" is that evidence of speaking in tongues (at least, the glossolalia variety) predates Christ by 1,000 years.