Is. 6:1 In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. 2 Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. 3 And one called to another and said:

"hubbbbububub. looooolililil. Masakah hishaka! Masakah hishaka! Papua new guinea sorimkala."

UTExan said:

---

tk111 said:

---

UTExan said:

---

Quote:

---

Pentacostal movement is the fastest growing movement within Christianity today, it is a false doctrine.

---

Really? Better tell that to all those charismatic Catholics and legacy Protestant folks who pray in tongues.
The existing religious establishments have always denigrated Pentecostals because they fear the power of a pentecostal movement within their own churches. It exists outside their control.

Sort of reminds me of a 1st century Roman-governed area called Palestine.

---

No one here is claiming that people did not miraculously speak in tongues - actual existing languages - in first-century Palestine...or Asia Minor...or Rome. You're conflating Biblical history with the present to set up a bizarre strawman, and not really addressing anything anyone here is saying/asking.

---

Then why did Paul mention praying in an angelic language in Corinthians? Maybe you're trying to deal with your own background experiences instead of the actual topic (my guess, not intended as a slam or pejorative)? Because there were perceived frauds in Pentecostal/charismatic circles does not invalidate the gift. It means that it may have been abused. Frauds exist along every venue of worship, unfortunately.

---

He didn't. You're referring to 1 Cor 13:1. In the whole section of ch 12-14, Paul is imploring the members of the church to seek unity and love in the New Covenant. He lists a hierarchy of gifts that all contribute to the growing of the early Church and how they are all important to the body, with the punch line that they are all worthless without love (with what he means by "love" being defined earlier in the epistle). When he mentions tongues in 13:1, he hyperbolizes the gift - you could read it as "even if I could miraculously speak in any language with absolute perfection" it would be worthless without love. He uses the exact same imagery in 2 Corinthians in reference to false teachers that he said were often more eloquent in speech than he was. The very next verses (13:2-3) use the same literary effect - prophecy with all knowledge of all mysteries would be worthless without love, faith that could move mountains would be worthless without love, giving everything would be worthless without love...

Nothing in the passage ever implies that anyone should be praying or worshipping in some incomprehensible "language" that no one can understand and claiming its "of the angels" or "only God can understand." That is pure eisegesis from folks searching for affirmation for an indefensible practice of babbling without interpretation.

I should have been more clear about the people I mentioned - that is a comprehensive (not a sampling - a comprehensive) list of the people that began the Pentecostal movement, each one of them a charlatan in their own right (not "perceived" - objectively frauds - take some time to look each of those folks up). Prior them, no one was claiming this gift for 1800 years. Since then, the definition has changed multiple times to fit the bill.

UTExan said:

---

" When he mentions tongues in 13:1, he hyperbolizes the gift - you could read it as "even if I could miraculously speak in any language with absolute perfection" it would be worthless without love."

Hyperbolizes the "gift"? If you are saying that you believe he is speaking employing the literary device of hyperbole just say so, but do not presume to speak for Paul.

1 Corinthians 14:
" 18 I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; 19 yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue."

If he is talking about "five words with my understanding" then why speak in tongues at all? These are two distinct things from my reading.
And verse 27-28 elaborates:
" 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. 28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God"

So people apparently do have a specific prayer language.
Why are you bothered by that?

---

"Presuming to speak for Paul?" I'm just reading the text plainly in its context. Its right next to three other hyperboles to prove a point. Simple hermeneutics...You're acting like I'm just pulling this out of thin air. Thousands of Biblical scholars over two millennia who devoted their entire lives to interpreting scripture didn't believe what you think these passages mean, and you're saying I'm the one "bothered"?

You know that when you were Gentiles, you were led away unto those dumb idols, howsoever ye might be led. Now what he means is this: In the idol-temples, says he, if any were at any time possessed by an unclean spirit and began to divine, even as one dragged away, so was he drawn by that spirit in chains: knowing nothing of the things which he utters. For this is peculiar to the soothsayer, to be beside himself, to be under compulsion, to be pushed, to be dragged, to be haled as a madman. But the prophet not so, but with sober mind and composed temper and knowing what he is saying, he utters all things. Therefore even before the event do thou from this distinguish the soothsayer and the prophet. And consider how he frees his discourse of all suspicion; calling themselves to witness who had made trial of the matter. As if he had said, that I lie not nor rashly traduce the religion of the Gentiles, feigning like an enemy, do ye yourselves bear me witness: knowing as you do, when you were Gentiles, how you were pulled and dragged away then.

-John Chrysostom on 1 Cor. 12:2

They are not speaking the language of angels, but opening themselves up to demonic spirits.

UTExan said:

---

tk111 said:

---

UTExan said:

---

" When he mentions tongues in 13:1, he hyperbolizes the gift - you could read it as "even if I could miraculously speak in any language with absolute perfection" it would be worthless without love."

Hyperbolizes the "gift"? If you are saying that you believe he is speaking employing the literary device of hyperbole just say so, but do not presume to speak for Paul.

1 Corinthians 14:
" 18 I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; 19 yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue."

If he is talking about "five words with my understanding" then why speak in tongues at all? These are two distinct things from my reading.
And verse 27-28 elaborates:
" 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. 28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God"

So people apparently do have a specific prayer language.
Why are you bothered by that?

---

"Presuming to speak for Paul?" I'm just reading the text plainly in its context. Its right next to three other hyperboles to prove a point. Simple hermeneutics...You're acting like I'm just pulling this out of thin air. Thousands of Biblical scholars over two millennia who devoted their entire lives to interpreting scripture didn't believe what you think these passages mean, and you're saying I'm the one "bothered"?

---

It's not like "scholars" can be influenced institutionally, right?
Did it occur to you that seminaries are largely responsible what is killing Christianity?
They by and large:

1.) don't go on dangerous missions;
2.) rarely serve in first responder, medical or military roles:
3.) have not been known to be great evangelists.

You are reading the text according to your training IMHO. Does it make sense that a church member would say, "oh, let me speak this paragraph in Arabic to the total confusion of the congregation for no reason whatsoever (unless one is impressing unbelievers with the linguistic diversity of the church)".
No. It is about a message in tongues for which there is an interpreter. That may not fit your theology or institutionalized learning, but feel free to take that up with the author of Corinthians.
And again I fail to understand your preoccupation with other people's worship styles. You aren't going to convince me of your viewpoint, BTW.

---

Wow...we've made it to the "people who study the Bible are killing Christianity!" stage, along with spewing despicable baseless falsehoods in numbered lists.

UTExan said:

---

tk111 said:

---

UTExan said:

---

tk111 said:

---

UTExan said:

---

" When he mentions tongues in 13:1, he hyperbolizes the gift - you could read it as "even if I could miraculously speak in any language with absolute perfection" it would be worthless without love."

Hyperbolizes the "gift"? If you are saying that you believe he is speaking employing the literary device of hyperbole just say so, but do not presume to speak for Paul.

1 Corinthians 14:
" 18 I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; 19 yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue."

If he is talking about "five words with my understanding" then why speak in tongues at all? These are two distinct things from my reading.
And verse 27-28 elaborates:
" 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. 28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God"

So people apparently do have a specific prayer language.
Why are you bothered by that?

---

"Presuming to speak for Paul?" I'm just reading the text plainly in its context. Its right next to three other hyperboles to prove a point. Simple hermeneutics...You're acting like I'm just pulling this out of thin air. Thousands of Biblical scholars over two millennia who devoted their entire lives to interpreting scripture didn't believe what you think these passages mean, and you're saying I'm the one "bothered"?

---

It's not like "scholars" can be influenced institutionally, right?
Did it occur to you that seminaries are largely responsible what is killing Christianity?
They by and large:

1.) don't go on dangerous missions;
2.) rarely serve in first responder, medical or military roles:
3.) have not been known to be great evangelists.

You are reading the text according to your training IMHO. Does it make sense that a church member would say, "oh, let me speak this paragraph in Arabic to the total confusion of the congregation for no reason whatsoever (unless one is impressing unbelievers with the linguistic diversity of the church)".
No. It is about a message in tongues for which there is an interpreter. That may not fit your theology or institutionalized learning, but feel free to take that up with the author of Corinthians.
And again I fail to understand your preoccupation with other people's worship styles. You aren't going to convince me of your viewpoint, BTW.

---

Wow...we've made it to the "people who study the Bible are killing Christianity!" stage, along with spewing despicable baseless falsehoods in numbered lists.

---

Or you could stop obsessing over other Christians' worship preferences.

---

We are on message board where someone specifically asked about this topic...but you can keep repeating this over and over if it makes you feel better I suppose

BluHorseShu said:

---

UTExan said:

---

tk111 said:

---

UTExan said:

---

" When he mentions tongues in 13:1, he hyperbolizes the gift - you could read it as "even if I could miraculously speak in any language with absolute perfection" it would be worthless without love."

Hyperbolizes the "gift"? If you are saying that you believe he is speaking employing the literary device of hyperbole just say so, but do not presume to speak for Paul.

1 Corinthians 14:
" 18 I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; 19 yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue."

If he is talking about "five words with my understanding" then why speak in tongues at all? These are two distinct things from my reading.
And verse 27-28 elaborates:
" 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. 28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God"

So people apparently do have a specific prayer language.
Why are you bothered by that?

---

"Presuming to speak for Paul?" I'm just reading the text plainly in its context. Its right next to three other hyperboles to prove a point. Simple hermeneutics...You're acting like I'm just pulling this out of thin air. Thousands of Biblical scholars over two millennia who devoted their entire lives to interpreting scripture didn't believe what you think these passages mean, and you're saying I'm the one "bothered"?

---

It's not like "scholars" can be influenced institutionally, right?
Did it occur to you that seminaries are largely responsible what is killing Christianity?
They by and large:

1.) don't go on dangerous missions;
2.) rarely serve in first responder, medical or military roles:
3.) have not been known to be great evangelists.

You are reading the text according to your training IMHO. Does it make sense that a church member would say, "oh, let me speak this paragraph in Arabic to the total confusion of the congregation for no reason whatsoever (unless one is impressing unbelievers with the linguistic diversity of the church)".
No. It is about a message in tongues for which there is an interpreter. That may not fit your theology or institutionalized learning, but feel free to take that up with the author of Corinthians.
And again I fail to understand your preoccupation with other people's worship styles. You aren't going to convince me of your viewpoint, BTW.

---

I think part of the problem is that unfortunately, many speak in tongues or purport to speak in tongues as a way of showing off to others that they are Godly. The Bible obviously condemns this. Is it possible for people to speak in the tongues of Angels today. Sure. But I do think people scripture mine to support their reasoning for believing it without understanding the context in which it was written. When you say 'scholars', keep in mind you have to also consider the original writing of the Church fathers. If you were a cohort of Paul and he could tell you what Paul meant, that would likely be the most if not the accurate description. This is where the early fathers come in. Other peoples worship styles are fine as long as they don't contradict scripture. And there's the rub. For the last couple hundred years many have made an industry out of their interpretation of scripture that never existed before that.

---

As I posted above, there are numerous Pentecostal churches that almost require members to speak in tongues to prove their salvation. Definitely not Biblical.

And I have no problem with tongues.

tk111 said:

---

UTExan said:

---

tk111 said:

---

UTExan said:

---

Quote:

---

Pentacostal movement is the fastest growing movement within Christianity today, it is a false doctrine.

---

Really? Better tell that to all those charismatic Catholics and legacy Protestant folks who pray in tongues.
The existing religious establishments have always denigrated Pentecostals because they fear the power of a pentecostal movement within their own churches. It exists outside their control.

Sort of reminds me of a 1st century Roman-governed area called Palestine.

---

No one here is claiming that people did not miraculously speak in tongues - actual existing languages - in first-century Palestine...or Asia Minor...or Rome. You're conflating Biblical history with the present to set up a bizarre strawman, and not really addressing anything anyone here is saying/asking.

---

Then why did Paul mention praying in an angelic language in Corinthians? Maybe you're trying to deal with your own background experiences instead of the actual topic (my guess, not intended as a slam or pejorative)? Because there were perceived frauds in Pentecostal/charismatic circles does not invalidate the gift. It means that it may have been abused. Frauds exist along every venue of worship, unfortunately.

---

He didn't. You're referring to 1 Cor 13:1. In the whole section of ch 12-14, Paul is imploring the members of the church to seek unity and love in the New Covenant. He lists a hierarchy of gifts that all contribute to the growing of the early Church and how they are all important to the body, with the punch line that they are all worthless without love (with what he means by "love" being defined earlier in the epistle). When he mentions tongues in 13:1, he hyperbolizes the gift - you could read it as "even if I could miraculously speak in any language with absolute perfection" it would be worthless without love. He uses the exact same imagery in 2 Corinthians in reference to false teachers that he said were often more eloquent in speech than he was. The very next verses (13:2-3) use the same literary effect - prophecy with all knowledge of all mysteries would be worthless without love, faith that could move mountains would be worthless without love, giving everything would be worthless without love...

Nothing in the passage ever implies that anyone should be praying or worshipping in some incomprehensible "language" that no one can understand and claiming its "of the angels" or "only God can understand." That is pure eisegesis from folks searching for affirmation for an indefensible practice of babbling without interpretation.

I should have been more clear about the people I mentioned - that is a comprehensive (not a sampling - a comprehensive) list of the people that began the Pentecostal movement, each one of them a charlatan in their own right (not "perceived" - objectively frauds - take some time to look each of those folks up). Prior them, no one was claiming this gift for 1800 years. Since then, the definition has changed multiple times to fit the bill.

---

I am not of a Pentecostal background, have never spoken in tongues, and to be frank, when I have seen/heard someone speak in tongues, my inherent reaction is skepticism, whether it should be or not.

All that said, I also disagree with the interpretation here. I don't read here Paul denigrating or discouraging the gifts of tongues, otherwise 1 Cor 14:39 would be a weird thing to write. I also don't read what he is saying as being hyperbolic.

In the whole discourse in 1 Cor 14, Paul's point is that, in communal worship, speaking in tongues (esp if there is no one to interpret) isn't very useful to the group. It's not spreading Gods word to others. He states that use of tongues is between a single person and God (verse 2) unless it is interpreted (verse 27). It gets disorderly, distracting, and obviously could get out of hand. It prevents others from sharing or using their gifts due to the disruption. It is edifying to an individual but not to the group.

This is why he prefers prophecy when in communal worship. He makes the distinction about interpreting tongues to the group because then Gods message is reaching the group, aka it becomes prophecy.

In other words, 14:39 is the summation of his point.

In my mind, I picture the sort of chaos Paul is discussing in charismatic/Pentecostal services, with lots of people speaking in tongues and no one understanding it. But to be fair, I have never been to a Pentecostal service, and that could simply be my biased assumption of how things are.