Speaking in Tongues

[NOGO]

Continuing my look at differences between the Epitles and the Gospels/Acts

In Acts speakng in tongues is described as a miraculous instantaneous simultaneous translation into the language of the listener. The UN can certainly use such a gift.

Acts 2:6-8
And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of
them was hearing them speak in his own language. They were amazed and astonished, saying,
"Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans?
"And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born?

This occurred when believers received the holy spirit which Jesus promised them would help them know what to say.

Paul on the other hand has a very different notion of the idea of speaking in tongues.

1 Cor 14
2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands,
but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.

So this gift according to Paul is not meant to help believers speak to other people. It is for believers to speak to God and not to men. Why? Because "no one understands"
We are indeed millions of miles from Acts 2:6-8

Verse 5
Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and
greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that
the church may receive edifying.

Verse 16
Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted
say the "Amen" at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying?

Paul calls for translation or interpretation the very thing which Acts claims to do. People are filled with the holy spirit to speak great mysteries but nobody understands including the person speaking.


Verse 27,28
If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.

In other words if there is no interpreter then shut up.

How did we go from
Everybody understands in his native language
to
Nobody understands ???


How did this idea of speaking in tongue arise?
Anybody have an idea?

Is this a case of embarrassment where the original idea reflected in Paul's letters was just too silly?

[redzrx]

I've been to a church(friend is a member and wanted me to go).. where the speaking in tongues was considered a norm.

I't so plain thats it jibberish. Someone would spew some non coherent words(I use that loosely) and a few secs later someone would translate.. usally includes jesus or lord save us and such.

I looked around to see if I was on a hidden camera.. but.. I tell ya .. you gotta see it to believe it. These people believe it! They claim it is another Language! Their f**ked.

Mario

[Rymmie1981]

Being a tongue-talker for quite some time, I can say that we were always taught that if we came upon a tribe on an island somewhere, the Holy Spirit would come upon us and we would be speaking in the tribe's language about Jesus. They always took the Acts2 event as saying that the apostles were speaking in the languages of all the people from all over the world who had come to Jerusalem for the Passover. This, in corrolation with 1Cor(13 or 14?), where Paul says, If I speak with tongues of angels and have not love, yada, yada, yada, says that speaking in tongues means you are speaking in some language that someone, or something, else can understand, even if it's only God.

But, it's mostly just jibberish. I never understood how the same 10 syllable pattern repeated over and over could turn into a translation about the evils of sex and drugs and God is good and we're going to the next level as a church(I guess we killed enough demons, I hope we get the smiting blow feat :D ) and so on. Benny Hinn crusades are fun to watch. They usually have a lot of tongues and the occasional translation.

[NOGO]

Rymmie1981
They always took the Acts2 event as saying that the apostles were speaking in the languages of all the people from all over the world who had come to Jerusalem for the Passover


Acts 2 does not say that the apostles spoke foreign languages.
It says that each understood in his own language.

The focus is not on the speaker. The focus is on the listener.

The mracle is not that apostles all of a sudden spoke all the languages of the world. The miracle is that everybody understood at the same time.

[Rymmie1981]

I realize that, NOGO, but you should try convincing the pastors I grew up listening to. I wasn't trying to give that as my point of view, since my point of view has changed considerably since I last "spoke in tongues". It was just the point of view that brought up to believe.

[Paradox]

I used to "speak in tongues" every day hoping that the words I used were somehow "spiritual" and would bring some form of revelation to me inwardly as I read the Bible. I guess it worked because I now realise what a load of old %^&* it is. :D

Even as a Christian I used to be so embarrassed by a guy at the church who would always be spilling out the same heart felt message...
"shadada shadada shadada shadada...." you get the picture. Different interpretation every week of course (that's how they get around it. Its not a translation but an "interpretation")

On the subject of languages I recently realised that one of the most ludicrous leaps Christians have had to make from the rational to the ridiculous is the story of the Tower of Babel. Forget the Garden of Eden and Noah's ark. They actually believe that a group of people were suddenly struck down one day whilst building a big zigurat and amazingly they all spoke the different languages of the world. I actually took that literally whilst I was a Christian!!

[NOGO]

Rymmie1981
I realize that, NOGO, but you should try convincing the pastors I grew up listening to. I wasn't trying to give that as my point of view, since my point of view has changed considerably since I last "spoke in tongues". It was just the point of view that brought up to believe.


Sorry.

Actually I realized that this was not your opinion. I was responding to the intepretation which you quoted. I will be more careful in the future.

[Rymmie1981]

Actually I realized that this was not your opinion. I was responding to the intepretation which you quoted. I will be more careful in the future.

No problem. I was probably a little sippy in my post. I haven't been having the best day and it comes out in my communication. I will attempt to be more civil myself. But, in the end, it's all in the wording when being nice or mean. And so I will part with the following, "Shadala. Mememecococo, yomene taska sheh neco. Hooooooooo, LORD, nis makhan daleh meson."

I hope you take it the spirit that it is given.

[Kryten]

I hope this post is not considered too flippant, but my aunty Betty used to speak in tongues. She now resides in a mental home.
Poor woman.

[Atticus_Finch]

If you look at the description of speaking in tongues in Acts 10 and Acts 19 they are not inconsistent with the passages quoted from Paul.

I think most Christians would say that the experience of the Day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was poured out for the first time and the church as we know it was born, was exceptional and not to be considered a norm.

Regards,

Finch

[Kosh]

I always speak in toungues with my wife. But she always interprets it the same! "Oh God.... yeah.....right......THERE!"

I'll be here till friday.

[NOGO]

Atticus
I think most Christians would say that the experience of the Day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was poured out for the first time and the church as we know it was born, was exceptional and not to be considered a norm.



Paul disagree with that since he thought of himself as much an apostle as anybody including Peter. The idea that the twelve somehow received somthing which others didn't is totally foreign to Paul.

Acts clearly says that the Spirit comes to anybody who believes that Jesus resurrected. For example read the story of Cornelius.

Acts 10:44-46
No sooner were these words out of Peter's mouth than the Holy Spirit came on the listeners. The believing Jews who had come with Peter couldn't believe it, couldn't believe that the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out on "outsider" Gentiles, but there it was--they heard them speaking in tongues, heard them praising God.
Then Peter said, "Do I hear any objections to baptizing these friends with water? They've received the Holy Spirit exactly as we did."

Note the text in bold.
So much for the uniqueness of the day of the Pentacost
Nothing here suggests that speaking in Tongues agrees with what Paul says.
That would be strange considering that the same author wrote Acts 2 where speaking in tongues is very different to what Paul says.

[CX]

I hope this post is not considered too flippant, but my aunty Betty used to speak in tongues. She now resides in a mental home.
Poor woman.

entirely too flippant. We here in BC&H do not have a sense of humor that we are aware of. Crap! Now I'm going to have to moderate myself for contentless oneline posts!

[Amos]

It's the least of the gifts and therefore the beginning. Nothing wrong with it as it teaches us to blank out our conscious mind and go directly to God (via Mary, of course, lol). In glosslalia our stream of words flow over our voice box where reason is interjected into our stream of words according to convention.

[Mageth]

On the subject of languages I recently realised that one of the most ludicrous leaps Christians have had to make from the rational to the ridiculous is the story of the Tower of Babel. Forget the Garden of Eden and Noah's ark. They actually believe that a group of people were suddenly struck down one day whilst building a big zigurat and amazingly they all spoke the different languages of the world. I actually took that literally whilst I was a Christian!!

The Babel account is obviously a myth meant to explain the origin of diversity in languages/cultures. As such, I don't find the myth itself "ridiculous", as long as one understands that it is a myth. What I do find rather problematic is when people interpret what is obviously a myth as literal history. The same goes for the Genesis creation myths and the Flood myths as well (both the creation and the flood myths are actually two different versions of the myths merged into one).

And I find it interesting that you brought up the Tower of Babel. Reading the earlier posts in this thread, I was thinking about the Acts Pentecost account and how it might be viewed in light of the Babel myth. One could view Pentecost as itself a myth of how God restored or is restoring common language, or common understanding among people, that he took away at Babel.

An interesting way to look at it, anyway.

[apocalypsecow]

I went to a fundy, tongues-speaking church, and it is exactly like it's been described. One day, my friend at the church told me that some guy had come to this other guy's church and stood in the back and said that the people were REALLY speaking Aramaic languages. "Wow!" I said. I *pretended* to, at least once.

:rolleyes:

And the Babel/Pentecost connection is very obvious, I think.

[Gary Hudson]

Speaking in tongues, which is a rapid repetition of approximately 10 hard sounding syllables, is an ancient practice used in the purification of the throat or voice center. That center is considered the throne of Satan or evil.

It is not exclusive to Christianity and is similar to the 10,000 syllable mantra of Tibetan Buddhism.

The practice actually dissociates speech from habitual thought (egoic) patterns and is most effective when coupled with a heavenly (top of the head, as dead) eye roll movement.

Gary

[Atticus_Finch]

Paul disagree with that since he thought of himself as much an apostle as anybody including Peter. The idea that the twelve somehow received somthing which others didn't is totally foreign to Paul.

Acts clearly says that the Spirit comes to anybody who believes that Jesus resurrected. For example read the story of Cornelius.

Acts 10:44-46
No sooner were these words out of Peter's mouth than the Holy Spirit came on the listeners. The believing Jews who had come with Peter couldn't believe it, couldn't believe that the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out on "outsider" Gentiles, but there it was--they heard them speaking in tongues, heard them praising God.
Then Peter said, "Do I hear any objections to baptizing these friends with water? They've received the Holy Spirit exactly as we did."

Note the text in bold.
So much for the uniqueness of the day of the Pentacost
Nothing here suggests that speaking in Tongues agrees with what Paul says.
That would be strange considering that the same author wrote Acts 2 where speaking in tongues is very different to what Paul says.

Sorry if I was not clear. The part of Pentecost which I was suggesting was exceptional was the part about everyone hearing their own language. I agree that Paul taught that the Holy Spirit was available and for all believers.

Regards,

Finch

[NOGO]

Finch
Sorry if I was not clear. The part of Pentecost which I was suggesting was exceptional was the part about everyone hearing their own language. I agree that Paul taught that the Holy Spirit was available and for all believers


Yes and on what basis can you claim this?

Since the everybody receives the same Holy Spirit and with it the power to speak in tongues why then did would Pentacost be unique?

The author of Acts and Paul simply do not have the same view of speaking in tongues.

[Atticus_Finch]

Yes and on what basis can you claim this?

Since the everybody receives the same Holy Spirit and with it the power to speak in tongues why then did would Pentacost be unique?

The author of Acts and Paul simply do not have the same view of speaking in tongues.

I have not done a search, but off the top of my head I am not aware of any other portion of scripture talking about people hearing their own language when people spoke in tongues. If that is correct then the passage itself shows that it was exceptional.

You have not responded to my point that the discription of tongues in Acts 10 and 14 are consistent with those described in Paul's writings. If you are going to say the author of Acts and Paul had a different concept of tongues you need to address the latter references to tongues in Acts as well.

Regards,

Finch

[NOGO]

Finch
You have not responded to my point that the discription of tongues in Acts 10 and 14 are consistent with those described in Paul's writings. If you are going to say the author of Acts and Paul had a different concept of tongues you need to address the latter references to tongues in Acts as well.


This is all that I was able to find.

Acts 10
45 All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.
46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered,

Acts 19
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying.

How do you know that the author is speaking here of something different than in Acts 2? I just don't see it.

I would suspect that in both cases they heard these people speak Hebrew (ie their own mother tongues) and that is how they knew that they were speaking in tongues.

To prove your point you need to find a case where it is stated that nobody understood. In that case the writer would be contradicting himself.


Finch
I have not done a search, but off the top of my head I am not aware of any other portion of scripture talking about people hearing their own language when people spoke in tongues. If that is correct then the passage itself shows that it was exceptional.


Off the top of my head I would say that I am not aware of any other portion of Acts/Gospels where people speak in tongues and nobody understands them.

If you can find anything let me know.

What Paul says is very much what people do today.
Paul is rather realistic about this. He knew what we all know that people who speak in tongues just mumble.

Acts on the other hand is pure fantasy.
If you are going to make such a claim, might as well make a good story and that is what Acts does.

You are in fact saying that the disciples actually received something no one else did. Paul denies this. He sees himself no different than any apostle of Jesus including Peter.

[Craigart14]

I read somewhere--I think in Bruce Bawer's Stealing Jesus--that the first modern instance of Christian glossolalia occurred in 1901. I've been told that some Pentecostals speak in tongues routinely; my department head, according to her niece, sometimes speaks in tongues while cooking. And I have seen evangelists on television speak in tongues very casually. I tend to think it's gibberish.

Craig

[Al Kafirun]

I think it has to do with the ripple effect miracles tend to follow. Its more difficult to fraudulently re-produce the miracle of being able to become literate through the will of God. Add to that the art of pious misreadings (without which Christianity itself wouldn't exist) and voila.

[Steven Carr]

Paul on the other hand has a very different notion of the idea of speaking in tongues.

1 Cor 14
2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands,
but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.


The next verse is also interesting :-
If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing

Contrast that with the words of Jesus in Matthew 17:20 He replied, "Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."

Jesus praises what Paul disparages.


Paul implies that you must have great faith to move mountains, while Jesus says even a small faith can move mountains.

One of them is not on message. Paul clearly does not think much of the teaching of Jesus.

[Vorkosigan]

I always speak in toungues with my wife. But she always interprets it the same! "Oh God.... yeah.....right......THERE!"

I'll be here till friday.

Your wife says "Oh God.... yeah.....right......THERE!" and you reply "I'll be here till Friday?"

No wonder she loves you.....

[LP675]

And I find it interesting that you brought up the Tower of Babel. Reading the earlier posts in this thread, I was thinking about the Acts Pentecost account and how it might be viewed in light of the Babel myth. One could view Pentecost as itself a myth of how God restored or is restoring common language, or common understanding among people, that he took away at Babel.

An interesting way to look at it, anyway.
Woah! That’s nice! You could probably do your honors paper on something like that!(especially if you dropped the part about it being a myth). That’s the sort of fruity thing they love! Good work. Mind if I talk about that with a couple of friends doing Luke/Acts in college this semester?

[LP675]

Woah! That’s nice! You could probably do your honors paper on something like that!(especially if you dropped the part about it being a myth). That’s the sort of fruity thing they love! Good work. Mind if I talk about that with a couple of friends doing Luke/Acts in college this semester?
Oops, its been done :(

[Paradox]

.And I find it interesting that you brought up the Tower of Babel. Reading the earlier posts in this thread, I was thinking about the Acts Pentecost account and how it might be viewed in light of the Babel myth. One could view Pentecost as itself a myth of how God restored or is restoring common language, or common understanding among people, that he took away at Babel.

An interesting way to look at it, anyway.

Actually that's exactly what I used to think, which is why I brought it up in this thread. :D
Though it seems crazy to think that the Babel myth could be seen as factual, many do. I remember listening to a lecture where it was demonstrated that the tower was even built with water proof materials in case God would break his promise and send another flood!

[Mageth]

Oops, its been done :(

Yeah, I don't think the idea is original to me, unfortunately. But, of course, feel free to discuss it with whoever you want!

[ThankGodImAnAtheist]

בְּרֵ×?שִית בָּרָ×? ×?ֱלֹהִי×? ×?ֵת ×”Ö·ï*‰Ö¸×žÖ·×™Ö´×?