Bible Study I Speak Foreign Languages More Than You All

[wavy]

i haven't studied fully what i think that means, but wont do it tonight. i see what you are saying though. but i was speaking in context of that passage in corinthians, specifically.

 

[living4onlyJC]

Yes people at my church speak in tongues. I couldn't tell you what language it is that they speak. It's the same language for the same person, but not every person has the same language. The Holy Spirit speaks though us when we speak in tongues.... or a language as you wish it to be called.

Okay, I have three questions. 1. Is there anyone in your church who interprets the language being spoken? 2. If not, how do you know or prove that it even IS an authentic language? 3. Assuming someone is speaking Swahili (for argument's sake) is there anyone in your congregation from Swahili Land who might benefit from the message?

1. Nope
2. Because... you just know what that it is. if you have been in the presence of the Lord, than you know how you feel. And when I speak in Tongues it's teh same feeling. i doubt I would feel that way if it was demonic, or hypnotic. You only need an interpretor if you have a message for the church. Not if you are just speaking to God.
1 Corinthians 14:4-5
He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. I would like every one of you to speak in tongues,[a] but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may be edified.
^^ this testifies to the fact that you obviously don't need to being speaking to the church when you speak in tongues. Are that you need an interpretor everytime. Also...
Acts 19:6
When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied
^^ was there an interpretor there? No. So how did they know that it was from God, and not just something that they just spoke? Was there someone there that benefited to the language that was spoken? ermm no.

 

[SputnikBoy]

Yes people at my church speak in tongues. I couldn't tell you what language it is that they speak. It's the same language for the same person, but not every person has the same language. The Holy Spirit speaks though us when we speak in tongues.... or a language as you wish it to be called.

Okay, I have three questions. 1. Is there anyone in your church who interprets the language being spoken? 2. If not, how do you know or prove that it even IS an authentic language? 3. Assuming someone is speaking Swahili (for argument's sake) is there anyone in your congregation from Swahili Land who might benefit from the message?

1. Nope

That is unscriptural so it needs to be dismissed.

2. Because... you just know what that it is.

Not good enough.

if you have been in the presence of the Lord, than you know how you feel.

And only one who speaks in 'tongues' knows how this feels?

And when I speak in tongues

Languages?

it's the same feeling.

Don't you get the same feeling when you speak in your own language? If not, why?

I doubt I would feel that way if it was demonic, or hypnotic.

Why not? Some pagan tribes do a similar thing, they get worked up, go into a trance, and spew out jibberish ...are they of God?

You only need an interpretor if you have a message for the church. Not if you are just speaking to God.

Excuse me?

1 Corinthians 14:4-5
He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself,

Which is what he should NOT be doing.

but he who prophesies edifies the church. I would like every one of you to speak in tongues,[a] but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues,

Do any within your church prophesy? If not, why not?

unless he interprets, so that the church may be edified.

Which was the whole purpose of tongues (languages).

^^ this testifies to the fact that you obviously don't need to being speaking to the church when you speak in tongues.

Totally untrue.

Are that you need an interpretor everytime.

Tongues (languages) without an interpreter is worse than useless.

Also...
Acts 19:6
When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied
^^ was there an interpretor there?

As long as they spoke in tongues (languages) and prophesied then there were foreigners present for whom the message was intended. The gift of tongues (languages) was intended to be taken very seriously. It was never intended for charismatics to be playing silly games with.

No.

Yes. People would have understood without the need for an interpreter. The whole point of prophesying in another language is to get the message through to foreigners.

So how did they know that it was from God, and not just something that they just spoke? Was there someone there that benefited to the language that was spoken? ermm no.

Um, yes ...for the reasons just given.

We can't continue debating this issue in a serious manner as long as there is so much ignorance about the issue at hand. Anyone who supports the practice of 'tongues' that is going on within many Pentecostal churches are supporting something that is totally unscriptural. Whether it's evil or not I wouldn't care to say. At best, however, the practice is totally POINTLESS!

In the Bible, as long as someone had a scriptural message for someone else then it was always accomplished in the language most appropriate. Nowadays, if all the members of one's church are English speaking then there is absolutely no point someone jabbering away in gibberish. Even should there be an interpreter (just as dubious) what would be the point translating something that can be said in the appropriate language to begin with? Even if not evil ...it's the height of illogical reasoning!

As long as the church is not being edified, then one needs to keep quiet, WHATEVER language they may speak.

 

[Merry Menagerie]

Jesus said that the desciples were to wait for the 'power from on high' to come so that they had the power to minister. On the day of pentecost this happened. They were given power by the way of 'tongues' so as to be able to minister to all those around. These languages were understood and recognised as known languages. This is what the prophet Joel prophesied about. The bible does not speak of two tongues. Tongues are tongues - and are given by the Holy Spirit as he wills and will only ever glorify Jesus.

Tongues that are not understood by the congregation are useless, in fact the bible says that they are as clashing symbols. The purpose of 'tongues' in a 'church' setting is for the edification of the church. If the church is not edified then tongues is useless. The only way that the WHOLE church can be edified is if the languages were interpreted. Otherwise, you would get some who understand the language because it's their native language and those who don't understand the language - and that's not edifying of the 'whole' church.

It's not a special language so that you can speak to God - God can understand english well enough. The Holy Spirit can make intercession for you, just as well in your own native tongue...He doesn't need a 'heavenly' language to do so - God isn't an idiot!

 

[Julian Pyke]

I will post this paragraph again. It's very simple.

Upon study in Acts and Corinthians, one shall learn the act of speaking in tongues. First, tongue in the Bible often refers to as language. Contrary to popular belief, two definitions seem to appropriate these speaking in tongues. In Acts Chapter 2, on the day of Pentecost, the apostles came together, and filled with the Holy Spirit. Men from different nationalities heard these apostles and the multitude gathered. They marveled as they heard these Apostles speaking in their language, yet this multitude all came from a different nation, language. As just proven, the first definition of speaking in tongues: To speak to different nationalities of different language and yet all hear their own language. In Corinthians, it preaches on how the church of Corinth abused speaking in tongues. It speaks of self-edification but not edifying the church. This speaking in tongues clearly proves one’s spirit man speaking to God. A language one cannot understand, only God can.
The controversy in speaking in tongues holds many arguments. However, the second definition seems most controversial. Today, if one heard the Corinth version of speaking in tongues, (one’s spirit man speaking to God,) one might describe it as babble. 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. As just proven, he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God. Many become confused at this point. One must discern the two types of tongues talked about in the Bible. This scripture also says, for no man understandeth him, in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. One must also know spirit refers to the Christian’s spirit being, where Jesus lives inside of you. The spirit man stands perfect and holy before God. Further in Corinthians, to make this clearer, 1 Corinthians 14:14 - For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. The spirit prayeth, yet again, the ‘understand is unfruitful.’ Researching further into this chapter, one learns that Paul writes to the church of Corinth about their mistreatment of the Holy Spirit. He says that praying in tongues in the church accompanies interpretation. 1 Corinthians 14:5 - I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying. Another, 1 Corinthians 14:4 - He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. The church of Corinth used this gift to edify themselves, they did not interpret to edify the church. To receive edification, Paul says, 1 Corinthians 14:13 - Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret. 1 Corinthians 14:27 - 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. Paul states speaking in tongues, let it be done by two, let one interpret, and pray for interpretation.


~~~~~~~~~

Now, church of cornith only edifies one self. That was their problem. Its ok to do it, but not all the time.

Dont tell me spirit means breath. If that were true then replace all tongue written by Paul. It makes no sense then. spirit, lowercase s, means YOUR spirit. We are all amde up of spirit and soul (soul being mind and flesh, spirit being what we go to ehaven in, where God lives in side of us)

Why speak in tongues by yourself? Your spirit always knows what needs to be prayed for, even if you DONT.

 

[SputnikBoy]

I will post this paragraph again. It's very simple.

Upon study in Acts and Corinthians, one shall learn the act of speaking in tongues. First, tongue in the Bible often refers to as language.

Julian, tongue (as in speaking) or tongues are ALWAYS referred to as a language or languages. You're ignoring the Greek word 'glossa' which clearly demonstrates this fact. Nothing, no human slant, can change this fact.

Contrary to popular belief, two definitions seem to appropriate these speaking in tongues.

No, no. Just one.

In Acts Chapter 2, on the day of Pentecost, the apostles came together, and filled with the Holy Spirit. Men from different nationalities heard these apostles and the multitude gathered. They marveled as they heard these Apostles speaking in their language, yet this multitude all came from a different nation, language. As just proven, the first definition of speaking in tongues: To speak to different nationalities of different language and yet all hear their own language.

So far, so good.

In Corinthians, it preaches on how the church of Corinth abused speaking in tongues. It speaks of self-edification but not edifying the church. This speaking in tongues clearly proves one’s spirit man speaking to God. A language one cannot understand, only God can.

No, no. Even God can't understand a 'non-language'. While He might be God He can't make sense out of nonsense.

The controversy in speaking in tongues holds many arguments.

But there is no SCRIPTURAL reason why it should. It's only become an argument because of man's misinterpretation of scripture.

However, the second definition seems most controversial.

That's just the point ...there IS no second definition of tongues (languages).

Today, if one heard the Corinth version of speaking in tongues, (one’s spirit man speaking to God) one might describe it as babble.

I hate to burst your bubble, Julian, but there IS no 'spirit man'. 'He' just comes from your mind.

1 Corinthians 14:2 - For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue

an 'unknown' (to the listener) language is what is being referred to here. NOT 'unknown' as in 'unearthly'.

speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him;

That's right ...just as would be the case if I spoke Swahili to you and you don't understand a word of it.

howbeit in the spirit

Small 's' for 'spirit' which in Greek is 'pneuma' or 'air' or (one's) 'breath'.

he speaketh mysteries.

As would be the result if you heard me speaking Swahili.

As just proven, he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God.

Because no one else understands Swahili ...only God.

Many become confused at this point.

No one should become confused, however.

One must discern the two types of tongues talked about in the Bible.

And herein lies the confusion. There is only ONE type or types of (speaking) tongue/s or language/s.

This scripture also says, for no man understandeth him, in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

Which has been adequately explained above.

One must also know spirit refers to the Christian’s spirit being, where Jesus lives inside of you.

I don't doubt that there may well be an emotional state that constitutes a person's intangible being as contrasted by Jesus' physical presence, i.e. "I shall be with you in spirit." However, that has little or nothing to do with one's breaking out in some meaningless 'tongue'.

The spirit man

The spirit man ...?

stands perfect and holy before God. Further in Corinthians, to make this clearer, 1 Corinthians 14:14 - For if I pray in an unknown tongue,

'Unknown' to the hearer, NOT an 'unearthly' babble.

my spirit prayeth,

I make sounds with my mouth that don't come from the heart.

but my understanding is unfruitful.

Exactly ...something that we should NOT be promoting.

The spirit prayeth, yet again, the ‘understand is unfruitful.’ Researching further into this chapter, one learns that Paul writes to the church of Corinth about their mistreatment of the Holy Spirit. He says that praying in tongues in the church accompanies interpretation. 1 Corinthians 14:5 - I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

That's right. The whole purpose of tongues (languages) was for edification of the church.

Another, 1 Corinthians 14:4 - He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. The church of Corinth used this gift to edify themselves, they did not interpret to edify the church. To receive edification, Paul says, 1 Corinthians 14:13 - Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret. 1 Corinthians 14:27 - 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. Paul states speaking in tongues, let it be done by two, let one interpret, and pray for interpretation.

I'm confused, Julian ...where DO you stand on this issue? Okay, I'll just read on and see what happens.

Now, church of cornith only edifies one self. That was their problem. Its ok to do it, but not all the time.

Oh no it isn't okay to edify one's self at ANY time. Paul NEVER says that it's okay for one to edify themselves at all. Paul is actually chiding those who ARE edifying themselves as opposed to edifying the church. Just because he says that they ARE edifying themselves doesn't make it right.

Dont tell me spirit means breath.

I don't tell you that 'spirit' means 'breath' ...the SCRIPTURES do!

If that were true then replace all tongue written by Paul. It makes no sense then.

We're referring to 'spirit'. And it makes ABSOLUTE sense.

spirit, lowercase s, means YOUR spirit. We are all amde up of spirit and soul (soul being mind and flesh, spirit being what we go to heaven in, where God lives in side of us)

The 'spirit' in this case is that God-breathed 'breath of life' (pneuma) that made you a living soul in the first place. That which came from God will return to God.

Why speak in tongues by yourself? Your spirit always knows what needs to be prayed for, even if you DONT.

Let me reverse the question. Why speak to God in 'a language' neither He nor you can understand when you BOTH could benefit by your speaking in a familiar language? The Holy Spirit may well mediate for you, Julian, but only after the words (in your OWN language) have come out of your mouth. You may struggle to find the words but you struggle to do so in your own language.

 

[SputnikBoy]

Please check out the following.

The word ‘tongue’ is mentioned 28 times between Acts 1:19 and Revelation 16:16
The word ‘tongues’ is mentioned 27 times between Mark 16:17 and Revelation 17:15

TONGUES
Actually, in Mark 16:15, Jesus is commissioning His disciples to ‘go into the world and preach the gospel to every creature’. In v.17 He mentions the signs that will follow those who believe:

“In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues . . .etc†The word ‘tongues’ here is the Greek ‘glossa’ which means ‘language’, specifically one ‘naturally unacquired’. Now, I think we can naturally conclude that the ‘tongues’ spoken of here will be a KNOWN language but one UNKNOWN to the one believer who is preaching the gospel. Preaching the Good News (or the Great Commission) is what this text is all about. So, no ‘heavenly language’ implied here . . .agreed? Okay, let’s sort out the rest.

‘Tongues’ in Acts 2:3, 4 &11. 10:46, and 19:6 are still ‘glossa’.
Similarly with ‘tongues’ in Romans 3:13.
1 Corinthians 12:10, 28 & 30. 13: 1 & 8. 14: 5, 6 & 18, ‘tongues’ are still ‘glossa’ . . .same definition
1 Corinthians 14:21. ‘tongues’ is the Greek ‘heteroglossos’ and means ‘man of other tongue’.
1 Corinthians 14:22, 23 & 39 we’re back to ‘tongues’ as ‘glossa’.
Revelation 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 16:10 & 17:15 are ‘glossa’, the same definition as that given in Mark 16:17

That’s it. A complete list of the word ‘tongues’ and its Greek definition in the entire New Testament. Nowhere does it refer to ‘tongues’ as anything other than a KNOWN language and often UNKNOWN to the believer prior to the gift of the Holy Spirit. As Acts 2:8 says, “And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born?â€Â

TONGUE
‘Tongue’ as found in Acts 1:19 and 2:8 is the Greek ‘dialektos’ which means ‘language’ or ‘dialect’.
Acts 2:26 we’re back to ‘tongue’ as ‘glossa’
Acts 21:40; 22:2 & 26:14 is ‘tongue’ = ‘dialektos’ as above
Romans 14:11 is ‘tongue’ as ‘glossa’
1 Corinthian 14:2, 4, 9, 13, 14, 19, 26 & 27 is ‘tongue’ as ‘glossa’
Phillip 2:11 . . . "every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord†is ‘glossa’
James 1:26; 3:5, 6 & 8 is ‘tongue’ as ‘glossa’
1 Peter 3:10 is ‘tongue’ as ‘glossa’
1 John 3:18 . . .“let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth†is ‘glossa’
Revelation 5:9 is ‘tongue’ as ‘glossa’
Revelation 9:11 is ‘Hebraisti’ which means ‘Jewish’ (Chaldee) or ‘Hebrew’ tongue
Revelation 14:6 is ‘tongue’ as ‘glossa’
Revelation 16:16 is ‘Hebraisti’ as above.
There are 5 references to ‘tongues’ in the Gospel (prior to Acts 1:19) but all pertain to the same definition as ‘glossa’.

That’s it. A complete list of the word ‘tongue’ and its Greek definition in the entire New Testament. Again . . .NOWHERE does it refer to ‘tongues’ as anything other than a KNOWN language and often UNKNOWN to the believer prior to the gift of the Holy Spirit. There is no allowance made for a special 'prayer language' or for anything resembling any practice consistent with that of the Pentecostal Church.

Feel free to try and refute any of the above scriptures and their Greek definition/s.

 

[Julian Pyke]

I know what tongue means. Language. I ahve said I known that all along.

SPIRIT is what we are fighting over. replace all letters written by Paul, that say spirit, replace it with breath, and read the Bible.

Makes-no-sense

we are made of spirit, and soul. Our spirit enters heaven, our soul is our mind and body.

 

[Merry Menagerie]

Well done sputnik - Also I wish to comment how often people quote 1 Cor. 14 v 2 and then stop there - like Paul, in his letters, skipped from one train of thought to another or something. Because, you see...if you read on to verse 10...verse 2 starts to make a bit more sense...

10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. 11. Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.

As you can see above - Paul is talking about an unknown tongue...the same as in verse 2. This unknown tongue is described as 'voices of the world'. So lets read on...

verse 13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

What unknown tongue? Well it speaks of this in verse 10 and 11 "voices of the world" and "Barbarian". Then he says "Therefore if I know not the menaing of the voice...." So there you have it...he's obviously talking about a language unknown by those around not some mystrious babble.

Then as you read on...he goes on to talk about when one prays in an unknown tongue that their understanding is unfruitful...and he then concludes that he prays in the understanding and at the say time he'd be praying in the spirit....

15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the understanding also...etc

So please...when spouting 1 Cor 14 v 2 ...can you try and keep it in context and keep reading and see what Paul was actually talking about. Because it seems very clear in scripture that Paul was not talking about 'babble' but rather a language of the world that is unknown to the speaker and the church. In fact the whole chapter talks about the unknown tongue this way because in verse 23 he talks about those who are unlearned...the unlearned being 'uneducated'...uneducated in what exactly? In other languages of course. Paul spoke in tongues more than any of them because he was an apostle and could speak in many languages - those who are unlearned would not understand the languages because they were unlearned and they would think that they were mad.

Remember, his letter was addressing the church as a whole. Please keep scriptures in context.

 

[Julian Pyke]

I am keeping scriptures in contect. I don't take spirit and say it's breath. Thats making your own meaning. Or something to satisfy you.

 

[SputnikBoy]

I am keeping scriptures in contect. I don't take spirit and say it's breath. Thats making your own meaning. Or something to satisfy you.

Okay Julian, tell me the difference between 'spirit' and 'Holy Spirit' as per the Bible ...NOT merely your opinion.

 

[Julian Pyke]

Holy Spirit is God. Jesus. Part of the Holy Trinity. God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are the same.

we all have a spirit. When we are born again we recieve the Holy Spirit. God lives in our spirit. Our spirit goes to heaven. The spirit in us is what lives forever.

 

[SputnikBoy]

Holy Spirit is God. Jesus. Part of the Holy Trinity. God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are the same.

we all have a spirit. When we are born again we recieve the Holy Spirit. God lives in our spirit. Our spirit goes to heaven. The spirit in us is what lives forever.

I asked for scripture, Julian. You just gave what you think.

 

[Merry Menagerie]

I am keeping scriptures in contect. I don't take spirit and say it's breath. Thats making your own meaning. Or something to satisfy you.

Are you addressing me here?

And while we're on the subject - when God breathed the breath of life into adam and made him a living soul...breath here means...

1) breath, spirit

a) breath (of God)

b) breath (of man)

c) every breathing thing

d) spirit (of man)

Found here....[url]http://www.blueletterbible.org/ ... -1498.html[/url]


While we're here - you might like to look at these meanings of the word 'spirit' that I found in the strong's concordance...

1) the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son

a) sometimes referred to in a way which emphasises his personality and character (the "Holy" Spirit)

b) sometimes referred to in a way which emphasises his work and power (the Spirit of "Truth")

c) never referred to as a depersonalised force

2) the spirit, i.e. the vital principal by which the body is animated

a) the rational spirit, the power by which the human being feels, thinks, decides

b) the soul

3) a spirit, i.e. a simple essence, devoid of all or at least all grosser matter, and possessed of the power of knowing, desiring, deciding, and acting

a) a life giving spirit

b) a human soul that has left the body

c) a spirit higher than man but lower than God, i.e. an angel

1) used of demons, or evil spirits, who were conceived as inhabiting the bodies of men


2) the spiritual nature of Christ, higher than the highest angels and equal to God, the divine nature of Christ

4) the disposition or influence which fills and governs the soul of any one

a) the efficient source of any power, affection, emotion, desire, etc.

5) a movement of air (a gentle blast)

a) of the wind, hence the wind itself

b) breath of nostrils or mouth


Found here... http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/ ... 4-638.html

And have you got anything to say about my post about 1 Corinthians 14 v 2?

 

[Julian Pyke]

You just said it for me. In your post, spirit has many differnt meanings. Whatever you choose to believe it means.
I will get back to you spuntik, finals, should be able to get em to you tommorrow

 

[SputnikBoy]

You just said it for me. In your post, spirit has many differnt meanings. Whatever you choose to believe it means.
I will get back to you spuntik, finals, should be able to get em to you tommorrow.

Okay Julian ...good luck with the finals.

 

[Merry Menagerie]

You just said it for me. In your post, spirit has many differnt meanings. Whatever you choose to believe it means.
I will get back to you spuntik, finals, should be able to get em to you tommorrow

The meanings that I got were from the word as found in the bible.

 

[John the Baptist]

Do you all recognize the following scriptures? They don’t read quite as familiarly as you’re used to reading them but they are still 100% accurate. I promise!

…they shall speak in new languages (Mark 16:17)
…began to speak in other languages (Acts 2:4)
…we do hear them speak in our own language (Acts 2:11)
…they spoke in foreign languages and prophesied (Acts 19:6)
…to another many kinds of languages (1 Corinthians 12:10)
…to another the interpretation of foreign languages (1 Corinthians 12:10)
…governments, many different languages (1 Corinthians 12:28)
…do all speak foreign languages? (1 Corinthians 12:30)
…though I speak in the languages of men and (1 Corinthians 13:1)
…whether there be foreign languages they shall (1 Corinthians 13:8)
…I would that you all spoke in foreign languages (1 Corinthians 14:5)
…than he that speaks in foreign languages (1 Corinthians 14:5)
…if I come to you speaking foreign languages (1 Corinthians 14:6)
…I speak foreign languages more than you all (1 Corinthians 14:18)
…with men of other languages (1 Corinthians 14:21)
…wherefore foreign languages are for a sign (1 Corinthians 14:22)
…and all speak in foreign languages (1 Corinthians 14:23)
…and forbid not to speak in foreign languages (1 Corinthians 14:39)

Do any of you practice the above examples of foreign languages in your own church?

*******
John here:
Tongues are now for a purpose. (Language) It was not so at the start. ALL were using the same tongue!

No offense intended! (to the other ones friend! :wink But I believe that you need to start all over again in reading Romans 2:14-15. These are just people, Gods creation. OK? Forget this tribe, that tribe, nation, nationalities, Jews, Israel and all of that different tongue stuff, and get the bottom line of why they were now needed. HOW WERE THESE SAVED?? But notice that they are ALL GENTILE!!

God had none of these 'nations' when [Mankind] were created. Then came sin. Noah preached to [MANKIND]. This was the message [from the start.]

All of the rest of the plan was for the same purpose. Israel was a place that [God tried to use] for His Promises & Blessings & Warnings to be given [for MANKIND to be saved!] And one reason that we see Israel of old rejected was because they all were speaking in the 'unknown tongue'! And that is not a language from God friend! Acts 2:4-8. In other words, they were listening to satan. See Genesis 4:7's counterpart!

 

[lecoop]

I think it's self explanitory. does not speak to MEN but to GOD. He speaks in his spirit. Spirit man talking to God. In corinthians it also says specifically in my spirit I speaketh.

This verse you said is where your spirit man communicates with God. Acts 2 is where you speak in a language you dont know but the others of differnt nationalities understand you.

There are two differnt kinds of tongues or languages.

I'm sorry Julian, but I don't believe that. I believe that the definition of 'languages' as per the Holy Spirit never changed from its initial appearance in Acts. And, the spirit that you keep referring to as your 'spirit man' is simply one's breath. The Greek word for ‘breath’ or ‘air’ is 'pneuma'. Paul is speaking in terminology that is quite different to the way we speak today and we need to be aware of this.

What Paul is saying is basically this: " ...he utters mysteries with his breath." In other words, it is not spoken from the mind but is little more than ‘dead air’. It's meaningless. No one is benefiting from whatever it is that is being spoken. In fact, we’re given a good example of this ‘speaking into the air’ in 1 Corinthians 14:9. The spirit in this context, by the way, is small 's' and not the Holy (S)pirit ...large 'S'.

I'll go out on a limb here and say that I don't even believe those to whom Paul was addressing even had an in-filling of the Holy Spirit to begin with. This is why Paul was gently admonishing them for whatever it was they were doing that was not edifying to the church. Whatever utterances some were coming out with was UNKNOWN (a mystery) to those around them. Whatever they were doing ...it was wrong ANYWAY since no interpretation was being provided. Therefore they should have remained silent, no ifs or buts.

I would hope that you have experience these "languages" and are therefore an expert in this field, since you are purporting to teach others?

Did you not notice in Acts 2, that it clearly says that people "heard" in these languages, not that these languages were spoken? Did you notice that there were 120 all speaking at once, in "languages" and no one interpreted?

Did you notice in Acts 10 that all there in Cornelius' house spoke in languages, all together, and no one interpreted? Did you notice that Peter did not correct them? Did you notice that in Acts 19, all twelve spoke in "languages" and Paul did not correct them? In each of these occasions, these speakers in "languages" were speaking to God, and "no man understands." In Acts 2, God added another dimension to "langauges" and allowed the hearers to hear in their own language.

In Acts 2, is says, "as the Spirit gave them utterance." This is the first time "languages" are mentioned, so this is setting a precedent. We now know that "languages" are coming from the HS. Paul said "For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful." Therefore, we know that "languages" originate from the Holy Spirit, are passed to our human spirit, and then to our mouth, bypassing the human mind. That is why Paul said that his understanding was unfruitful.

Since Acts shows us examples of many people speaking in tongues at once, and not being corrected, we know that there are times that this is ok, such as when people are receiving this baptism with the HS.

Coop

 

[SputnikBoy]

I think it's self explanitory. does not speak to MEN but to GOD. He speaks in his spirit. Spirit man talking to God. In corinthians it also says specifically in my spirit I speaketh.

This verse you said is where your spirit man communicates with God. Acts 2 is where you speak in a language you dont know but the others of differnt nationalities understand you.

There are two differnt kinds of tongues or languages.

I'm sorry Julian, but I don't believe that. I believe that the definition of 'languages' as per the Holy Spirit never changed from its initial appearance in Acts. And, the spirit that you keep referring to as your 'spirit man' is simply one's breath. The Greek word for ‘breath’ or ‘air’ is 'pneuma'. Paul is speaking in terminology that is quite different to the way we speak today and we need to be aware of this.

What Paul is saying is basically this: " ...he utters mysteries with his breath." In other words, it is not spoken from the mind but is little more than ‘dead air’. It's meaningless. No one is benefiting from whatever it is that is being spoken. In fact, we’re given a good example of this ‘speaking into the air’ in 1 Corinthians 14:9. The spirit in this context, by the way, is small 's' and not the Holy (S)pirit ...large 'S'.

I'll go out on a limb here and say that I don't even believe those to whom Paul was addressing even had an in-filling of the Holy Spirit to begin with. This is why Paul was gently admonishing them for whatever it was they were doing that was not edifying to the church. Whatever utterances some were coming out with was UNKNOWN (a mystery) to those around them. Whatever they were doing ...it was wrong ANYWAY since no interpretation was being provided. Therefore they should have remained silent, no ifs or buts.

I would hope that you have experience these "languages" and are therefore an expert in this field, since you are purporting to teach others?

Not an expert ...just someone who can read and comprehend the scriptures on this issue.

Did you not notice in Acts 2, that it clearly says that people "heard" in these languages, not that these languages were spoken? Did you notice that there were 120 all speaking at once, in "languages" and no one interpreted?

There was no need for interpretation since the target audience 'heard' the message in their own language.

Did you notice in Acts 10 that all there in Cornelius' house spoke in languages, all together, and no one interpreted? Did you notice that Peter did not correct them?

What was there to correct? The whole purpose of this text appears to be a 'sign' to the Jews that the Gentiles were just as capable of receiving the Holy Spirit as they were.

Did you notice that in Acts 19, all twelve spoke in "languages" and Paul did not correct them? In each of these occasions, these speakers in "languages" were speaking to God, and "no man understands." In Acts 2, God added another dimension to "languages" and allowed the hearers to hear in their own language.

Yes. Pretty good, huh? I see that you've also spliced in a portion of 1 Corinthians 14:2 that doesn't belong in Acts 19.

In Acts 2, is says, "as the Spirit gave them utterance." This is the first time "languages" are mentioned, so this is setting a precedent. We now know that "languages" are coming from the HS.

Okay.

Paul said "For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful."

Now you've jumped to 1 Corinthians 14:14 and here Paul is addressing an issue not relative to where you've just come from (Acts 2).

Therefore, we know that "languages" originate from the Holy Spirit, are passed to our human spirit, and then to our mouth, bypassing the human mind. That is why Paul said that his understanding was unfruitful.

This is not relative to Acts 2.

Since Acts shows us examples of many people speaking in tongues at once, and not being corrected, we know that there are times that this is ok, such as when people are receiving this baptism with the HS.

What you're doing here is taking examples of Acts 2 and applying them to the Church of Corinth and Paul's instruction to that church. These are two distinctly different issues and need to be recognized as such.