Speaking of tongues....

[Georges]

I was cruising through the threads and my eye caught a couple of posts on "speaking in tongues" with the term "angel speak" used in Paul's Corinthian verses.

Many posters know that I'm not a big fan of Paul and this is just another example of why.....look at these verses.

1Cr 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become [as] sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
1Cr 13:2 And though I have [the gift of] prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

I do get criticized for my questioning of Paul. In these 2 verses Paul confirms that he:

1. Uses Gnostic terminology

and,

2. Has Mystery Religion influences

In the case of number 1, Gnostic Christians claim to have "special knowledge" only given by revelation to certain individuals....In many letters, Paul uses classic Gnostic terminology...ie "mystery revealed" etc as witnessed to in 1 Cor 13:2.

In the case of number 2, Paul is using mystery Religion terminology ie "sounding brass, clanging cymbals etc", and even "speaking in tongues, ie babbling" to get his point across. These events are closely tied in with the ecstatic practices of the worship ceremonies of the Mystery Religions...

From http://www.hwhouse.com/Current%20Articl ... ystery.htm

Here is an excerpt...read the whole article (very interesting). Notice in the excerpt the "clanging of cymbals" and the note below on the "death and resurrection" of the god they were worshipping.

The worship of Cybele-Attis was accepted by the Greeks in approximately 200 B.C. The rites of this cult were extreme in nature. Priests who were stirred by clashing cymbals, loud drums, and screeching flutes, would at times dance in a frenzy of excitement, gashing their bodies. Even new devotees would emasculate themselves in worship of the goddess.

The Cybele-Attis mystery religion existed in the first century A.D. Emperor Claudius (A.D. 41â€â€54) introduced a festival of Cybele-Attis which focused on the death and resurrection of Attis.14 Montanus, a second-century Christian heretic, known for his ecstatic excesses, was a priest of Cybele at one time.15 However, no evidence that this writer examined indicated that a temple of Cybele-Attis was in Corinth during the first century, though the Corinthians may have been familiar with that cult.



hmmmmm....very interesting........

 

[Imagican]

In reference to this:


1Cr 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become [as] sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

What one must first consider is that Paul is offering NOTHING more than 'speculation' to begin with. Much like me saying, "If I could fly to heaven.................." Now, everyone KNOWS that I can't 'fly', so this is nothing other than an analogy.

The Charismatics use this verse to try and 'prove' that there is a mumbling kind of tongues. They point to this and say, 'see, there ARE the tongues of Angels. I believe that this is PURE fantasy. Paul using an analogy to try and make a point, and then those that would insist that there is some 'mysterious' gibberish 'tongues' come along and take what he said and turn it around into 'something else'.

As further proof of what I say, Paul can no more become 'sounding brass, or a 'tinkling cymbal, than he can speak in tongues of Angels. He is simply trying to point out that NO MATTER WHAT HE, or anyone else does, WITHOUT CHARITY, IT IS MEANINGLESS. Get it?

 

[Georges]

I understand exactly what Paul is doing....he is making a reference.

But, why is he using Pagan terminology to win converts? He obviously is. Why is he allowing anything Pagan to creep into Church worship?

It couldn't be that, Paul "being all things to all men", could have been using terminology to which the indigents (Asia Minor) were used to hearing, and rituals that they had been participating in.....to teach his theology of Christianity could it?

If this is the case, that is how Pentecostal's (for example) can justify "speaking in "angel speak"". In other words...without knowing about Gnosticism, or Mystery Religion, one is forced to take Paul at his word. If this is the case...what else is screwed up.

I guess it could be coincidental.... :roll:

 

[Free]

Many posters know that I'm not a big fan of Paul and this is just another example of why.....look at these verses.

There is nothing wrong with anything Paul states in those verses and he is not introducing anything Pagan into Christian worship.

Act 17:23 For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, 'To the unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.
Act 17:24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,

Could it be that Paul uses Gnostic terminology by twisting it to mean something Christian? Could it be that Paul is taking jabs at Gnostic and mystery religion beliefs? Both cases are very plausible and far more likely than believing that Paul is trying to introduce Paganism into the Church.

 

[Imagican]

So, Georges, I suppose that your contention is that the Bible, (over half of the NT), is not the insprired Word of God? That the Catholics added all this against God's will and that we have NO inspired Word of God to call our own?

The Gnostic teachings did NOT come out of no-where. This was obviouly an offshoot of Christianity that flourished at one point. It seems at times that if the Catholic Church had not come along and squashed these, that MOST Christianity NOW would probably be gnostic in nature. Being an anti-legalist of sorts, I find that legalism seems to require men to become the judges of each other rather than leaving this in the hands of God and Christ. This being the case, I opt for that which exacts the least restraint upon the individual. In this case, I wonder if the gnostics weren't closer to the truth than the Catholics. We KNOW what atrocities were wrought by the Catholics in the name of God. Just wonder what things would have been like if the gnostics had not been squashed and if they had been allowed to run their course. We may have found ourselves more understanding of the love of God instead of having been exposed to all the hate brought on by the RCC.

I don't know the answer, but it does make on wonder..................

 

[Georges]

Many posters know that I'm not a big fan of Paul and this is just another example of why.....look at these verses.

There is nothing wrong with anything Paul states in those verses and he is not introducing anything Pagan into Christian worship.

So says you..thanks for presenting the counter argument with supporting evidence...I presented the evidence in the first post stating the contrary...I guess it can be coincidental that Paul uses the imagery and terminology associated with Gnotic/Mystery Religion....


Act 17:23 For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, 'To the unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.
Act 17:24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,

Could it be that Paul uses Gnostic terminology by twisting it to mean something Christian?

That would be the classic argument....to justify some of his apparent Gnostic statements...by hooking those Athenian stoics, he may have introduced the fledgling Church to the future Christian "Stoic" Fathers. Good job Paul.

Could it be that Paul is taking jabs at Gnostic and mystery religion beliefs?

Well if he is...it didn't work. He uses Gnosticism and Mystery terminology to make his points. It is obvious that Chrisitianity evolved from a blending of Gnosticism, Mystery Religion and Judaism. The Apostles in Jerusalem got their message accross without having to relate to Gnosticism or Mystery.

Both cases are very plausible and far more likely than believing that Paul is trying to introduce Paganism into the Church.

Apparently that is not the case....as I've stated, Modern Christianity has evolved from Gnostic, Mystery and Judaism thanks to Paul's input.

 

[Free]

So says you..thanks for presenting the counter argument with supporting evidence...

Well you said so first and you also did it without presenting any evidence. Why is it I have to provide evidence and you don't, especially when you are the one making such a claim?

Apparently that is not the case....as I've stated, Modern Christianity has evolved from Gnostic, Mystery and Judaism thanks to Paul's input.

But you have zero evidence that Christianity has evolved from Gnosticism or any mystery religion. There is no evidence, only speculation, which is just what you have done. Your bias against Christianity has caused you to draw unwarranted conclusions from things Paul has stated when my understanding makes far more sense. If your conclusions were true, then there would be irreconcilable contradictions in Paul's teachings regarding such matters. My conclusions fit with everything he states without contradiction.

 

[Georges]

So says you..thanks for presenting the counter argument with supporting evidence...

Well you said so first and you also did it without presenting any evidence. Why is it I have to provide evidence and you don't, especially when you are the one making such a claim?

Free, you must have skimmed over the first post w/o reading the whole thing...please allow me to cut and paste...

...In the case of number 2, Paul is using mystery Religion terminology ie "sounding brass, clanging cymbals etc", and even "speaking in tongues, ie babbling" to get his point across. These events are closely tied in with the ecstatic practices of the worship ceremonies of the Mystery Religions...

From http://www.hwhouse.com/Current%20Articl ... ystery.htm

Here is an excerpt...read the whole article (very interesting). Notice in the excerpt the "clanging of cymbals" and the note below on the "death and resurrection" of the god they were worshipping.

The worship of Cybele-Attis was accepted by the Greeks in approximately 200 B.C. The rites of this cult were extreme in nature. Priests who were stirred by clashing cymbals, loud drums, and screeching flutes, would at times dance in a frenzy of excitement, gashing their bodies. Even new devotees would emasculate themselves in worship of the goddess.

The Cybele-Attis mystery religion existed in the first century A.D. Emperor Claudius (A.D. 41â€â€54) introduced a festival of Cybele-Attis which focused on the death and resurrection of Attis.14 Montanus, a second-century Christian heretic, known for his ecstatic excesses, was a priest of Cybele at one time.15 However, no evidence that this writer examined indicated that a temple of Cybele-Attis was in Corinth during the first century, though the Corinthians may have been familiar with that cult.

To read the whole article w/references provided (one of many sites that can be found by searching the web) click on the link.

Apparently that is not the case....as I've stated, Modern Christianity has evolved from Gnostic, Mystery and Judaism thanks to Paul's input.

But you have zero evidence that Christianity has evolved from Gnosticism or any mystery religion. There is no evidence, only speculation, which is just what you have done.

There is as much evidence to support what I've proposed...What I have proposed is that Chirsitanity has evolved from Judaism w/ Gnostic/Mystery added into the mix. How many Chruch Father's were schooled in Philosophy? Greek Philosophy and Gnosticism are intellectual cousins. Is any evidence concerning anything biblical 100% verifiable? No. What is known about Gnosticism and Mystery Religion is also best guess. If you care to do the research yourself....it is clear Paul teaches differently than the others...and whether or not Paul intends to...he certainly uses Gnostic/Mystery terminology.

Your bias against Christianity (My bias against mainstream Christianity as it has become, not the Nazarene Christianity of the Early Church) has caused you to draw unwarranted conclusions from things Paul has stated when my understanding makes far more sense (Spoken just as Paul would have done ).

Unwarranted? ha. As far as "your understanding", hold on to it if it makes sense to you. For me, I'll stick with the other Apostles who don't have to use Gnostic/Mystery language to teach Christ.

If your conclusions were true, then there would be irreconcilable contradictions in Paul's teachings regarding such matters.

Paul doublespeaks quite often...An easy example of this is his self affirmation that he observes Torah Law, but yet advises Gentile Proselytes of not observing that Law. I'll do the research to see where he contradicts himself, get back to you on that one.

My conclusions fit with everything he states without contradiction.

Yeh...but does it agree with the OT, and the practices of the other Apostles? I think maybe not.....

 

[Free]

If you care to do the research yourself....it is clear Paul teaches differently than the others...and whether or not Paul intends to...he certainly uses Gnostic/Mystery terminology.

I have done the research and Paul does not teach a whole lot different than any of the others, particularly regarding salvation or the nature of God. That Paul uses Gnostic terminology in his letters is of little consequence and it is fallacious to conclude that he is promoting Gnosticism or in someway trying to slip paganism into Christianity.

You apparently missed the point of my quote from Acts. Paul points out to the people that they were worshipping an unknown god, but he turns that on them to say that it is actually God and that they should worship only Him. Similarly he uses the language of something the people already believed in but brings in a different meaning. In his very use of Gnostic terminology he is showing the people the error of Gnostic beliefs, providing an apologetic for Christian belief.

What remains is that not once does Paul attempt to introduce pagan beliefs into Christianity. To say otherwise is to completely ignore the fact that he was a "Jew among Jews". This goes for the rest of the NT writers as well.

(My bias against mainstream Christianity as it has become, not the Nazarene Christianity of the Early Church)

If, as you stated, that "any evidence concerning anything biblical" is not "100% verifiable," I wonder how you can make such a statement. You must have a bead on the Early Church that no other scholar has.

For me, I'll stick with the other Apostles who don't have to use Gnostic/Mystery language to teach Christ.

Paul didn't have to use that language either, but he did. The fact remains that Paul's writings are among the earliest of the NT, so if anything, you should believe him and reject the others.

 

[Henry]

There is nothing wrong with anything Paul states in those verses and he is not introducing anything Pagan into Christian worship.

Interesting accusation...when 90% of what is done in any average church today is out of paganism.

 

[Georges]

If you care to do the research yourself....it is clear Paul teaches differently than the others...and whether or not Paul intends to...he certainly uses Gnostic/Mystery terminology.

I have done the research and Paul does not teach a whole lot different than any of the others, particularly regarding salvation or the nature of God.

Free, I am curious to find out if the study was an objective one...in other words, was the information all pro Paul, or did your studies include unbiased information as well? If you only researched information from "Pro Paul" resources only, then you can only be "Pro Paul". If your research has included both "Pro and unbiased" material, and you support Paul, kudo's to you....

And I'm not sure who you mean by any of the other's?

That Paul uses Gnostic terminology in his letters is of little consequence and it is fallacious to conclude that he is promoting Gnosticism or in someway trying to slip paganism into Christianity.

Really, so you are admitting that Paul uses Gnostic terms? or, are you are saying "what if he uses Gnostic terminology so what?"? Little consequence? That may work for you....I just as soon leave the paganism out of the Gospel of Christ. As you can see, it is false. If it weren't, we'd see a more more Jewish Chirsitianity today. Instead we have Pauline Christianity.

Also, you are missing the bigger point. Paul may not have been introducing (intentionally, who knows) Gnosticism or Mystery into his teachings, but what he did introduce detracted/distracted the teachings of Christ enough to cause a split with the Church in Jerusalem (the legitamate heirs of Christ's authority). Again, the evidence of this that the Church today isn't practicing Judaism as it should.



You apparently missed the point of my quote from Acts. Paul points out to the people that they were worshipping an unknown god, but he turns that on them to say that it is actually God and that they should worship only Him.

No...I didn't miss your point....being a former Lutheran, I recognized the pecking order (as it appears) in Lutheranism....that being in order of authority: Luther, Paul, Christ, and God....so I've been taught Paul all of my life. I know the stock answer how Paul turns something local into his advantage to promote "his Christ". Just a thought....was Paul promoting the worshiping a statue?

Similarly he uses the language of something the people already believed in but brings in a different meaning. In his very use of Gnostic terminology he is showing the people the error of Gnostic beliefs, providing an apologetic for Christian belief.

That is not so.....he isn't showing them error....he is using their (maybe his) terminology to promote "his" adgenda....Why does he not use "Jewish" terminology to promote Christ....I mean, if Paul visited the Synagogues where ever he went, why did he not witness by using Jewish terms...A good study will show that every synagogue had a good number of God Fearing Gentiles whom the Jews were trying to Proselyte. Why did Paul have to use Gnostic terminology to people who were interested in Judaism anyway?

What remains is that not once does Paul attempt to introduce pagan beliefs into Christianity. To say otherwise is to completely ignore the fact that he was a "Jew among Jews". This goes for the rest of the NT writers as well.

Was Paul a Jew, or was he a Benjaminite? Paul introduces paganism, if he uses pagan terminology....intentional or not.

(My bias against mainstream Christianity as it has become, not the Nazarene Christianity of the Early Church)

If, as you stated, that "any evidence concerning anything biblical" is not "100% verifiable," I wonder how you can make such a statement. You must have a bead on the Early Church that no other scholar has.

Please...Did you just state that to bust my chops?.....take an opinion poll....See how many positive responses you get. Title your poll "Is anything biblical 100% verifiable?" and I think you will be the only one who says "yes"....

For me, I'll stick with the other Apostles who don't have to use Gnostic/Mystery language to teach Christ.

Paul didn't have to use that language either, but he did. The fact remains that Paul's writings are among the earliest of the NT, so if anything, you should believe him and reject the others.

Keep thinking that way...if it suits you.....I need better than that. The fact remains...if Paul uses Gnostic/Mystery terminology (even if it is the earliest "commentary") he should be rejected, and the philosphies and principles of the Chruch in Jerusalem should be adopted.