AnotherTraveler Posted October 11, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 80 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,595 Content Per Day: 0.22 Reputation: 10 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/12/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted October 11, 2008 Verse 2 Explained Paul's reasoning, in that no man undersatands tongues, in the spirit he speaks mysteries. I went to the movie theater and there was nothing good playing so I decided to come back to the Tim Horton's coffee shop, plug in, and get back on this thread . AnotherTraveler...I was wondering based on what you said above if you think the tongues Paul spoke to the Corinthians about could not be understood by any man? In other words were tongues simply an unknown language to the person speaking them but a language nevertheless that was present somewhere in the world (and understandable by those speaking it natively) or a language that could not be understood by anyone for it was not a human language? If you don't mind sharing any further thoughts on this I would appreciate hearing them. Carlos Sorry Carlos I just was rereading this thread and realized that you had asked me a direct question that I haven't replied to yet. The first example of tongues in Acts 2 reads this way... And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? 8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Acts 2:7-8 (KJV) Paul said... 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. 1 Cor 13:1 (KJV) Since I have found no scriptural reason for tongues to have changed, I think that sometimes it is clearly understood by men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Biblicist Posted October 12, 2008 Share Posted October 12, 2008 This does not seem like a very difficult concept to understand. Perhaps it is difficult to be willing to apply it. But it seems pretty clear in terms of what Paul said to the Corinthians. Now I don't think that Paul was saying that a woman should not speak at all in any respect whatsoever as in not saying hi to anyone, or telling her children to behave, or telling her husband that she needed to go use the washroom (whatever they used in those days I have no idea) or any other such thing. That would have made it near impossible to practically have women in the meeting at all short of them using sign language to communicate about such matters which is a bit...well...ridiculous to suppose that Paul meant. This made me chuckle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlos123 Posted October 12, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 61 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,015 Content Per Day: 0.14 Reputation: 97 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/12/2004 Status: Offline Author Share Posted October 12, 2008 ...Since I have found no scriptural reason for tongues to have changed, I think that sometimes it is clearly understood by men. Thanks for clarifying what you meant AnotherTraveler. No biggie about missing my direct question. This thread is starting to get a bit long and that's understandable. If I missed what anyone said to me directly or otherwise I also apologize. Regarding tongues I was thinking about this some over the course of the last few hours and am inclined to believe that it was indeed a known language. That is, a language like English, Spanish, or any other human language. That is not to say that it may not also in certain people be a language that is not known. That is angelic or out of this world somehow. I am not sure the Scriptures are clear on which one it is or whether both are true. The important thing for purposes of our discussion I guess is to realize that whatever tongues was, Paul made it very clear that no more than 2 or 3 should speak in tongues in a church assembly and then only if someone having the gift of interpretation was present to interpret the tongue into something that could be understood by those gathered in the common language of the day. One could interpret their own tongue if they had the gift of interpretation or others having that gift could have done so too. This goes completely against the grain of some church assemblies today that allow anyone with the gift of tongues (assuming it is the real thing) to speak them publicly without interpretation. I have been in such assemblies where what sounds like gibberish is spoken by many different ones at the same time. If one is not used to that it can be quite scary. I suppose in Paul's day it would have also been considered barbaric and perhaps crazy. I am not quite sure what the rational in such tongue speaking churches of today is...for allowing everyone and many to speak in tongues at once in view of 1 Cor 14 which very clearly does not give such liberty to tongues speakers. Here is a question for anyone still following this discussion.... Let's assume that Paul said the following for a moment (and really such an assumption is not without grounds since it seems to me that Paul did indeed say the following - it's there in black and white and in plain English after all). That no more than 2 or 3 tongues speakers should speak and then only if there is an interpreter. That no more than 2 or 3 prophets should speak and that if one of them is speaking and something comes to someone sitting down that the one speaking should become silent so that what is coming to the one sitting can be shared. That women are to remain silent and not speak out in the assembly of the church. That it is a disgrace for them to do so. That each one (in view of the prohibition against women speaking out - that each one of the men) should participate by initiating to sing a psalm, a revelation, something to share in tongues, a doctrine to share, or an interpretation of tongues. Barring any underlying Greek or other plausible reason to think Paul said something different and assuming for a moment that I correctly summarized what Paul said....WHY are we not seeing that kind of church meeting today?? I mean the meetings of today, and in my life I have been to a whole slew of them, are more along the lines of spectators watching what is going on in the front where only a very few, sometimes just one or two are sharing anything at all with the rest of those sitting. And sometimes, perhaps more often than we might imagine, those doing the sharing are not even gifted to be sharing what they are sharing at all. I look at the meeting described by Paul in 1 Cor 14 and the meetings of today and see little resemblance. Unless I am blind or something, and by all means if someone thinks that please correct me in love so that I might see what I do not presently see, why is it that the meetings of today are not like what Paul described?? Why did what Paul describe cease to exist? And if what Paul described is as I summarized above why do we not implement such meetings again?? I mean if God is a living God, and I believe He is, does it not stand to reason that He would want to lead our meetings again through the Holy Spirit operating as He wills within the Body? Whomever He wills to operate through at any moment in time during such meetings? As Paul described? Anybody? Carlos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 12, 2008 Share Posted October 12, 2008 Tongues Talking! "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." 1 Corinthians 1:18 Jesus! Jesus! Jesus! "And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood," Revelation 1:5 Crying Hosanna LORD! Save Now! "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call." Joel 2:32 Professors Professing! "Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession." Hebrews 4:14 Confessing! "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Romans 10:9 Jesus! "And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom." Luke 23:42 Tongues Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnotherTraveler Posted October 13, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 80 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,595 Content Per Day: 0.22 Reputation: 10 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/12/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted October 13, 2008 I mean the meetings of today, and in my life I have been to a whole slew of them, are more along the lines of spectators watching what is going on in the front where only a very few, sometimes just one or two are sharing anything at all with the rest of those sitting. A very accurate description "spectators watching what is going on in the front". Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. 6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. 1 Cor 12:4-6 (KJV) there are differences of administrations there are diversities of operations That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. 26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. 27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. 28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. 1 Cor 12:25-28 (KJV) then gifts of healings, helps, governments As I understand it, and as I have seen in very many places, there are different administrations, operations, and governments. Paul wrote That there should be no schism in the body and spoke of the care we should have one for another. I heard a preacher say that all divisions are a failing in our love one for another, and at the time I thought that was a simplistic answer, but on further reflection, it really is quite profound. If I love like I should, I will be patient, kind, believing all things, hoping all things, and never fail. However, when I get impatient, actually I am setting what I want as more important than my duty to love. The puffing up of my pride fights directly against my call from God to love. Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, 5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; 1 Cor 13:4-5 (KJV) Sometimes we get offended on behalf of others that we regard too highly... And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. 1 Cor 4:6 (KJV) Again, I believe that the environment of love allows variations of administrations, operations, and governments, but these are not to keep us from loving one another with a pure heart. In a way, it's like we are all in the Family of God school, but each of us is in differing grades, which causes us to also be taking differing classes, have differing strengths and weaknesses, and have different friends and associates, but we are all still in the Family of God, and need to relate with each other as brethren. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts