WHAT In The World Is . . .

[RadLad72]

Originally Posted by Trekker06

Rad, I mentioned in a previous post that you know two acquaintances of mine who have demonstrated that Pentecostal 'tongues' can be turned on at will. While I doubt that you've ever witnessed such a demonstration from them (I won't mention their names - husband and wife - for obvious reasons) the potential for such is there since they live close by. They could both get up and 'speak in tongues' in any Pentecostal church and sound like the real (?) thing.

I think the main thing that people get so hung up on is the VERY NAME 'tongue'. It implies something mysterious and supernatural which it is not. If, in every instance of 'tongue speaking' in the Bible, the phrase became 'foreign language' the mystique would disappear. And 'tongue' DOES simply mean ...foreign language. We could - and probably SHOULD - do away with the word and give it its correct definition. That might resolve the issue ...but, then again . . .

The biggest mystery to me about this whole phenomenon is that people actually fall for this stuff!

Mate,

People will believe what they want to believe whether you give them a million proofs agin what they are believing in. Jesus Himself said that people wouldn't believe even if a man came back fromt he dead, so what chance have we got of convincing people from their beliefs?

Rad.

[RadLad72]

Originally Posted by Jeff Mills

No they don't fall for this stuff as you put it Trek. They are Bible-believing Christians moving in the spirit, and it is one of the gifts of today whether you like it or not.

And, of course, everything you say is gospel and no one else's take on things have any legs to stand on (sarcasm intended).

Rad.

[Trekker06]

Originally Posted by RadLad72

And, of course, everything you say is gospel and no one else's take on things have any legs to stand on (sarcasm intended).

Rad.

I'm looking forward to the time when someone can explain:

(a) what (Pentecostal) 'tongues' actually ARE ...if not 'babble'

(b) how they edify (benefit) others

(c) how they even edify (benefit) the individual allegedly speaking in 'tongues'

(d) how one is to determine whether or not 'tongues' are:

(1) psychological ...basically fake but sincerely BELIEVED by the individual to be genuine

(2) 'real' (?) as of the Holy Spirit (?) or

(3) just plain bogus ...a learned practice used merely as a means to 'belong' to a selective group

Even those who claim to speak genuine (?) 'tongues' confess that others 'fake it'. So, how can anyone be anything else but a skeptic? And, if it's between an individual and God (the usual cop out when no other answer is forthcoming) then why do Pentecostals promote 'tongues' as the be and end all of one's being "Spirit-filled'. Then there's the other 'goody' response, of course, when someone questions the authenticity of this practice. The response? "If YOU were Spirit-filled' you wouldn't even need to question 'tongues'."

So many questions and no answers that will suffice.

[RadLad72]

Originally Posted by Trekker06

I'm looking forward to the time when someone can explain:

(a) what (Pentecostal) 'tongues' actually ARE ...if not 'babble'

(b) how they edify (benefit) others

(c) how they even edify (benefit) the individual allegedly speaking in 'tongues'

(d) how one is to determine whether or not 'tongues' are:

(1) psychological ...basically fake but sincerely BELIEVED by the individual to be genuine

(2) 'real' (?) as of the Holy Spirit (?) or

(3) just plain bogus ...a learned practice used merely as a means to 'belong' to a selective group

Even those who claim to speak genuine (?) 'tongues' confess that others 'fake it'. So, how can anyone be anything else but a skeptic? And, if it's between an individual and God (the usual cop out when no other answer is forthcoming) then why do Pentecostals promote 'tongues' as the be and end all of one's being "Spirit-filled'. Then there's the other 'goody' response, of course, when someone questions the authenticity of this practice. The response? "If YOU were Spirit-filled' you wouldn't even need to question 'tongues'."

So many questions and no answers that will suffice.

This is because there are no answers that aren't the twistng and turning of scripture to fit people's theology. If this gets me banned than so be it but it is the truth nevertheless. The Bible never says that babbling is a good thing to do. It is people's own interpretations of it that cause them to believe it. The only time it is sufficiently explained is when we look in Acts 2 and it is most assuredly actual languages that they spoke. Not this practice of Pentecostals.

Rad.

[Trekker06]

Originally Posted by RadLad72

This is because there are no answers that aren't the twistng and turning of scripture to fit people's theology. If this gets me banned than so be it but it is the truth nevertheless. The Bible never says that babbling is a good thing to do. It is people's own interpretations of it that cause them to believe it. The only time it is sufficiently explained is when we look in Acts 2 and it is most assuredly actual languages that they spoke. Not this practice of Pentecostals.

No one should be banned merely for disagreeing with another's take on their interpretation of scripture. I can see quite clearly (or as clearly as one can) what was going on in Acts with reference to speaking in tongues.

With only one side of an issue that was clearly NOT approved of by Paul or the original 'complainees' to whom Paul is responding, I can also see quite clearly that something was amiss in 1 Corinthians 13/14. It certainly involved 'languages', that much we do know. Beyond that there is absolutely no reason for a doctrine to have emerged from one or two ambiguous texts.

I just want the truth!
Even if others can't handle the truth!

Hmm ...sorry Tom and Jack.

[Humble Pie]

I have proven you wrong over and over and over again on this thread. You said prophecy was preaching the word I gave you the REAL definition (just happens to line up with pentecostalism) I have given you scriptures backing up tongues, you refuse to accept. Start a new thread just on tongues and we will debate one on one, point for point. You question, I answer. I question, you answer. When the dust clears you will see that your interpretations just simply do not hold up.

[Trekker06]

Originally Posted by Humble Pie

I have proven you wrong over and over and over again on this thread. You said prophecy was preaching the word I gave you the REAL definition (just happens to line up with pentecostalism) I have given you scriptures backing up tongues, you refuse to accept. Start a new thread just on tongues and we will debate one on one, point for point. You question, I answer. I question, you answer. When the dust clears you will see that your interpretations just simply do not hold up.

I am willing to do that HP. But the Pentecostal 'tongues' issue has nothing to do with MY interpretation of scripture. I'm not interpreting anything. I'm just reading scripture and by reading scripture I have to determine that 'PT' are nothing more than meaningless babble. Sorry.

[Humble Pie]

Originally Posted by Trekker06

I'm not interpreting anything. I'm just reading scripture...

Truer words have never been spoken... this could be the start of many of our problems...

Originally Posted by Trekker06

No one should be banned merely for disagreeing with another's take on their interpretation of scripture. I can see quite clearly (or as clearly as one can) what was going on in Acts with reference to speaking in tongues.

With only one side of an issue that was clearly NOT approved of by Paul or the original 'complainees' to whom Paul is responding, I can also see quite clearly that something was amiss in 1 Corinthians 13/14. It certainly involved 'languages', that much we do know. Beyond that there is absolutely no reason for a doctrine to have emerged from one or two ambiguous texts.

I just want the truth!
Even if others can't handle the truth!

Hmm ...sorry Tom and Jack.

But not ALL tongues is babbling. We can't discount some because of all the fakes.

Originally Posted by RadLad72

And, of course, everything you say is gospel and no one else's take on things have any legs to stand on (sarcasm intended).

Rad.

No Rad. You have stepped into a born-again site where we all believe in this. It is yours and Treks rudeness that does not help matters. Accept that we agree to disagree here and leave the matter. No one is getting anywhere, so I therefore close this thread. Where sarcasm starts to step in, it is finished!