Speaking in Tongues a Stupid Practice and Probably "Annoys God."

[Psalmist]

The idea of the serpent representing the life force and traveling up the spine is a mythological concept found often in ancient cultures. And--indeed--in Christian theology.

The phrase in the New Testament that Jesus is the serpent lifted up taps into this tradition. So does the iconography of the Egyptian pharaohs that shows a snake coming out of the head (the "third eye") of the carvings on the sarcophagus.

Because the snake sheds its skin it was believed to have the power of immortality.

And of course, there is the passage in the New Testament when Jesus urges his followers to be "wise as serpents and harmless as doves." The snake is tied to the earth and the dove is not.

How do you get "Jesus is the serpent" out of John 3:14-15
"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." The Son of Man must be lifted up not Jesus the snake.​

 

[This Charming Manc]

1. The charismatic movement in Catholicism is a fairly recent thing. I don't know very much about it, and given its historical "newness," so to speak, I'm distrustful of it. :idunno:

Look at the start of some of the old orders, you can see charismatics appearing at different places in catholic histories. Terms of reference maybe different but you will see those supernatural Christian experiences happening.

Knowing a few catholic charismatics and sharing experiences with them, its pretty much the same 'stuff', there maybe is a greater sense of reverence and little more freedom to interpret through tradition rather than scripture.

I still remember praying for one lovely catholic girl to be filled with the spirit, it was gentle and beautiful, she didn't speak in tongues fall over, it was just that presence of God was almost tangible, she had a very deep peace about her and she actually glowed(emotionally not bright blue or anything).

2. As in many cases, it's possible that the charismatic Catholic and the Protestant simply may mean different things by "speaking in tongues." The practices may be different. I'm not as familiar with the charismatic Catholic practice.

I suggest you get familiar before you start defining it and how its different, you've been wrong about everything you have said about it.

 

[musterion]

Equating Christ Himself with a serpent - which the Bible does not do - should be reportable as blasphemy but there's no real point in reporting it.

 

[This Charming Manc]

You could also describe cessationism as deism light wrapped a pseudo biblical shell.

Has church advanced to the point where it no longer requires the power of God?

Has God ceased to want to heal the sick?

Are we superior to original apostles and prophets?

Cessationism: http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=422&var3=main


The Cascade Argument can be summarized thus:

1) There are no apostles of Christ on earth today.
2) Because there are no apostles of Christ, there are no prophets.
3) Because there are no prophets, there are no tongue speakers.
4) In view of 1-3, there are no miracle workers on earth today.

1. There are No Apostles of Christ on Earth Today
A) To be an Apostle of Christ was itself a gift to the church, and the foremost of the gifts. 1 Corinthians 12:28-31 Ephesians 4:8-11 – Christ gave gifts to men, among them apostles.

B) The term “apostles of Christ” is to be distinguished from missionaries, aka “apostles of the churches,” which is a different office. Only “apostles of Christ” are no longer among us.

C) To be an apostle of Christ, there were three distinguishing marks:
----i) Directly appointed by Christ (Mark 3, Luke 6, Acts 1:2, Acts 10:41, Galatians 1:1). That’s why the lot was used.

----ii) Physical eyewitnesses of the Resurrected Jesus (Acts 1:22, Acts 10:39, 1 Corinthians 9:1)

----iii) They are able to confirm their apostlate by doing miracles (2 Corinthians 12:12).

D) The apostles of Christ spoke authoritatively for Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 14:37).

E) There are five reasons we know from Scripture that the Apostlate ceased:
----i) Ephesians 2:20 The church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, which alludes to Revelation 21:14. The analogy implies that the apostles and prophets were confined to the foundational period of church history.

----ii) 1 Corinthians 15:8 Paul “last of all” was the last one to see the risen Christ. And since being a physical eyewitness to the risen Christ is one of the marks of an apostle, Paul is the last apostle.

----iii) 1 Corinthians 12:31 and 14:1 indicate that Christians cannot seek the gift of Apostle of Christ – the greatest gift they could seek was prophecy, even though apostleship was identified as a gift.

----iv) Galatians 2:7-9 Paul received the right hand of fellowship from the 12 apostles, but no one can today.

----v) Ephesians 2:20 This passage describes the form of the New Testament as “apostles and prophets.” If there were apostles and prophets today, the canon would be open, as those apostles/prophets continued to speak authoritatively. But Charismatics (nearly all) recognize that the canon is closed, therefore they ought to recognize that the apostlate is also closed.

F. Apostolic Gift is Linked to Impartation of Other Gifts (Acts 8)
This suggests the cessation of the miraculous gifts.

2. There are No Prophets Today
A) The cessation of the apostolate creates the presumption or at least possibility of cessation of other gifts.

B) NT Prophets like the Apostles were foundational to the New Testament church. (Ephesians 2:20)

C) Definition of Prophet in Deuteronomy 13 & 18 was never rescinded, and this requires infallibility.

D) Just as the OT’s authority is summarized as “the prophetic word” (2 Peter 1:19-21) and its form is also described in about a dozen NT references to “the law and the prophets” or “Moses and the prophets”, so also the NT’s canon is summarized in Ephesians 2:20 as “apostles and prophets” (the prophets in question are NT prophets as seen in Ephesians 3:5; 4:11 and 1 Corinthians 12:28).

3. There are No Tongue-Speakers Today because Tongues was a form of prophecy.

A) Acts 2 tongue speaking is explained by reference to Joel 2, where it is described as prophecy.

B) 1 Corinthians 14:5 asserts the equivalence of the two gifts, if tongues is interpreted.

C) In both tongues and prophecy, the speaker is uttering mysteries, which refers to prophetic revelation (1 Corinthians 13:2, Revelation 1:3, 1:20, and 10:7).

4. There are No Miracle-Workers Today
There may be miracles today, but there is a difference between miracles and miracle workers.

Recommended reading:
http://www.amazon.com/To-Be-Continued-Miraculous-Gifts/dp/1879737582

AMR

 

[Interplanner]

To RevTestament re 62
[sorry the quote thingy didn't work]
Not to express the gospel to Jews, but followers of Judaism--who don't believe the mission of God now is the gospel to the nations--have to be in the picture. It was showing them, supernaturally!, that God was doing just that. Check Acts 2, 11, 19 and the quote of Isaiah in I Cor 14 and you'll see the same thing in each case. In Acts 11 it is a further rebuke to Peter to get rid of another gospel (Gal 2) that added on things from the Law. The Gentiles there believed the gospel of Christ's atoning sacrifice for their forgiveness (the one gospel), and PETER was the former follower of Judaism needing proof of God's mission.

Paul graciously weaned the Corinthians off of whatever was going on there, but certainly nailed the above agenda again by quoting Isaiah. That is the purpose of it. I doubt if there is further need, unless Judaism today gets really agressive and needs to be shown the same thing.

Notice nothing happens in Acts 3 with the same message and people. It was already not needed.

Notice that Bible translators have worked for years without it even where it would be very helpful, because there are no followers of Judaism in the picture who need the push.

 

[aikido7]

How do you get "Jesus is the serpent" out of John 3:14-15
"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." The Son of Man must be lifted up not Jesus the snake.​

To me the text is clear. Because it is in the Bible, I have to confront it honestly and take it seriously.

Since Jesus only characterized himself as the "Son of Man" (which actually means "human being") the idea that the "Son of Man be lifted up" clearly refers to Jesus being lifted up.

The influence of the iconography of the snake climbing up a pole represents the divine energy moving up the spinal cord. The symbol for medicine shows the same image. The cult of the Brotherhood of the Snake/Serpent is associated with Freemasonry and is indicated on the dollar bill.

Only if you take this sacred language literally will you become threatened and alarmed.

Myth and metaphor in the Bible point to absolute truths in ways that logical and rational language can never do.

 

[aikido7]

Equating Christ Himself with a serpent - which the Bible does not do - should be reportable as blasphemy but there's no real point in reporting it.

If you cannot understand the sacred language in the quote as equating Jesus as the snake then I don't really know what else to tell you.

There were many, many, many ways of equating Jesus with ancient traditions. He is known as Emmanuel, Son of God, born of a virgin, the light, salvation, the Lamb--all SORTS of different theological concepts that were applied to him after his death and resurrection.

I am sorry you feel alarmed and threatened by this fact. It is not my intention to be disruptive or blasphemous. I am merely offering up some information that is actually IN the text. You need to make your own best choice about how to deal with it.

I myself have no business telling anyone what to believe or to accept my measly and pitiful opinions for today's church doctrine.

 

[RevTestament]

To RevTestament re 62
[sorry the quote thingy didn't work]
Not to express the gospel to Jews, but followers of Judaism--who don't believe the mission of God now is the gospel to the nations--have to be in the picture. It was showing them, supernaturally!, that God was doing just that. Check Acts 2, 11, 19 and the quote of Isaiah in I Cor 14 and you'll see the same thing in each case. In Acts 11 it is a further rebuke to Peter to get rid of another gospel (Gal 2) that added on things from the Law. The Gentiles there believed the gospel of Christ's atoning sacrifice for their forgiveness (the one gospel), and PETER was the former follower of Judaism needing proof of God's mission.

Paul graciously weaned the Corinthians off of whatever was going on there, but certainly nailed the above agenda again by quoting Isaiah. That is the purpose of it. I doubt if there is further need, unless Judaism today gets really agressive and needs to be shown the same thing.

Notice nothing happens in Acts 3 with the same message and people. It was already not needed.

Notice that Bible translators have worked for years without it even where it would be very helpful, because there are no followers of Judaism in the picture who need the push.

In the example of translation I don't think it is a matter of the audience creating a need in translation, but a matter of the translator not needing an on the spot gift to relate the message to a group of listeners.

Mark 16:17
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

I don't see anything here about speaking specifically to judiazers.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

This is what's termed a "logical fallacy". The points are based on assumptions, not facts.

Nicely done, that is, ignoring all the Scriptural evidence elucidated in my post and then just jumping to some other verses and claiming you have met your hermeneutical burden.

If you are going to employ the technique, at least make an effort to do so correctly. :AMR:

AMR

 

[RevTestament]

If you cannot understand the sacred language in the quote as equating Jesus as the snake then I don't really know what else to tell you.

There were many, many, many ways of equating Jesus with ancient traditions. He is known as Emmanuel, Son of God, born of a virgin, the light, salvation, the Lamb--all SORTS of different theological concepts that were applied to him after his death and resurrection.

I am sorry you feel alarmed and threatened by this fact. It is not my intention to be disruptive or blasphemous. I am merely offering up some information that is actually IN the text. You need to make your own best choice about how to deal with it.

I myself have no business telling anyone what to believe or to accept my measly and pitiful opinions for today's church doctrine.

Jesus wasn't the serpent who bit the people so they would die. And Jesus wasn't the serpent being lifted on the pole, but that was a semblance of looking fearlessly upon the serpent and thus overcoming fear of death through Christ. The cross represents fear of death which the serpent brought into the world by lying to Eve(or the church).

 

[StanJ]

Nicely done, that is, ignoring all the Scriptural evidence elucidated in my post and then just jumping to some other verses and claiming you have met your hermeneutical burden.
If you are going to employ the technique, at least make an effort to do so correctly.

AMR

I was not dealing with the scriptures you supplied, just your take, or should I say your cited link, that you summarized.

You can't start with a false premise and then expect it to be exegeted when it never was.

 

[StanJ]

STanJ,
you're not quite specific enough though. The exhortation is to the unbelieving Jew that God's mission is indeed to the nations. That's why there are always unbelieving Jews in the picture and they are in need of proof that the Gospel should be going to the nations. Peter was the first one after Pentecost, which is a paradox (since he was at Pentecost), but there it is. He had caved in to Judaism's other Gospel and stood in need of correction done by tongues, by the vision and by Paul.

At the time of 1 Cor, that was NOT the context. Peter was indeed a devout Jew, but his eyes were opened in Acts 10 and going forward HE was not as much a problem as James was in this regard.

 

[StanJ]

Kundulini tongues are the same as the babbles spoken in the penticoastals churches. If you were speaking in tongues like in Acts, then you not know how to speak german at all and then all of a sudden you speak fluent german to the germans like you lived there. That rules your tongues out and you have been doing the same thing they do in hinduism, yoga and older religions. There is nothing new in your claims. Theres nothing wrong with you babbling but babbling and lying at the same time causes ailments and corruption of the heart. Thats is the bad thing.

 

[Puppet]

:carryon:

 

[Interplanner]

STanJ,
I don't think you would know that you were speaking German. It would be German to German listeners. But there has to be followers of Judaism in the room who don't think God's mission is the Gospel to the nations. That's who was shown this sign. If they think God's message to the nations is his law, they are the ones in need of the sign.

You'll find this in collating Paul's rebuttal of Peter about justification in Gal 2B and realizing that Peter (who was at Pentecost!!!) needed that rebuttal and the sheet vision and the sign of tongues to realize that the message to the nations was the Gospel not justification by observing the law.

 

[StanJ]

STanJ,
I don't think you would know that you were speaking German. It would be German to German listeners. But there has to be followers of Judaism in the room who don't think God's mission is the Gospel to the nations. That's who was shown this sign. If they think God's message to the nations is his law, they are the ones in need of the sign.

You'll find this in collating Paul's rebuttal of Peter about justification in Gal 2B and realizing that Peter (who was at Pentecost!!!) needed that rebuttal and the sheet vision and the sign of tongues to realize that the message to the nations was the Gospel not justification by observing the law.

As I said, tongues is NOT a known language. It is a NEW language. The Greek connotes something never before seen. That this happened at Pentecost is not a coincidence as it was for the Jews FIRST, but very soon afterwards it was given to Gentiles as Peter witnessed in Acts 10 and as Paul confirmed in Rom 1:16

Paul argument with Peter was a valid one and He had the same argument with James. We discount neither in terms of veracity.

 

[This Charming Manc]

However your process creates an argument then hangs scriptures which at best are loosely associated with the subject and interpret them in light of you argument.

There are also a number of large leaps in your argument which are neither biblical or necessarily logical.

1) There are no apostles of Christ on earth today.

A matter which we could have interesting biblical debate over, for example Acts 14:14 refers to Barnabas as an apostle.

2) Because there are no apostles of Christ, there are no prophets.

No logical or biblical connection with point 1

3) Because there are no prophets, there are no tongue speakers.

No logical or biblical connection with point 1 or 2.

4) In view of 1-3, there are no miracle workers on earth today.

based on big assumptions in points 2 and 3.

You can post all the scriptures you want but there is no clear and agreed logical flow to the argument.

Nicely done, that is, ignoring all the Scriptural evidence elucidated in my post and then just jumping to some other verses and claiming you have met your hermeneutical burden.

If you are going to employ the technique, at least make an effort to do so correctly. :AMR:

AMR

 

[Interplanner]

Real tongues (Acts 2, 11, 19, I Cor 14 quoting Isaiah) is a sign to followers of Judaism that God's mission is the Gospel to the nations, not the law. There has to be members of Judaism who see this sign in action. Everything else is doubtful; Paul didn't forbid it, but he certainly minimised it in ch 14.

People in Judaism after the Gospel event should have realized that this message was due to go to the nations, but the Law was/is a 'member of the trinity' to them (Yahweh--torah--'eretz). So if anything like a mission to the nations was going to happen, it was going to be the Law that went out.

the apostles learned that this was not so from Christ, and Christ raised up Paul out of the middle of agressive Judaism for that very reason; Gal 1B.

Pentecost was the spectacular display of this sign for this reason. It happened on that day because when those people returned home after the weekend they would all be taking this new message back to their locations in their language. The message would be the Gospel of forgiveness, not the Law and more ceremonies.

Pentecost was also the reversal of the curse of Babel. God now acted to redeem mankind from the curse of language division with the one message of Truth in all languages.

 

[oatmeal]

What's the context? What is being described?

Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

That which being good enough for the apostles, is good enough for me.

 

[oatmeal]

Out of context. Read the whole passage.

Acts 2:1-21

And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.

3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

7 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?

9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,

10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,

11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?

13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:

15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.

16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:

20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come:

21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.


The reference to Joel is not a literal fulfillment. The events unfolding on the day of Pentecost do not match up with the prophecy which Peter quoted from Joel.

Peter is simply comparing the seriousness of the words from Joel with speaking in tongues on that day. He aptly handled the false accusation of drunkenness by comparing speaking in tongues with the prophecy of Joel