Speaking in tongues (page 2)

james_woods

I was watching the Rev. Robert Tilton a few years back for the amusement value of watching him go into tongues.

I swear that I actually heard him say "klaatu barata nicto" just like in The Day the Earth Stood Still!

kittyeatzjdubs

Are tongues particularly portrayed as evil by Jehovah's Witnesses? Is this a topic that JWs bring up often?

they believe it is caused by the person being possessed by demons.

luv, jojo

Seriously, I think I remember some CO saying that only the original apostles could both do the miracles and also pass them on...so when they died out and all those they directly passed it on to also died, then it was gone forever. It is possible that some other churches that reject tongues also hold with a similar tradition.

Of course, I guess maybe you could still try to BUY the gifts in 1st C.B.C. like Simon Magus?

zen nudist

what I would be interested in, is hearing from any pentacostals who converted to JW [likely now not JW] who did speak in tongue prior to their BORG assimilation and what they NOW think of the phenomenon

Gregor

Gumby, I have two chihuahuas, let me know if you need anything, but I think you're safe.

Gibberish spoken during emotional religeous rites are common amongst all primitive religions, as are physical manifestations like fainting, violent jerking, etc. Kind of like turkeys who can be caused to drop dead by sudden noises. Rather than a higher state of spirituality it is really showing a more primitive side of the human animal.

kristyann

Gregor.... I didn't know that... I guess I never really looked into it. I should look that up... Do you have any outstanding examples? It's interesting.

gumby

Gumby,

Will that be doberman or shih tzu?

Bring me a tongue speaker and someone unbiased in the language he purports to speak in and then prove his utterances were an actual language ( one praising god), and I'll eat both flavors of your dog turd samples. Gumby

Narkissos

Gumby,

I had the opposite case if this helps.

Years ago I went with a friend to a charismatic ecumenic (mostly Catholic in fact) prayer meeting. There were prayers "in tongues" as well as in plain French. At some point a Portuguese girl prayed in Portuguese (which I could understand). Immediately after a guy started to "interpret" -- and of course what he said had nothing to do with what she had said. While I was quietly chuckling a priest interrupted the guy and simply said: "it's not a 'tongue,' it's Portuguese."

"Speaking in tongues" is not expected to be speaking in a REAL foreign language (except in Acts 2).

gumby

Soooo, yer sayin I ain't gotta eat one of yer dogs doo doo's then?

Gumby

moggy lover

Much of the rationale, both for and against, for the phenomenon that we call Glossolalia [From the Greek "Glossa" - tongue and '' Laleo" - to chatter] is found in the NT book of 1 Cor especially chaps 12-14. Two verses in this section become crucial for interpreting this experience. At 1Cor 13:8 Paul says that "Tongues will cease" and two verses later he tells us when this will happen. It is when "To Telion" [See 1Cor 13:10 KIT] comes.

Now here is the problem: What does "To Telion" refer to and when is it supposed to come? Unfortunately, Paul himself did not elaborate, leaving suceeding generations of the Church to figure this out. Because there are two seperate, but related meanings for this Greek expression, it has led Evangelicals to at least two seperate conclusions.

First, the word "Telios" can mean "Perfect" - both organic and spiritual [see Matt 5:48 where the NWT has "translated" it thus] If this is what the word means at 1Cor13:10 then Paul may have been referring to some future time when final perfection would be bestowed on the Church, and Christians as a whole. At that time, he may have been saying, there would be no need for tongues so they will cease. If this is the case then "Tongues" is a legitmate, Christian occurence today.

But the word "Telios" can also mean "Complete" as in finishing something that has inadequacies. If this is what the word means then Paul would have been referring to something that was incomplete in his lifetime, but which he anticipated would be completed soon. The most logical explanation would appear to be that he may have been referring to the "Completing" of the Scriptures which was accomplished with the death of the last apostle, John, in about 100 AD. If that is what Paul meant, then there has been no need for tongues since the second cent AD The complete Bible taking its place.

It is unwise at the current state of our understanding, to be categorically dogmatic over this emotive issue. The conflict that has developed between "Tongue speaking" and "Non tongue speaking" Christians has two roots. One is theological, with each group convinced its understanding is biblical, and the other is distorting Scripture by its interpretation. The other cause of conflict is emotional. Sometimes immature Charismatics have propounded their views in divisive ways - and equally immature Non-Charismatics have struck back. I think that is why Paul slotted in his homily on "Love" in the middle of his discussion of this issue.

In my own personal opinion, I feel that the testimony of history is as good a reason to hold to the second view I mentioned above. Certainly, there is no historical mention of this practice after the second cent apart from an odd sect here and there which in some way had this experience. However, I do not presume to tell The Holy Spirit how He is to do His job, and if He inspires some to do this today it becomes none of my business

It also needs to be remembered that the WTS belief system is based purely on the excercising of the intellect, leaving no place for the emotional element in worship. The constant, repetitive, cycle of "Taking in knowledge" in a centrally controlled, structured way, facilitates the WTS in its propagandising to its R&F. In this methodology, facts are never presented, they are manipulated, information is never elicited, it is distilled, and ideas are never developed, they are imposed, leaving no room for debate or even dissent. In this system there is no room either for "Tongues"

Christians have learned otherwise. Debate is no proof of discord, and dissent no proof of disunity. The WTS has deliberately confused conformity with unity, demanding undivided adhearance to its every edict For this alone they stand as a dangerous and malignant cult.

Cheers

Speaking in tongues

Share this