R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
I hope he took some action
- Status
C
cathi
Guest
I pray in tongues and have been blessed Praying in tongues for someone addicted and they were healed within hours.
2) The gift of tongues can be requested of God through the Holy Spirit.
3) my son was kick my his horse when he was 9 years old fractured rib and it hit the lung. I prayed in tongues over him and claimed the blood of Jesus Christ from head to toe not a bone broken all muscles and cells be completely restored In Jesus name I claimed not a single hair be harmed. they took exrays I quietly prayed in tongues. the surgeon came. took another set of exrays to remove lung.
He turned to the nurse is this the patient first and second set of x rays She said yes. Surgeon asked no other patients brought in Nurse said only elder woman.
Surgeon stated We have witnessed a miracle. He calls me to the x ray See first set of x rays your son has a fracture in the rib it hit the lung this is why there is blueish around the lung. See the second set no fracture you can not see anything and the lung is perfect.
praying in tongues goes directly to the foot of God from your heart and soul. The devil can not twist your prayers
Praying tongues has nothing to do with bible’s. It is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The Luthern Bible has Books missing as does the Baptist remember a king wanted a divorce against Catholic rules which was in line with the Bible So the king created the Luthern religion and a new bible History has created different versions
2) The gift of tongues can be requested of God through the Holy Spirit.
3) my son was kick my his horse when he was 9 years old fractured rib and it hit the lung. I prayed in tongues over him and claimed the blood of Jesus Christ from head to toe not a bone broken all muscles and cells be completely restored In Jesus name I claimed not a single hair be harmed. they took exrays I quietly prayed in tongues. the surgeon came. took another set of exrays to remove lung.
He turned to the nurse is this the patient first and second set of x rays She said yes. Surgeon asked no other patients brought in Nurse said only elder woman.
Surgeon stated We have witnessed a miracle. He calls me to the x ray See first set of x rays your son has a fracture in the rib it hit the lung this is why there is blueish around the lung. See the second set no fracture you can not see anything and the lung is perfect.
praying in tongues goes directly to the foot of God from your heart and soul. The devil can not twist your prayers
Praying tongues has nothing to do with bible’s. It is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The Luthern Bible has Books missing as does the Baptist remember a king wanted a divorce against Catholic rules which was in line with the Bible So the king created the Luthern religion and a new bible History has created different versions
G
godisgood77
Guest
“For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also. Otherwise, if you give thanks with your spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider say “Amen” to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying? For you may be giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not being built up. I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue” (1 Corinthians 14:14-19).
M
Medawlinno
Guest
Guanophore –
I would love to read the paper on it!
Not sure of the best way to get it to you. PM maybe??
The text seems to indicate that each of them heard what was being said in their “own language” (native or first language). I do not doubt that they knew some Hebrew and Greek, but it was probably not the mother tongue of all.
Yes, their own (native) language; their mother tongue. No one spoke Hebrew; languages spoken by the Jews were Greek if they were from the Western Diaspora and Aramaic if from the Eastern Diaspora. Western Diasporan lands/countries had been Greek speaking for centuries (since the time of Alexander). Any local languages that were once spoken had been replaced by Greek for hundreds of years (think of what happened to the Celtic languages of Britten when the Germanic speaking Anglo-Saxons got there!). Eastern Diaspora was a different situation as will be seen in the document, but one that still very much exists today.
Is category 1) (languages they did not know) inclusive of what Paul describes to be used in a gathering that needs to be interpreted? It does not seem to fit in any other category.
My understanding is that Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians read that as the person was speaking in “tongues” (i.e. like what’s being produced today) and thus needed an “interpreter” – hence was born the Pentecostal/Charismatic concept of “interpretation of tongues”.
I would love to read the paper on it!
Not sure of the best way to get it to you. PM maybe??
The text seems to indicate that each of them heard what was being said in their “own language” (native or first language). I do not doubt that they knew some Hebrew and Greek, but it was probably not the mother tongue of all.
Yes, their own (native) language; their mother tongue. No one spoke Hebrew; languages spoken by the Jews were Greek if they were from the Western Diaspora and Aramaic if from the Eastern Diaspora. Western Diasporan lands/countries had been Greek speaking for centuries (since the time of Alexander). Any local languages that were once spoken had been replaced by Greek for hundreds of years (think of what happened to the Celtic languages of Britten when the Germanic speaking Anglo-Saxons got there!). Eastern Diaspora was a different situation as will be seen in the document, but one that still very much exists today.
Is category 1) (languages they did not know) inclusive of what Paul describes to be used in a gathering that needs to be interpreted? It does not seem to fit in any other category.
My understanding is that Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians read that as the person was speaking in “tongues” (i.e. like what’s being produced today) and thus needed an “interpreter” – hence was born the Pentecostal/Charismatic concept of “interpretation of tongues”.
M
Medawlinno
Guest
Reuben J –
That is why I said the tongue in Pentecost experience is rare.
Well, most people assume xenoglossy at Pentecost and in fact that’s what Charles Parham assumed back in the early 1900’s with the so-called Azusa St. Revival (the birth of modern tongues).
Charles Parham, one of the founders of modern Pentecostalism, was completely convinced that Biblical tongues was xenoglossy –real foreign languages; as a result, he organized and sent missionaries to foreign countries completely convinced that their ability to speak in tongues would negate the necessity of learning the languages of the countries they were going to. This quickly turned out to be, as they say, an ‘epic fail’. Not one person was successful in communicating even basic day to day needs.
The result of this ‘experiment’ was that Pentecostals were quickly becoming skeptical of tongues in general. After repeated proof that these tongues were not examples of xenoglossia, Parham’s doctrine of tongues had to be completely revamped. Pentecostalism had to rethink the entire phenomenon. They now needed another explanation for what they were practicing since it became painfully obvious real languages was not it – the end result was the modern Pentecostal “re-definition”, so to speak, of tongues as “heavenly languages” or “prayer languages”, i.e. the birth of modern ‘tongues’.
They looked for Scriptural references for what they were doing, since their original supposition (xenoglossy) definitely wasn’t it; however, Scriptural references were simply not there. The resulting implicit theology was not a synthesis of revelation and philosophy, but rather a synthesis of trying to make sense of the “tongues experience” in light of the narrative of Scripture.
In Act 2:4-13, they were filled with the Holy Spirit. They speak in other languages. Listeners heard them in their own language.
Yes, but see my post above – the languages they heard them speak in were only two; Greek and Aramaic – the mother tongues/native languages of the Jews present at Pentecost. The Apostles spoke both – “other languages” refers to languages other than the sacerdotal language of Judaism; Hebrew. The crowd was expecting Hebrew first – they didn’t get that; they immediately got Aramaic and Greek.
That is why I said the tongue in Pentecost experience is rare.
Well, most people assume xenoglossy at Pentecost and in fact that’s what Charles Parham assumed back in the early 1900’s with the so-called Azusa St. Revival (the birth of modern tongues).
Charles Parham, one of the founders of modern Pentecostalism, was completely convinced that Biblical tongues was xenoglossy –real foreign languages; as a result, he organized and sent missionaries to foreign countries completely convinced that their ability to speak in tongues would negate the necessity of learning the languages of the countries they were going to. This quickly turned out to be, as they say, an ‘epic fail’. Not one person was successful in communicating even basic day to day needs.
The result of this ‘experiment’ was that Pentecostals were quickly becoming skeptical of tongues in general. After repeated proof that these tongues were not examples of xenoglossia, Parham’s doctrine of tongues had to be completely revamped. Pentecostalism had to rethink the entire phenomenon. They now needed another explanation for what they were practicing since it became painfully obvious real languages was not it – the end result was the modern Pentecostal “re-definition”, so to speak, of tongues as “heavenly languages” or “prayer languages”, i.e. the birth of modern ‘tongues’.
They looked for Scriptural references for what they were doing, since their original supposition (xenoglossy) definitely wasn’t it; however, Scriptural references were simply not there. The resulting implicit theology was not a synthesis of revelation and philosophy, but rather a synthesis of trying to make sense of the “tongues experience” in light of the narrative of Scripture.
In Act 2:4-13, they were filled with the Holy Spirit. They speak in other languages. Listeners heard them in their own language.
Yes, but see my post above – the languages they heard them speak in were only two; Greek and Aramaic – the mother tongues/native languages of the Jews present at Pentecost. The Apostles spoke both – “other languages” refers to languages other than the sacerdotal language of Judaism; Hebrew. The crowd was expecting Hebrew first – they didn’t get that; they immediately got Aramaic and Greek.
M
Medawlinno
Guest
You’re correct on that part – modern tongues are not evidenced in the Bible.
Yes – the RC Bible contains books most Protestant Bibles do not have.
I think you have your history a bit mixed up. It was the English King, Henry VIII who wanted a divorce (several actually) and as a result of the issues which ensued, the Anglican Church eventually came about. Luther was Germany and from his Reformation, Lutheranism was born. He was the first to “protest” what was going on in the RC church at the time. The “go to” Protestant Bible was created by King James in the 1600’s, about 100-150 years after Henry and Martin.
What you describe in the first part of your post is the use of tongues as a tool; that’s how many other cultures that practice glossolalia use it.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
That’s interesting but Pentecostalism is not Catholic. Sure they have their own experience but it has nothing to do with the estimated 160 millions Carholic Charismatic.
God bless.
God bless.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
There would not be a single Charismatic Catholic who believes in tongues if not for the Asusa St. Revivals.
Last edited:
M
Medawlinno
Guest
Actually, I have to respectfully beg to differ - virtually all CC views re spiritual gifts come from Pentecostalism.
Call it what you will, but it’s essentially the Catholicization of certain Pentecostal beliefs and practices. It did not independently develop.
They are two separate “entities”, if you will, but the CC movement had it’s ultimate origins with Pentecostal practices.
It’s no coincidence that the CC movement started right about the time that Pentecostalism was becoming the fastest growing religion in the world.
To paraphrase TheLittleLady, no CC today would be “speaking in tongues” if the Pentecostals weren’t (already) doing it.
Call it what you will, but it’s essentially the Catholicization of certain Pentecostal beliefs and practices. It did not independently develop.
They are two separate “entities”, if you will, but the CC movement had it’s ultimate origins with Pentecostal practices.
It’s no coincidence that the CC movement started right about the time that Pentecostalism was becoming the fastest growing religion in the world.
To paraphrase TheLittleLady, no CC today would be “speaking in tongues” if the Pentecostals weren’t (already) doing it.
po18guy
Well-known member
True. But, proof of what? Proof texting is superfluous, but here you go:
I understand that many are simply ignorant of the gifts. Others are envious while a third group is malicious. Ignorance is most easily forgivable and most easily corrected, is it not?
One and the same Spirit produces each of these. Fighting against the Spirit?
God has designated these to be. Fighting agsint God?
Envious that others are being built up?
I understand that many are simply ignorant of the gifts. Others are envious while a third group is malicious. Ignorance is most easily forgivable and most easily corrected, is it not?
R
Reuben_J
Guest
I don’t agree because the Catholics in the Charismatic Renewal are independent of the action of anybody else whatsoever. The Spirit moves as He will, regardless of what other people are doing. And also another experience may not the same. That’s the basis for my disagreement. You could have a point but I do not see it that way.
God bless.
God bless.
M
Medawlinno
Guest
I’m certainly not knocking the movement - but just as Roman Catholicism’s (actually all of Christianity’s) ultimate origin is Judaism, the CC’s ultimate origin is Pentecostalism. Two completely separate entities and practices (Judaism is not Catholicism), but same ultimate origin.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Thanks for the post for the clarity on the explanation of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
I respect your opinion and your contribution on this subject. There are some aspects of it that I do not see them as how you do. They are interesting though which I will take note.
po18guy
Well-known member
So, the Church “added” 1 Corinthians as well as focus on the charisms since 1967?
I don’t think so.
Are Charismatic renewal members independent? No! All fall under their local Ordinary.
There is a lot of harping, murmuring and doubts expressed in each thread regarding the spiritual gifts. Has anyone ever spoken with their Bishop about this?
Far easier to stand on a soapbox here.
I don’t think so.
Are Charismatic renewal members independent? No! All fall under their local Ordinary.
There is a lot of harping, murmuring and doubts expressed in each thread regarding the spiritual gifts. Has anyone ever spoken with their Bishop about this?
Far easier to stand on a soapbox here.
M
Medawlinno
Guest
No, but there wasn’t the interest and focus on them to the degree we see it today until Pentecostalism started becoming extremely popular. CC at worst can be said to have borrowed some of the ideas and practices re spiritual gifts from Pentecostalism.
The CC movement is independent of Pentecostalism, but it borrowed its ideas and practices from them with respect to spiritual gifts. Just put a Catholic spin on them, so to speak.
The CC movement is independent of Pentecostalism, but it borrowed its ideas and practices from them with respect to spiritual gifts. Just put a Catholic spin on them, so to speak.
G
guanophore
Guest
How would any such test prove that Charismatics are “overly emotional”? Personality tests evaluate ongoing ways a person perceives and experiences the world. They don’t measure behavioral reactions to activities such as prayer meetings!
J
JulianN
Guest
I may not have been clear. Yes, the Magisterium teaches that there is such a thing as speaking in tongues – it clearly occurred in Scripture. But the Church never requires that anyone believe in a specific instance of this occurrence. So, for example, we believe that the Apostles spoke in tongues at Pentecost, but we are free to believe that anyone who engages in glossolalia is not.
po18guy
Well-known member
You have a very interesting and unusual take on this. How have you reached these conclusions? The fact that the Church, in an increasingly industrialized and secular society, has not emphasized the charisms for perhaps hundreds of years does in no way reflect on their divine origin or “borrowing” from anyone.
Rather, the Catholic Church is reclaiming and re-activating what was hers all along.
M
Medawlinno
Guest
Here’s something extracted from the Catholic World Report (from 2013, I believe)…
"The worldwide charismatic movement, which now includes an estimated 700 million people around the world, of which an estimated 160 million are Catholics, has its origins in the events of January 1, 1901, when a young girl began speaking in tongues after the prayer and invocation of the Holy Spirit by a lay evangelist of Methodist extraction. This took place in Topeka, Kansas; from there the movement grew and gradually spread to the established churches in the Protestant and Orthodox traditions, and lastly to the Roman Catholic Church. "
I think that’s the key point - not for hundreds of years (more like over 1,800 years ) - why all of a sudden reclaiming and re-activating this at the same time the Pentecostal church was/is gaining such popularity.
I’m not saying the two are one in the same; they are not, but there was clearly a borrowing from one tradition into another.
"The worldwide charismatic movement, which now includes an estimated 700 million people around the world, of which an estimated 160 million are Catholics, has its origins in the events of January 1, 1901, when a young girl began speaking in tongues after the prayer and invocation of the Holy Spirit by a lay evangelist of Methodist extraction. This took place in Topeka, Kansas; from there the movement grew and gradually spread to the established churches in the Protestant and Orthodox traditions, and lastly to the Roman Catholic Church. "
I think that’s the key point - not for hundreds of years (more like over 1,800 years ) - why all of a sudden reclaiming and re-activating this at the same time the Pentecostal church was/is gaining such popularity.
I’m not saying the two are one in the same; they are not, but there was clearly a borrowing from one tradition into another.
Last edited:
- Status