Interpretation of Tongues Question(s)

[ChibiViolet]

Wow, were you part of the Catholic Charismatic Movement or part of a Pentecostal or some other type of protestant church?

My ex-boyfriend was Pentecostal, they sometime refer to it also as “catching the Holy Ghost.” He told me it happened to him once, I asked him what it felt like. The only way he described it was “weird”.

No, I was never involved in any Charismatic movements or Pentecostal church. I am an **ex-**private devotional Satanist though. About three years after I had ceased worshiping Satan, I started to get urges to speak in demonic tongues. I had **never **heard anyone speak in tongues prior to this.

 

[ChibiViolet]

So if I am following things correctly, then the modern practice of speaking in tongues couldn’t properly be classified as language. What I mean is there does not seem to be a grammar or corpus of words or phrases that have specific meaning. Given that multiple people can hear the same utterances and get different messages would imply that their is not a definitive way to decode the utterances, but rather requires both speaker and interpreter to receive gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Since only 2 people can directly participate in passing the message, I am stuggling to understand why God would give anyone these gifts as expressed in current usage. It seems to be very open to abuse. It also begs the question of why it was rare before 100 years ago, but now large communities have been inundated with these gifts. Xenoglossia makes sense to allow someone to spread the Gospel, but the repetitive and unintelligible utterances of today seem to be counter productive.

Given the limitations of the modern phenomenon, what is the stated reason or purpose for God gifting people with tongues that are non deterministic?

To be honest, I’m not even sure that the events of Acts was xenoglossia, since it almost seemed to be something like instant translation into multiple languages (i.e. I speak Aramaic, but person A hears Greek, person B hears Persian, and person C hears Urdu and all 3 hear the same message.) Xenoglossia implies that I think I’m speaking English, but am actually speaking French. That does not mean that someone who speaks Zulu could understand me.

Maybe a lot of it is from demons and they are doing it to try and distract people and lead people astray. (Keep in mind please I said MAYBE.)

 

[Bruised_Reed]

No, I was never involved in any Charismatic movements or Pentecostal church. I am an **ex-**private devotional Satanist though. About three years after I had ceased worshiping Satan, I started to get urges to speak in demonic tongues. I had **never **heard anyone speak in tongues prior to this.

Maybe a lot of it is from demons and they are doing it to try and distract people and lead people astray. (Keep in mind please I said MAYBE.)

Ah. This explains a lot and I can see why you are wary of this experience. I’ve noticed that people who were involved with Satanism or the occult are more sensitive or touchy to certain experiences (I use “sensitive” if there is cause for concern and “touchy” when one there really isn’t). I couldn’t encourage you to yield unless you were with a strong prayer group that would have some experience with the demonic. I hope you don’t think that all manifestations of tongues are demonic because that isn’t true.

 

[ltwin]

So if I am following things correctly, then the modern practice of speaking in tongues couldn’t properly be classified as language. What I mean is there does not seem to be a grammar or corpus of words or phrases that have specific meaning.

From the perspective of linguists, speech classified as “glossolalia” is defined as the fluid vocalizing of speech-like syllables that lack any readily comprehended meaning.

Given that multiple people can hear the same utterances and get different messages would imply that their is not a definitive way to decode the utterances, but rather requires both speaker and interpreter to receive gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Yea, that is what Pentecostals maintain. We also believe this is faithful to the biblical presentation as laid out in 1 Corinthians.

Given the limitations of the modern phenomenon, what is the stated reason or purpose for God gifting people with tongues that are non deterministic?

According to Pentecostals, speaking in tongues serves several purposes privately and publicly. For the individual believer, speaking in tongues is primarily about strengthening the believer in prayer. In the words of Gordon Fee (a Pentecostal theologian, but one who is widely respected outside of the Pentecostal movement):

With prayer in particular the Spirit helps us in our already/not yet existence. Because in our present weakness we do not know how or for what to pray, the Spirit himself makes intercession for us with “inarticulate groanings” (Rom 8:26–27), an expression that most likely refers to glossolalia (speaking in tongues).

Prayer (and praise), therefore, seems the best way to view Paul’s understanding of glossolalia. At no point in 1 Corinthians 14 does Paul suggest that tongues is speech directed toward people;[8] three times he indicates that it is speech directed toward God (14:2, 14–16, 28). In vv. 14–16 he specifically refers to tongues as “praying with my S/spirit”; and in v. 2 such prayer is described as “speaking mysteries to God,” which is why the mind of the speaker is left unfruitful, and also why such prayer without interpretation is not to be part of the corporate setting. Paul himself engaged in such prayer so frequently that he can say boldly to a congregation who treasured this gift that he prayed in tongues more than any of them (1 Cor 14:18). To be sure, he will also, he insists, “pray with my mind.” What he will not do is engage in only one form of prayer, as most later Christians have tended to do.

Further, prayer in the Spirit does not mean to be in “ecstasy”;[9] it means the Spirit’s praying through his spirit without the burden of his mind and in conversation with God. We can trust the Spirit in such prayer, he argues in Romans 8:26–27, precisely because such prayer is a form of the Spirit’s assisting us in our weaknesses, and God knows the mind of the Spirit, that he prays in keeping with God’s will.

(Gordon Fee, Paul, the Spirit, and the People of God, chapter 12, Kindle Edition)​

 

[ltwin]

As to its public use, Gordon Fee says the following:

Paul shows considerable ambivalence toward this gift. On the one hand, with regard to its use in the public assembly, although he does not condemn it, he is obviously not keen on it. In any case, tongues should not occur at all if there is not an interpretation. On the other hand, as a gift of private prayer and utterance, Paul speaks of tongues quite favorably, obviously a topic that for Paul is very personal and private. The breakdown for him has occurred when what is personal and private comes into the public assembly, since it has no facility for strengthening the others. Here again the central focus on corporate life comes to the fore.

(Gordon Fee, Paul, the Spirit, and the People of God, chapter 14, Kindle Edition.)​

 

[Medawlinno]

@ Usige

Quote:
Originally Posted by Usige
So if I am following things correctly, then the modern practice of speaking in tongues couldn’t properly be classified as language. What I mean is there does not seem to be a grammar or corpus of words or phrases that have specific meaning.

Itwin:
From the perspective of linguists, speech classified as “glossolalia” is defined as the fluid vocalizing of speech-like syllables that lack any readily comprehended meaning.

I would just add to Itwin’s response that the syllables used, or drilling down a bit more, the sounds used (in those syllables), will only contain those sounds found in the speaker’s native language (or other languages s/he speaks or is familiar with). If you speak only say Romanian, your ‘tongues’ won’t sound like a person who speaks only English.

Quote:
“To be honest, I’m not even sure that the events of Acts was xenoglossia, since it almost seemed to be something like instant translation into multiple languages (i.e. I speak Aramaic, but person A hears Greek, person B hears Persian, and person C hears Urdu and all 3 hear the same message.) Xenoglossia implies that I think I’m speaking English, but am actually speaking French. That does not mean that someone who speaks Zulu could understand me.”

I’ve often thought the same - more to do with **hearing **and not speaking.
I don’t believe with xenoglossia you ‘think’ you’re speaking language ‘x’ but it comes out as language ‘y’; I believe the idea is that you are conciously aware that you are speaking the target language. The problem is, is that there are no documented cases of true xenoglossy; every case that’s been syudied has proven to be that the speaker was in some way, shape, or form exposed to the target language. In most of these cases the target language was spoken rather poorly with quite afew words “invented” by the speaker to sound like the target language. One such example was German, in which the speaker consistantly used “blü” for the correct German “blau” - ‘blue’. It was later discovered that when this woman was very young, she had a nanny who was from Germany who would often speak to her in German (though she did not understrand a word of it). It’s amazing what the subconcious mind can do with language - how many people who are learning a language get frustrated because, when dreaming, speak it flawlessly (at the level they are learning it), yet when awake and concious, struggle with it. Same sort of thing going on here.

 

[Medawlinno]

What are some thoughts on Christian tongues being essentially the equivalent of channeling the Holy Spirit. I hadn’t really thought about it,but the more I look at the two phenomenon, the more similarities I’m tending to notice.

Obviously the reason for channeling the Holy Spirit may not be for the same purposes as other traditions channel ‘spirits’, but the process seems to be virtually the same. Again, the main difference being that in the Christian tradition, the “channeler” isn’t always the one interpreting the message.

 

[guanophore]

What are some thoughts on Christian tongues being essentially the equivalent of channeling the Holy Spirit. I hadn’t really thought about it,but the more I look at the two phenomenon, the more similarities I’m tending to notice.

Obviously the reason for channeling the Holy Spirit may not be for the same purposes as other traditions channel ‘spirits’, but the process seems to be virtually the same. Again, the main difference being that in the Christian tradition, the “channeler” isn’t always the one interpreting the message.

I don’t know that much about “channeling” but my impresson is that one gives themselves over to a force outside of themselves. This is not consistent with how the HS works through people.

All of the gifts of the Holy Spirit are subject to the person, so that one is not “taken over” by another force.

 

[guanophore]

I’m glad it was pointed out early that Penecost per the bible was a phenomena of hearing.

I agree it is forgotten often.

I had a priest friend once try and ‘teach’ me to speak in tongues. It didn’t seem possible without being forced.

Seeing people ‘turn it on’ like it was something they control was common (including during my lesson).

I don’t see it practiced much anymore.

Take care,

Mike

There are many different kinds of tongues. On Pentecost, those present each heard the Gospel in their own language.

Wha I think you are talking about that the priest was trying to help you develop is a private prayer language. Yes, of course a person “turns it on” because we are in control of when we pray. Does anyone ever burst out in a Rosary against their will? Honestly! If we do not yield our will, Spirit, tongue and lips to God, then of course the Holy Spirit cannot pray through us.

So if I am following things correctly, then the modern practice of speaking in tongues couldn’t properly be classified as language. What I mean is there does not seem to be a grammar or corpus of words or phrases that have specific meaning.

I will concede that there is some babble, but of course tongues are intended to be a discernable language. It may be a language of angels, rather than human.

Given that multiple people can hear the same utterances and get different messages would imply that their is not a definitive way to decode the utterances, but rather requires both speaker and interpreter to receive gifts of the Holy Spirit.

There are some tongues that have been interpreted with cogent messages given in a language unknown to the speaker. I am not sure what you mean about “different messages”. It seems clear that, on Pentecost, all the hearers heard the same message.

But I agree with your conclusion, that both the speaker and the interpreter must receive and exercise the gifts of the Spirit, and we all make mistakes in this regard from time to time.

Since only 2 people can directly participate in passing the message, I am stuggling to understand why God would give anyone these gifts as expressed in current usage.

The rule that people are to speak one at a time is about keeping order in the service. This does not mean that many others present do not also get the message. In fact, a message that is authentic will be received and understood by the majority present, since it resonantes with one’s spirit as True.

It seems to be very open to abuse.

Yes, anything that involves the supernatural will be very open to abuse.

It also begs the question of why it was rare before 100 years ago, but now large communities have been inundated with these gifts.

Had you considered that God decided we needed a renewal in this area?

Xenoglossia makes sense to allow someone to spread the Gospel, but the repetitive and unintelligible utterances of today seem to be counter productive.

Yes, I agree, especially in cases of loud, raucous, and intense practices that are contrary to the instructions that were given to the Church.

Given the limitations of the modern phenomenon, what is the stated reason or purpose for God gifting people with tongues that are non deterministic?

I am not sure I understand the question. What is “non-deterministic” mean in this context? Since there are many varieties of tonges, there are many different reasons.

To be honest, I’m not even sure that the events of Acts was xenoglossia, since it almost seemed to be something like instant translation into multiple languages (i.e. I speak Aramaic, but person A hears Greek, person B hears Persian, and person C hears Urdu and all 3 hear the same message.) Xenoglossia implies that I think I’m speaking English, but am actually speaking French. That does not mean that someone who speaks Zulu could understand me.

Yes, I think this miracle was on the side of the hearers.

 

[guanophore]

Here is a collection of Catholic sources on charismata and tongues in general:

peterkreeft.com/charismatic-gifts_resources.htm

www.cccrsa.net

https://davenevins.com/fttp/mp3/talks/msgr-vincent-walsh_charismatic-keys.pdf

www.rondachervin.com/pages/pdf/WhyIAm.pdf

erudit.org/revue/sessions/1983/v50/n1/1007048ar.pdf

diocesealex.org/docs/apologetics-and-resources-manual
(search the manual for “tongues”)

iccrs.org/en/resources/

nwcatholic.org/features/nw-stories/does-god-want-you-to-speak-in-tongues

cccrsa.net/charismaticcenter/catholic-charismatic-prayer-group-resources/

www.holytrinityparish.net/faith-formation/
see The Catholic Church & Charismatic Gifts

saint-mike.org/main/
see “all about spiritual gifts”

 

[quies]

Here is a collection of Catholic sources on charismata and tongues in general: …

Nice resource list!

In the Los Angeles Archdiocese we have the 44 year-old SCRC

In 1970, at Loyola University a talk was given on the modern day movement of the Holy Spirit. A charismatic prayer group was then formed on campus.

In 1972, Cardinal Timothy Manning commissioned SCRC to pastor Charismatic prayer groups in the parishes of the Los Angeles Archdiocese. Southern California Renewal Communities (SCRC) was established that year as a legal non-profit religious organization to serve this burgeoning Renewal. An SCRC Service Center was opened in 1973.

 

[ffg]

There are many different kinds of tongues. On Pentecost, those present each heard the Gospel in their own language.

Wha I think you are talking about that the priest was trying to help you develop is a private prayer language. Yes, of course a person “turns it on” because we are in control of when we pray. Does anyone ever burst out in a Rosary against their will? Honestly! If we do not yield our will, Spirit, tongue and lips to God, then of course the Holy Spirit cannot pray through us.

Sometimes it seems like life experiences are not so random. I wrote the below, then noticed I had to run off for Mass. For the few minutes in the car, what was a priest commenting on the radio, but this subject!

The priest said he does like to speak in tongues, but that it is not a necessity for a Christian. He said if you are trying and it just seems you are just babbling, just stop and don’t worry about it.

He said that some people try by starting in babble in the hope that the gift will come to them.

He said he uses it as he gets deeper into prayer because he feels like it’s helping him get closer to God.
(This is the comparative to the ‘turning it on’, because it seems like it is something that might come about after a while in meditation).

Now to what I wrote earlier -

Thank you for analyzing my experience.

If someone thinks they are closer to God when 'speaking in tongues', great! 

My friend priest spoke of no 'private prayer language', only 'speaking in tongues' similar to all the other folks doing it (was popular at that place at the time). 

There is a big difference between someone getting and revealing a message from God, vs. someone 'speaking in tongues' and other humans, in all their human-ness and lack of authority, interpreting that message from babble tones. 

The Holy Spirit has no need to pray.

The CC is very purposeful in being opposite of a secret society in disseminating Christian information...

It seems like 'speaking in tongues' can be used by a person all too easily to promote a secret message.

Take care,

Mike

 

[guanophore]

He said he uses it as he gets deeper into prayer because he feels like it’s helping him get closer to God.
(This is the comparative to the ‘turning it on’, because it seems like it is something that might come about after a while in meditation).

Or spontaneously well up within a person without meditation or even conscious thought of praying.

If someone thinks they are closer to God when ‘speaking in tongues’, great!

My friend priest spoke of no ‘private prayer language’, only ‘speaking in tongues’ similar to all the other folks doing it (was popular at that place at the time).

Yes, there are many varieties of tongues, Paul writes both about the “speaking” to be used in the gathering, and the “praying” that may be used privately.

There is a big difference between someone getting and revealing a message from God, vs. someone ‘speaking in tongues’ and other humans, in all their human-ness and lack of authority, interpreting that message from babble tones.

A person may get a revelation from God, and it might be misinterpreted.

Yet the Spirit helps us in our weakness, when we don’t know how to pray as we ought. He prays through us.

The CC is very purposeful in being opposite of a secret society in disseminating Christian information…

It seems like ‘speaking in tongues’ can be used by a person all too easily to promote a secret message.

Take care,

Mike

I suppose it could, but this is an abuse, like any other kind of abuse.

All the Gifts of the Spirit are subject to discernment, so that they will not be abused this way. There is nothing “secret” that God will reveal to a group of people praying together.

An authentic gift will never contradict what is already been revealed through the Scripture and the Sacred Tradition.

 

[Medawlinno]

Some interesting thoughts here! Thanks for posting.

To perhaps rephrase the question a bit by way of a summary:

Given what I’ve studied, seen and been told, I believe it is probable that the phenomenon of “speaking in tongues” is nothing more than a Christian version of what is known as “spirit channeling”. The glossa/tongue itself is really almost irrelevant; it’s simply the **tool **by which the channeling is performed – the channeler could just as well be reciting a Tibetan meditation chant. In addition, neither the glossolalist nor the interpreter need be in what most people would think of as a ‘trance’; this is conscious channeling, not trance channeling. Neither person is in any more of a trance than someone would be say, engrossed in reading a good book. It can be done virtually anywhere at any time.

But, even if one accepts that Christian glossolalia behaves as a tool rather than a means and should be regarded as such, and that interpretation is independent of the glossic utterance; the glossic utterance being virtually irrelevant with respect to sounds, length, etc., it still fails to explain the overwhelming discrepancies in “interpretations” which is very problematic for postulating its supposed divine origin. Studies have shown time and time again; ask ten different people for an interpretation of a recorded glossic utterance, get ten different answers. It also negates the possibility of the actual glossa as being divine in nature; it’s something purely of human origin produced by practitioners in various ways by various methods. It doesn’t need to be divine as it’s simply a tool by which the practitioner connects to the deity.

Postulating spirit channeling may also nicely explain the need to ‘interpret’ rather than ‘translate’ glossolalia. Simply put, there is nothing TO translate – the glossolalia, as can be seen from the above, is not the message.

For some Christians, glossolalia is a way for that person to become closer to God (and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that!). If they grow up in the tradition, they are taught from a young age to believe that the tool (i.e. ‘tongues’) is the actual medium by which one speaks to God or God speaks/reveals to man. From the many examples I have seen however, it is absolutely no different than how other faith traditions connect to their deities.

Tongues/Glossolalia is to these Christian believers a very real and spiritually meaningful phenomenon, but consisting of emotional release via non-linguistic ‘free vocalizations’ at best – the subconscious playing with sounds to create what is interpreted as actual, meaningful speech.

It is interesting to note that the whole concept of modern Pentecostal/Charismatic ‘tongues’ originated right about same the time that ‘spiritualism’ became popular in the US and Europe. Things such as channeling and séances were all the rage and quite popular events.

Did some Christians back in the early 1900’s simply ‘jump on the bandwagon’ and create their own form or brand of this ‘spiritualism’??

 

[guanophore]

Some interesting thoughts here! Thanks for posting.

To perhaps rephrase the question a bit by way of a summary:

Given what I’ve studied, seen and been told, I believe it is probable that the phenomenon of “speaking in tongues” is nothing more than a Christian version of what is known as “spirit channeling”. The glossa/tongue itself is really almost irrelevant; it’s simply the **tool **by which the channeling is performed – the channeler could just as well be reciting a Tibetan meditation chant.

This is quite different than the Christian point of view.

The tongue is not 'irrelevant", especially in cases where the speaker is using the language of the listener.

Of course Christians understand that the Holy Spirit us praying through us, so it is not “just as well to recied a Tibetan meditation chant”, since authentic tongues have their source in the Holy Spirit, not in the mind of humans.

  In addition, neither the glossolalist nor the interpreter need be in what most people would think of as a ‘trance’; this is conscious channeling, not trance channeling. Neither person is in any more of a trance than someone would be say, engrossed in reading a good book. It can be done virtually anywhere at any time.

The fact that the person who has received the gift chooses when to exercise it does not equate to “channelling”. Channeling is the belief that a person’s body has being taken over by a spirit for the purpose of imparting wisdom. This does not happen with the spritual gifts of the Holy Spirit.

 But, even if one accepts that Christian glossolalia behaves as a tool rather than a means and should be regarded as such, and that interpretation is independent of the glossic utterance; the glossic utterance being virtually irrelevant with respect to sounds, length, etc., it still fails to explain the overwhelming discrepancies in "interpretations" which is very problematic for postulating its supposed divine origin.

You have reached an erroneous conclusion based upon a false premise.

But it is true that human beings are fallible, and we sometimes fall short in how we exercise the Gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Studies have shown time and time again; ask ten different people for an interpretation of a recorded glossic utterance, get ten different answers. It also negates the possibility of the actual glossa as being divine in nature; it’s something purely of human origin produced by practitioners in various ways by various methods. It doesn’t need to be divine as it’s simply a tool by which the practitioner connects to the deity.

This is certainly a common secular view. It contradicts the Christian faith and practice.

Postulating spirit channeling may also nicely explain the need to ‘interpret’ rather than ‘translate’ glossolalia. Simply put, there is nothing TO translate – the glossolalia, as can be seen from the above, is not the message.

This is also opposite of what the Christian faith teaches and believes.

 For some Christians, glossolalia is a way for that person to become closer to God (and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that!). If they grow up in the tradition, they are taught from a young age to believe that the tool (i.e. ‘tongues’) is the actual medium by which one speaks to God or God speaks/reveals to man. From the many examples I have seen however, it is absolutely no different than how other faith traditions connect to their deities.

Everyone is certainly entitled to their observations and opinions.

Tongues/Glossolalia  is to these Christian believers a very real and spiritually meaningful phenomenon, but consisting of emotional release via non-linguistic ‘free vocalizations’ at best – the subconscious playing with sounds to create what is interpreted as actual, meaningful speech.

It is very sad that the purity and complexity of this gift has been lost from your observations. I will pray that God will give you an opportunity to correct this misunderstanding.

It is interesting to note that the whole concept of modern Pentecostal/Charismatic ‘tongues’ originated right about same the time that ‘spiritualism’ became popular in the US and Europe. Things such as channeling and séances were all the rage and quite popular events.

The presence of a counterfeit does not negate the presence of the Real.

Did some Christians back in the early 1900's simply 'jump on the bandwagon' and create their own form or brand of this 'spiritualism'??

I am sure such an interpretation fits with your “observations”.

 

[ffg]

**(A) **Or spontaneously well up within a person without meditation or even conscious thought of praying.

(B) Yes, there are many varieties of tongues, Paul writes both about the “speaking” to be used in the gathering, and the “praying” that may be used privately.

** (C)** A person may get a revelation from God, and it might be misinterpreted.

** (D)** Yet the Spirit helps us in our weakness, when we don’t know how to pray as we ought. He prays through us.

(E) I suppose it could, but this is an abuse, like any other kind of abuse.

All the Gifts of the Spirit are subject to discernment, so that they will not be abused this way. There is nothing “secret” that God will reveal to a group of people praying together.

An authentic gift will never contradict what is already been revealed through the Scripture and the Sacred Tradition.

Am I the only one who can’t stand cutting posts apart?

Since we are now having 5 conversations, I’ll mark the points for response (bolded above).

(A) Perhaps. I just wrote what the priest said, he didn’t mention any of those. I’m not sure if it’s possible to receive a gift unconsciously and know of it’s reception and also use it.

(B) ok

(C) Agree, if you are talking about the miss being on the part of the next person (or group). People hearing the message from the person who received God’s message can surely miss.

If you mean the person getting the message from God can misinterpret what comes from God, I think God would consider that in deciding to tell someone something.

Could you show a situation in the Bible where people huddled up and decided what God meant, I just can’t think of any off the top of my head (Moses, Abraham, Jesus, I just can’t think of where this may have happened)?

(D) If this was you and I at a table, this one would be an ‘ok’. but…

Considering we are in the non-Catholic section of the site, would you explain the bold. You cut out my response to this and have now doubled down. Both points should be clarified for those seeking - ‘pray as we ought’ and ‘God praying’.

(E) agree

I assume this thread already hit the history on a general level, but do we know the source of the modern day Festival of Praise type of situation with discernment teams?

Take care,

Mike

 

[guanophore]

 Am I the only one who can't stand cutting posts apart?

No.

(A) Perhaps. I just wrote what the priest said, he didn't mention any of those. I'm not sure if it's possible to receive a gift unconsciously and know of it's reception and also use it.

Of course we can! Scripture is full of the gifts we receive at Baptism, and the infant does nothing, and knows nothing.

The gift of prayer tongues rises from the Spirit. When it happens, the person becomes conscious that the Spirit is praying through them. They have a choice to participate.

(B) ok

(C) Agree, if you are talking about the miss being on the part of the next person (or group). People hearing the message from the person who received God’s message can surely miss.

If you mean the person getting the message from God can misinterpret what comes from God, I think God would consider that in deciding to tell someone something.

Yes, of course. Look how many times He had to tell Peter “rise, kill, and eat” and Peter thought He was talking about unclean foods. But God was trying to show HIm that the Gentiles can be members of the One Faith. But God can write straight with crooked lines.

Could you show a situation in the Bible where people huddled up and decided what God meant, I just can’t think of any off the top of my head (Moses, Abraham, Jesus, I just can’t think of where this may have happened)?

Regarding the application of the gift of tongues, no, but there are many other examples. The Council of Jerusalem is one such example, where they all gathered, talked about what they understood God to be saying, and reached an a greement by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Not sure if that is what you meant?

(D) If this was you and I at a table, this one would be an 'ok'. but...

Considering we are in the non-Catholic section of the site, would you explain the bold. You cut out my response to this and have now doubled down. Both points should be clarified for those seeking - ‘pray as we ought’ and ‘God praying’.

Sorry did not mean to cut out your response. Think I hit the bold by accident too. Would you agree that human beings sometimes pray “amiss” (off target)?

Do you agree that if we pray according to the Spirit of God, we will not be amiss?

(E) agree

I assume this thread already hit the history on a general level, but do we know the source of the modern day Festival of Praise type of situation with discernment teams?

Take care,

Mike

I don’t think that was covered in this thread. Would you like to supply a relevant link to bring the readers up to date?

 

[Medawlinno]

*“The tongue is not 'irrelevant”, especially in cases where the speaker is using the language of the listener.

Of course Christians understand that the Holy Spirit us praying through us, so it is not “just as well to recite a Tibetan meditation chant”, since authentic tongues have their source in the Holy Spirit, not in the mind of humans."*

I don’t see any evidence in that the actual speech really matters - the thing with modern tongues is that the interpretations given are typically almost rediculously long relative to the glossic utterance or conversely, way too short for a longer glossic utterance. Language simply does not work that way.

There are languages in which a single word can translate into a short sentence in English (the American Indian language of my home state is a good example), but for a glossic utterance of five or six “words” to be interpreted into two several sentences is not how any langauge works.

Further, the repetition of the exact same utterance is often interpreted several different ways; if it’s the same utterance repeated several times, it should be interpreted the same way. Again, language, by any definition, doesn’t work that way.

The actual glossic utterance is irrelevent - it’s the tool to “get the message”, if you will, not the message itself.

I’m not sure I understand the whole “Holy Spirit praying through a person” thing - the Holy Spirit is one of the three aspects of God; it does not need to pray.

“Channeling is the belief that a person’s body has being taken over by a spirit for the purpose of imparting wisdom. This does not happen with the spritual gifts of the Holy Spirit.”

I think it’s arguing semantics - in channeling the spirit speaks through the person to impart a message; the person is not being taken over any more than a person speaking tongues is by the Holy Spirit speaking through the person to impart a message.

I don’t think it’s any more pure or complex than the practice of glosslalia in any other culture or belief system; whether a Pentecostal/Charismatic Christian in Ohio or an Evenki Shaman in Siberia, they’re both doing the exact same thing in almost the exact same way.

 

[guanophore]

*“The tongue is not 'irrelevant”, especially in cases where the speaker is using the language of the listener.

Of course Christians understand that the Holy Spirit us praying through us, so it is not “just as well to recite a Tibetan meditation chant”, since authentic tongues have their source in the Holy Spirit, not in the mind of humans."*

I don’t see any evidence in that the actual speech really matters - the thing with modern tongues is that the interpretations given are typically almost rediculously long relative to the glossic utterance or conversely, way too short for a longer glossic utterance. Language simply does not work that way.

There are languages in which a single word can translate into a short sentence in English (the American Indian language of my home state is a good example), but for a glossic utterance of five or six “words” to be interpreted into two several sentences is not how any langauge works.

Further, the repetition of the exact same utterance is often interpreted several different ways; if it’s the same utterance repeated several times, it should be interpreted the same way. Again, language, by any definition, doesn’t work that way.

The actual glossic utterance is irrelevent - it’s the tool to “get the message”, if you will, not the message itself.

I’m not sure I understand the whole “Holy Spirit praying through a person” thing - the Holy Spirit is one of the three aspects of God; it does not need to pray.

“Channeling is the belief that a person’s body has being taken over by a spirit for the purpose of imparting wisdom. This does not happen with the spritual gifts of the Holy Spirit.”

I think it’s arguing semantics - in channeling the spirit speaks through the person to impart a message; the person is not being taken over any more than a person speaking tongues is by the Holy Spirit speaking through the person to impart a message.

I don’t think it’s any more pure or complex than the practice of glosslalia in any other culture or belief system; whether a Pentecostal/Charismatic Christian in Ohio or an Evenki Shaman in Siberia, they’re both doing the exact same thing in almost the exact same way.

It seems that your interest is in squeezing this phenomenon into your framework of linguistic understanding, rather than gaining an apprecidation for the Christian experience and point of view.

May God bless your “research”.

 

[Medawlinno]

I do have an appreciation for the Christian pratice, experience, and point of view of glossolalia, but the thing is, is that the *experience *is no different than any other culture in the world that practices the same thing; the experience is simply not all that unique to Christianity.

The point of view, on the other hand, *is *somewhat unique to Christianity - but, to be rather blunt, it can be equally argued that modern day tongues is trying to fit glossolaia into the framework of the Pentecostal/Charismatic understanding and teaching of the Bible.

I am of the belief that all people are free to choose their own spiritual path and though I may not agree with the tenants and practices of a particular path, it’s not my intent to try and dissuade anyone from it, and that is not what I am attempting here.

That said, I do take a hard look at this phenomenon and acknowledge that the results may or may not paint the Pentecostal/Charismatic concept of “tongues” in nearly the same light as its practitioners view it.