tongues

[beng]

Mysty101:

My point is that you cannot apply scripture to a different situation on your own authority. (which is illustrated by all those remarks)

You know what. I actually knew that you used that verse to try to say that the Bible advocates slave.

But then knowing that it’s a dirty trick used by anti-Christian I hope you did not pursue it even further with your little plan. And I also didn’t want to be baited.

The fact is, apologetic about the slave verse is easy. I could’ve give you one but I refrained because that is not the point of the discussion.

In short You’re trying to sidestepeed giving another interpretation for 1Cor 14:27-28 by giving that slave verse. No can do. Get back on tract. Give me another interpretation of 1 Cor 14:27-28.

You have slandered the preacher to the papal household, as well as many others, You expect us to take your erroneous application, with no documentation, while disregarding the approval of the pope and confirmation of Bishops and Priests. Your arrogance is appalling.

And yes, I do know the definition of slander

1. law. Damaging defamation by spoken words, or by looks or gestures.

Slander is something without proof. I have brought proof, his own statement. I have given the link, so there’s documentation. And guess what, it’s on a Protestant website. Isn’t that most telling.

And again approval or even endorsement by Pope is netiher infallible nor authoritative. Stop clinging to that falsehood.

 

[tru_dvotion]

Here is what Slander is:

SLANDER - A false defamation (expressed in spoken words, signs, or gestures) which injures the character or reputation of the person defamed; distinguished from libel.

The defaming a man in his reputation by speaking or writing words which affect his life, office, or trade, or which tend to his loss of preferment in marriage or service, or in his inheritance, or which occasion any other particular damage.

SLANDERER

• A calumniator, who maliciously and without reason imputes a crime or fault to another, of which he is innocent.

Dear Mysty,

Before accusing someone of slander, please be sure what it means. I have not slandered any person; I have not slandered the CCR. I have not produced anything untrue with malicious intent. Please get your facts straight.

 

[Mysty101]

Beng,

You discount and twist everything said (without reason)

I did not say the bible advocates slavery—I said it addresses the issues of the time it was written. You cannot apply it to today on your own authority—you get on track

And your so called proof is definitely not grounds for the slanderous remarks about the preacher to the Papal household

 

[Mysty101]

Tru,
& Beng
You get you facts straight

The defaming a man in his reputation by speaking or writing words which affect his life, office, or trade, or which tend to his loss of preferment in marriage or service, or in his inheritance, or which occasion any other particular damage.

By your wild accusations about those who pray in tongues, as well as other malicious statements one or both of you sure does defame many Charismatics including Priests and Bishops.

 

[beng]

Joysong:

Beng,

I believe the point SuZ was trying to make is that you are interpreting a verse of scripture literally and using it as a basis for condemning an entire movement within the Church, including its members.

I believe I said about 99%, or was it 95%. Anyway, the new Charismaticism is dangerous and need to be eradicated.

And in scripture study, we need to study the literal meaning first before going into other possibility. Check with bible schoolars.

You have consistently demanded an explanation of the two verses in Corinthians, as though everything in the movement was dependent upon proper understanding of those verses.

Actually not really. There’re still many errors in the movement. But that one is the most easy to catch. Yet the Charismatics are still clinging to their error (speaking tongue among congregation without interpretation) even after such obvious warning. It’s actually THEY (the charismatics) who thought that everything in the movement is dependent upon being able to do tongue in the congregation without interpretation.

Let’s go a few verses further into 1 Cor. 14:34, “According to the rule observed in all the assemblies of believers, women should keep silent in such gatherings. They may not speak.”

If we apply your rigidness to this verse, all women would incur the same diatribe as you have issued in this thread, for daring to speak in assembly. You probably loosely interpret that verse as applied to the culture of the times, but fail to interpret other verses with the same understanding. My guess is that you have a preconceived, unfavorable opinion and have looked for a scripture to back it up.

A bait.

I won’t take it.

Stick to the point. Give me another interpretation of 1Cor 14:27-28.

To discuss a plethero of verses would only divert me from showing the errors of Charismaticism.

Moving on to verse 39: “Set your hearts on prophecy, my brothers, and do not forbid those who speak in tongues, but make sure that everything is done properly and in order.”

The problem Paul was having with the fascination with this new gift, was that everyone wanted to speak simultaneously and it was creating chaos and disorder. As a matter of discipline, he was attempting to bring order into the gatherings, and was not strictly forbidding tongues, but limiting the structural use of them.

It doesn’t matter whether you wanna call it “bringing order” or “limiting it”. What matter is if anyone want to do tongue amongst believer, one have to keep silence if there’s no valid interpreter .

Have the Charismatics heed this? NOOOOO!! They keep doing so. That is the spirit of disobedience.

If you stop and think about it, St. Paul might apply a discipline in this thread to prevent the very disorder you are creating with your one-sided, unrelenting charge of error. I can picture him saying, in connection with verses 27-28, “Unless there is an authoritative interpretation of my words, I charge you to keep silence.”

One might question whether or not you have the mind of St. Paul to know why he gave that discipline, in that culture, for those assemblies.

Stop assuming and get to the point only.

The assumption you make of pure error based on your private interpretation,

Then find me another interpretation of 1Cor 14:27-28 that make it sounds like the verses allow people to speak tongue infront og the congregation without a valid interpreter.

cont below

 

[beng]

is seemingly taken by you to include grave sinfulness on the part of charismatics. When anyone considers the three conditions for serious sin, I see nothing here to charge anyone who prays in tongues in a public place, with any sin whatsoever – I might add, it may not even be an imperfection.

I never said that Charismatics are comitting a mortal sin.

So I really question the motivation of this discord you have maintained here, which seems to be far greater an evil than that with which you accuse the charismatics.

Funny, you “assume” my motivation, labelled it and then calling it evil?

Does the prosecution ever rest its case? Haven’t we seen enough?

Then give me another interpretation of 1 Cor 14:27-28 whcih said that you can speak tongue amongst believer without valid interpreter.

Is anyone seriously listening to your argument?

Carole

Yes. I get PMs.

 

[beng]

Mysty101:

Beng,

You discount and twist everything said (without reason)

I did not say the bible advocates slavery—I said it addresses the issues of the time it was written. You cannot apply it to today on your own authority—you get on track

Mysty, drop the slave verse and stick to the objectives.

Find me another interpretation of 1Cor 14:27-28 that would allow tongue to be spoken amongst believer without valid interpretation.

And your so called proof is definitely not grounds for the slanderous remarks about the preacher to the Papal household

Yes it is. If you really know the faith then you could see some heresy in his statement. But I guess you don’t.

 

[beng]

Mysty101:

Tru,
& Beng
You get you facts straight

By your wild accusations about those who pray in tongues, as well as other malicious statements one or both of you sure does defame many Charismatics including Priests and Bishops.

I only mentioned about Fr Cantelamassa. And that’s after I read his own statement.

You have accused me of defaming Bishops and priests once and I set the record straight. Now you’re doing it again? Hoepfully this one will still be in your memory.

 

[tru_dvotion]

Oh, so it is only when YOU see that the situation has changed, or is different that the application is different?

I think I will listen to the Pope.

Dear Mysty,

Since when the Pope is interpreting Bible passages for you or for the Renewal? Be sure and let us know where such interpretation can be found, I would love to take a look at it.

It is argumentative and pointless to bring in UNRELATED Bible passages when we are discussing; I believe “tongues” and not slavery. Furthermore, the issue of slavery in the New Testament and its interpretation for the modern times is common knowledge, all it takes is COMMON SENSE, and no interpretation is necessary. To bring these passages into the discussion also shows bad faith, (and under bad faith I do not mean that you have bad faith. What I mean you have approached the debate with bad faith) because you negated your own responsibility to answer the passages that were put to you for explanation and instead you brought new and unrelated ones into it. It really does not matter what I think or how I interpret those passages you just supplied, it is unrelated to tongues and given their obvious inapplicability for our times it is entirely useless.

 

[tru_dvotion]

Tru,
& Beng
You get you facts straight

By your wild accusations about those who pray in tongues, as well as other malicious statements one or both of you sure does defame many Charismatics including Priests and Bishops.

I suppose there is really no point debating with charismatics on any point; they have serious problems with logic and are not able to digest anything contrary to what they have been fed in the renewal.

 

[Mysty101]

Validate your interpretation

Where is the documentation for your claims?

You offered the writings of one Priest.

I have offered documentation of approval by the Pope, and there are many articles on the Websites.

I am done.

 

[beng]

Mysty101:

Validate your interpretation

Where is the documentation for your claims?

You offered the writings of one Priest.

I have offered documentation of approval by the Pope, and there are many articles on the Websites.

I am done.

Why do I have to validate the verse if I hold that the verse says exactly what it says?

It’s you’re the one with the burden of proof.

Quite the diversion and quickly find me another interpretation of 1 Cor 14:27-28 that allows tongues among congregation without valid interpreter.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

If one has the gift of tonques and speaks it in the assembly its okay, even if that person doesnt have the gift of interpretation. St. Paul did desire that each one who speaks it also should have the gift but it was not manditory. The one speaking does not know whether there is someone in the assembly whom my have the gift of interpretion,but they speak it out of faith. Now if there is someone in the assembly with the gift of interpretation, it is to be interpreted by the one who has the gift of interpretation. If there is no one to interpret ,then the assembly is to be quite. If this is not clear to anyone then I would suggest to get on your knees and pray to God and ask for forgiveness of your own understanding and not HIS. God Bless. My last words on this topic. I pray that the moderators will put a lock on this thread.

 

[tru_dvotion]

I believe the point SuZ was trying to make is that you are interpreting a verse of scripture literally and using it as a basis for condemning an entire movement within the Church, including its members.

Dear Carole, you did not address me, but I will answer if I may.

Ah yes, but there is one problem here. Literal interpretation is more likely to come from the charismatics than from anyone else. Both Beng and I have insisted many times not to read the passages verbatum or in isolation of other Bible passages. So there is really no foundation to what she is trying to say. As far as condemnation goes, the charismatics are not victims of abuse, quite the contrary. If you read through several months of threads, you will agree with me, it has been the other way around.

You have consistently demanded an explanation of the two verses in Corinthians, as though everything in the movement was dependent upon proper understanding of those verses.

The entire movement is identifiable with tongues, in fact it has been called the tongues movement. Of course it is important to get the explanation from charismatics. The only reason we are not getting an explanation is this: they know they are in error and they want to persist in their error.

Moving on to verse 39: "Set your hearts on prophecy, my brothers, and do not forbid those who speak in tongues

, but make sure that everything is done properly and in order."
Reread what you quoted: the meaning is, don’t forbid it, but make sure it is done in the proper order. I do not read do not to forbid it. Furthermore, because they are interpreting tongues incorrectly, this whole passage is taken out of context. What Paul speaks in this passage is not what the charismatics practice. So this is another mute point.

When anyone considers the three conditions for serious sin, I see nothing here to charge anyone

who prays in tongues in a public place, with any sin whatsoever – I might add, it may not even be an imperfection.
It is a disorder Carole, a disorder and disobedience. It is not part of our faith and you know it.

So I really question the motivation of this discord you have maintained here, which seems to be far greater an evil than that with which you accuse the charismatics. Does the prosecution ever rest its case? Haven’t we seen enough? Is anyone seriously listening to your argument?

Yes, actually there are people. There are priests and bishops who are not willing to have their office sacrificed for their opposition to the CCR. There are people on this forum who have tried but have given up, there are people who are not willing to embroil in the discussion with them, and there are people who are afraid to engage in the debate, because they do not want the wrath of the charismatics descend on them. I received many private messages from various posters; I keep emptying my mail box because at times it tends to fill up rather quickly. Motivation? Discord? Come now Carole… you are brainy enough to know there can be good motivation for causing discord. Don’t bring in pluralistic arguments, these are not worthy of you.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

SPOKENWORD:

If one has the gift of tonques and speaks it in the assembly its okay, even if that person doesnt have the gift of interpretation.Please note that there are two gifts, one, gift of tongues, and two, gift of interptretation,each one seperate of each other. St. Paul did desire that each one who speaks in tongues, also should have the gift of interpretation, but it was not manditory. The one speaking does not know whether there is someone in the assembly whom my have the gift of interpretion,but they speak it out of faith. Now if there is someone in the assembly with the gift of interpretation, it is to be interpreted by the one who has the gift of interpretation. If there is no one to interpret ,then the assembly is to be quite. If this is not clear to anyone then I would suggest to get on your knees and pray to God and ask for forgiveness of your own understanding and not HIS. God Bless. My last words on this topic. I pray that the moderators will put a lock on this thread.

 

[Mysty101]

beng:

Quite the diversion and quickly find me another interpretation of 1 Cor 14:27-28 that allows tongues among congregation without valid interpreter.

I think Carole explained that thoroughly.

 

[beng]

Mysty101:

I think Carole explained that thoroughly.

She doesn’t even touch the verse.

She brought up the fact that women have to be silent. This has nothing to do with tongue.

She said that Paul does not forbid tongue but require it to be in order. This is a moot point. Whether or not it’s a prohibition doesn’t matter. The verse said plainly that if there’s no valid interpreter among congregation, people who wish to do tongue should be silence!

Your best bet is not enough.

 

[Mysty101]

Carole said

The problem Paul was having with the fascination with this new gift, was that everyone wanted to speak simultaneously and it was creating chaos and disorder. As a matter of discipline, he was attempting to bring order into the gatherings, and was not strictly forbidding tongues, but limiting the structural use of them.

If you stop and think about it, St. Paul might apply a discipline in this thread to prevent the very disorder you are creating with your one-sided, unrelenting charge of error. I can picture him saying, in connection with verses 27-28, “Unless there is an authoritative interpretation of my words, I charge you to keep silence.”

You totally ignore anything with which you do not agree—this instruction was for the Corinthians—
How many people need to tell you this?

Just as the instruction regarding slaves or women was for that time, and the mores of then.

 

[Mysty101]

PS And praying in tongues is not even mentioned.

 

[beng]

Mysty101:

Carole said:

The problem Paul was having with the fascination with this new gift, was that everyone wanted to speak simultaneously and it was creating chaos and disorder. As a matter of discipline, he was attempting to bring order into the gatherings, and was not strictly forbidding tongues, but limiting the structural use of them.

If you stop and think about it, St. Paul might apply a discipline in this thread to prevent the very disorder you are creating with your one-sided, unrelenting charge of error. I can picture him saying, in connection with verses 27-28, “Unless there is an authoritative interpretation of my words, I charge you to keep silence.”

You totally ignore anything with which you do not agree—this instruction was for the Corinthians—
How many people need to tell you this?

Nonsense. Paul’s instruction is for those who used tongues. Infact, outside of Corinthians there are no other epistle talking about tongue.

Plus Paul did not make any exception whether everyone was eager to speak tongues or not.

Just as the instruction regarding slaves or women was for that time, and the mores of then.

So, it’s NOT OK for the Corinthians to speak tongue among congregation without valid interpreter but it’s OK for people nowadays to speak tongue without valid interpreter?