From what I recall without referencing it, Acts 2 says the hearers understood not that the speakers interpreted. Or was your question purely rhetorical? So from whence cometh this concept of "interpretation"? Me thinkest the plot thickens.---------Set darkens-----Organ music ( in a minor key )slowly increases in intensity.------exit stage left ----no wait, better make that stage right ( what with the left side being acursed and all that.)
From what I recall without referencing it, Acts 2 says the hearers understood not that the speakers interpreted. Or was your question purely rhetorical? So from whence cometh this concept of "interpretation"? Me thinkest the plot thickens.---------Set darkens-----Organ music ( in a minor key )slowly increases in intensity.------exit stage left ----no wait, better make that stage right ( what with the left side being acursed and all that.)
Whoa, if that organ sounds as cool as the stuff from "Nightmare Castle", I'm there, dude...
hey, maybe those sounds are coming from "the left". What if "Pentecost" actually turned out
to be an event where a "false spirit" was actually imparted?
It does strike me as quite unusual that Paul doesn't attribute anything to that particular event.
He doesn't refer to"Pentecost, the birth of the church" at all. This event depicted in Acts 2 appears
to hold no significance for him in his own epistles.
dancing----you've kinda lost me here. Don't the scriptures teach that SIT (without interpretation as in one's private prayer life) IS in fact a spirit to spirit communication? Maybe I am not understanding your question.
I expect it's the one that says if there is no interpretation - no one there who can interpret is speaking to themselves and edifying themselves for the one speaking is hearing also and surely it is making sense to the one speaking.
"Don't the scriptures teach that SIT (without interpretation as in one's private prayer life) IS in fact a spirit to spirit communication? Maybe I am not understanding your question."
This what you posted is not what the scripture is saying, but you have it in part. Spirit to Spirit which IS understandable to one who can interpret, the one speaking and hopefully the ones listening.
Men and Women have spirit and can interpret what is said. whether or not they have come to the place that they can or not is a growth process.
16The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
26Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
27And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
As for 16, that is Faith my friend. It is one Spirit.
26 and 27-Who is "he" that searches the hearts and knows the mind of the Spirit?
I'm sorry that it has taken me so much time to respond, but usually if I don't understand something understandable, backing off for a while helps (besides, not understanding, it's hard to have anything meaningful to say). I can't say I have since arrived at much of an understanding, but at the risk of sounding like an a$$ hole, I'm going to address what you're saying - go easy; I don't mean to sound insulting if I do sound that way.
Just because the language is understood does not mean what is said is understood.
Fine, I understand your language, but I don't understand what you're saying. If that's NOT your point, I missed it. And I have no idea what your quoted statement has to do with speaking in tongues, if anything.
And yes, if it is understood then it wouldn't be a toungue to the one understanding what the other is saying but recognized as toungues.
What the hell does that mean? How can it not be a tongue and be recognized as a tongue at the same time?
A couple of things:
What happened to "no man understandeth?"
Sounds like you're talking about simple inspired utterance.
I still don't get what's to consider in the much more that you're talking about.
If you've addressed those, I missed it.
yeah no 'man' understandeth...
Maybe that's why I don't understand.
Well, obviously that didn't help.
maybe there's an interpretation :D
:)
Who interpreted in Acts 2?
Why do you ask? I never thought or said that tongues couldn't be understood by someone. If I've got PFAL preconceived notions blocking what you're saying, I'm sorry, but you've been there, so please understand & deal with that in your communications - unless that's impossible here.
From what I recall without referencing it, Acts 2 says the hearers understood not that the speakers interpreted. Or was your question purely rhetorical? So from whence cometh this concept of "interpretation"? Me thinkest the plot thickens.---------Set darkens-----Organ music ( in a minor key )slowly increases in intensity.------exit stage left ----no wait, better make that stage right ( what with the left side being acursed and all that.)
Only to those who do not want to know. So not hardly rhetorical.
Oh, BS. Why even try to communicate if you think only those who don't want to know don't understand? You don't think that; don't act like you do - that's rude.
1 Corinthians 14:28
28But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
1 Corinthians 14:37-39
37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
39Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
Well, for one thing, they were not "in the church," but what's your point? I know you feel like I should be getting it by reading this post, but I'm not, so what is it that you think this post documents? Can it not just be said?
Tom,
If Spirit can speak to Spirit. God to man and man to God.
Can't Spirit speak to Spirit as in man to man?
Um, I sort of think it does - are we making progress?
dancing----you've kinda lost me here. Don't the scriptures teach that SIT (without interpretation as in one's private prayer life) IS in fact a spirit to spirit communication? Maybe I am not understanding your question.
I expect it's the one that says if there is no interpretation - no one there who can interpret is speaking to themselves and edifying themselves for the one speaking is hearing also and surely it is making sense to the one speaking.
"Don't the scriptures teach that SIT (without interpretation as in one's private prayer life) IS in fact a spirit to spirit communication? Maybe I am not understanding your question."
This what you posted is not what the scripture is saying, but you have it in part. Spirit to Spirit which IS understandable to one who can interpret, the one speaking and hopefully the ones listening.
Men and Women have spirit and can interpret what is said. whether or not they have come to the place that they can or not is a growth process.
Okay, I THINK I may get what you're talking about. To find out, let me ask you this. Does the tongue have to be spoken out loud, or can one understand (interpret) the tongue of another without hearing it or even being in the same room? See, what I think you are talking about is the spiritual intercession that goes on believer to believer when one speaks in tongues. I think you are talking about someone being sensitive to that - that there is something spiritual that happens whenever a syllable of tongues is uttered & someone sensitive to the spirit can know spiritually what is happening. Yes?
Which came by way of training? trained to think a certain way.
Change course, set your sail to a different direction,
if you cannot see, and there is always things we don't see
and the wind blows in many directions.
Okay, I THINK I may get what you're talking about. To find out, let me ask you this. Does the tongue have to be spoken out loud, or can one understand (interpret) the tongue of another without hearing it or even being in the same room? See, what I think you are talking about is the spiritual intercession that goes on believer to believer when one speaks in tongues. I think you are talking about someone being sensitive to that - that there is something spiritual that happens whenever a syllable of tongues is uttered & someone sensitive to the spirit can know spiritually what is happening. Yes?
Now you are getting it. Speaking unto men edification. Our soul/spirit that cannot be seen is refreshed by the brother.
(from the quote is a new post after I saw what you just posted Tom)
Does the tongue have to be spoken out loud, or can one understand (interpret) the tongue of another without hearing it or even being in the same room?
Does the tongue have to be spoken out loud, or can one understand (interpret) the tongue of another without hearing it or even being in the same room?
Not really sure what you are saying here Tom.
Example:
Jane has a need. She knows she has a need. She can't figure her way out of her difficulty. She doesn't even know how to pray for it with her understanding.
John is walking by the spirit, just enjoying life, when God let's him know that Jane is in need (maybe he smells roses, Jane's favorite flower - I don't know, but he knows). John doesn't know what the need is. He knows less how to pray for it with his understanding than Jane does, & she has no idea how to herself.
So John speaks in tongues for Jane.
Things come together for Jane amazingly - in her understanding maybe, in real physical results maybe, in a lot of ways, maybe - but Jane is aware that things in her world have been transposed into a state in which the things that were in question have bowed the knee to Jesus. She might even be aware that someone has just spoken in tongues for her, thereby bringing that to pass. She might even be aware that it was John who spoke in tongues for her at that moment each syllable having power. She might not distinguish between the power of each syllable, but she's gotten the gist - maybe even to the point that the next time she sees John, he smiles & says, "So it all worked out, right, right?" Jane replies with a knowing smile, "No way, you didn't (but she knows he did). John replies, "Way!"
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
45
26
26
69
Popular Days
Jun 26
28
Jul 3
20
Jun 27
18
Aug 12
17
Top Posters In This Topic
Tom 45 posts
Oakspear 26 posts
T-Bone 26 posts
dancing 69 posts
Popular Days
Jun 26 2006
28 posts
Jul 3 2006
20 posts
Jun 27 2006
18 posts
Aug 12 2006
17 posts
Tom
Maybe that's why I don't understand.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
maybe there's an interpretation :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
OM-----Touché!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
Who interpreted in Acts 2?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
From what I recall without referencing it, Acts 2 says the hearers understood not that the speakers interpreted. Or was your question purely rhetorical? So from whence cometh this concept of "interpretation"? Me thinkest the plot thickens.---------Set darkens-----Organ music ( in a minor key )slowly increases in intensity.------exit stage left ----no wait, better make that stage right ( what with the left side being acursed and all that.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
Only to those who do not want to know. So not hardly rhetorical.
http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?searc...olewordsonly=no
1 Corinthians 14:28
28But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
1 Corinthians 14:37-39
37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
39Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Whoa, if that organ sounds as cool as the stuff from "Nightmare Castle", I'm there, dude...
hey, maybe those sounds are coming from "the left". What if "Pentecost" actually turned out
to be an event where a "false spirit" was actually imparted?
It does strike me as quite unusual that Paul doesn't attribute anything to that particular event.
He doesn't refer to"Pentecost, the birth of the church" at all. This event depicted in Acts 2 appears
to hold no significance for him in his own epistles.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
Proverbs 25:2
2It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
Tom,
If Spirit can speak to Spirit. God to man and man to God.
Can't Spirit speak to Spirit as in man to man?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
dancing----you've kinda lost me here. Don't the scriptures teach that SIT (without interpretation as in one's private prayer life) IS in fact a spirit to spirit communication? Maybe I am not understanding your question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
Give me a chapter and verse waysider,
I expect it's the one that says if there is no interpretation - no one there who can interpret is speaking to themselves and edifying themselves for the one speaking is hearing also and surely it is making sense to the one speaking.
"Don't the scriptures teach that SIT (without interpretation as in one's private prayer life) IS in fact a spirit to spirit communication? Maybe I am not understanding your question."
This what you posted is not what the scripture is saying, but you have it in part. Spirit to Spirit which IS understandable to one who can interpret, the one speaking and hopefully the ones listening.
Men and Women have spirit and can interpret what is said. whether or not they have come to the place that they can or not is a growth process.
Edited by dancingLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Romans 8:16/26,27
Romans 8:16/26,27 ------sorry-------you asked for one and that's three.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Does unspeakable "groanings" refer to "tongues, though?
This incredible outpouring of empathy of the Spirit toward our own,
may simply escape words.
"Tongues" are supposedly comprised of words.
But "groanings"? No. Not always, at least.
Someone else here raised an interesting discussion on this passage earlier.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
16The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
26Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
27And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
As for 16, that is Faith my friend. It is one Spirit.
26 and 27-Who is "he" that searches the hearts and knows the mind of the Spirit?
Who is "he" that makes intercession for us?
I'm sure there is more.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
I see no place where toungues are not understood by someone.
At least it's understood by the speaker.
And I see no problem with that, eventually someone will rethink what has been said.
Of course it's always great to hear the wonderful works of God.
And there is an element of trying to help and also just let loose.
And there are always those who stop their ears at what is being said-example Acts 7.
They knew what Stephen said yet attacked and killed him.
Sometimes one has to say what needs to be said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Wierwille said that those verses referred to speaking in tongues, but it's not really clear that they do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
I'm sorry that it has taken me so much time to respond, but usually if I don't understand something understandable, backing off for a while helps (besides, not understanding, it's hard to have anything meaningful to say). I can't say I have since arrived at much of an understanding, but at the risk of sounding like an a$$ hole, I'm going to address what you're saying - go easy; I don't mean to sound insulting if I do sound that way.
Fine, I understand your language, but I don't understand what you're saying. If that's NOT your point, I missed it. And I have no idea what your quoted statement has to do with speaking in tongues, if anything.
What the hell does that mean? How can it not be a tongue and be recognized as a tongue at the same time?
If you've addressed those, I missed it.
Well, obviously that didn't help.
:)
Why do you ask? I never thought or said that tongues couldn't be understood by someone. If I've got PFAL preconceived notions blocking what you're saying, I'm sorry, but you've been there, so please understand & deal with that in your communications - unless that's impossible here.
Yeah, that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Oh, BS. Why even try to communicate if you think only those who don't want to know don't understand? You don't think that; don't act like you do - that's rude.
Well, for one thing, they were not "in the church," but what's your point? I know you feel like I should be getting it by reading this post, but I'm not, so what is it that you think this post documents? Can it not just be said?
Um, I sort of think it does - are we making progress?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
I'm not offended at all Tom, but appreciate your candor.
Understanding is in the spirit.
The thief in the night.
Thoughts that are thought to be your thoughts are not.
There a a quiteness of the soul that speaks from within.
the coming and understanding is from within and from with out.
The without is quite lonely without the within.
It is an individual experience to understand which is interpreting.
Interpreting is understanding and with all that getting of understanding
seek Wisdom which is only from above, from the spirit within and without.
When these two meet within, both within and with out,
then there is understanding and our heart is to understand and to attain unto wisdom which is spiritual-all of it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Gads, you guys, STOP IT!
Dancing, you're the one putting forth something; YOU'RE supposed to give chapter & verse & say simply what you're saying, NOT Waysider.
And then you, Waysider, give chapter & verse - you're killing me. I must be missing something here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Okay, I THINK I may get what you're talking about. To find out, let me ask you this. Does the tongue have to be spoken out loud, or can one understand (interpret) the tongue of another without hearing it or even being in the same room? See, what I think you are talking about is the spiritual intercession that goes on believer to believer when one speaks in tongues. I think you are talking about someone being sensitive to that - that there is something spiritual that happens whenever a syllable of tongues is uttered & someone sensitive to the spirit can know spiritually what is happening. Yes?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
Can anyone see thoughts?
Can they set on a table and be analyzed?
The thoughts that are higher then our thoughts?
Which came by way of training? trained to think a certain way.
Change course, set your sail to a different direction,
if you cannot see, and there is always things we don't see
and the wind blows in many directions.
Now you are getting it. Speaking unto men edification. Our soul/spirit that cannot be seen is refreshed by the brother.(from the quote is a new post after I saw what you just posted Tom)
Not really sure what you are saying here Tom.
Edited by dancingLink to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
test
haha...lol a new post without being added to the old one hehe...:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Example:
Jane has a need. She knows she has a need. She can't figure her way out of her difficulty. She doesn't even know how to pray for it with her understanding.
John is walking by the spirit, just enjoying life, when God let's him know that Jane is in need (maybe he smells roses, Jane's favorite flower - I don't know, but he knows). John doesn't know what the need is. He knows less how to pray for it with his understanding than Jane does, & she has no idea how to herself.
So John speaks in tongues for Jane.
Things come together for Jane amazingly - in her understanding maybe, in real physical results maybe, in a lot of ways, maybe - but Jane is aware that things in her world have been transposed into a state in which the things that were in question have bowed the knee to Jesus. She might even be aware that someone has just spoken in tongues for her, thereby bringing that to pass. She might even be aware that it was John who spoke in tongues for her at that moment each syllable having power. She might not distinguish between the power of each syllable, but she's gotten the gist - maybe even to the point that the next time she sees John, he smiles & says, "So it all worked out, right, right?" Jane replies with a knowing smile, "No way, you didn't (but she knows he did). John replies, "Way!"
And they both know, spirit to spirit. Yes?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.