SLAIN IN THE SPIRIT?

[Barrd]

1Co 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

I think this is my favorite of Paul's "tongues" verses.

Notice, first of all, that he never says that he does speak in the tongues of angels...but only that if he did, but he did not have love, he would be nothing more than a bunch of annoying noise...
Having been in churches where folks are speaking in gibberish, I'd have to agree with him...

1Co 14:18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all

I wonder that it never occurred to anyone that Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, traveling all over the known world on his mission to bring the gospel to the gentiles, would have to "speak in tongues more than ye all"....
He wouldn't have had the time to sit under a tutor to learn the languages of Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians. An amazing task had been set before him...but the Holy Spirit was up to the challenge...

 

[Barrd]

Hey Oz,

I will have to disagree with you as well. There is simply no indication that the tongues of Acts 2 and the tongues of 1 Cor 14 are two different kinds of tongues (one human language and the other not). The word "tongues" simply means "languages" as you know. We have spiritualized glossias such that it is really percieved quite differently than the average 1st century reader would have understood it. The idea that "no one understands him" still does not indicate that the person is not speaking in a human language (which is what glossias implies). It simply means that if someone does not speak that language (such as the one praying in tongues) then they do not know what is being said (or what they are saying). To say it is not a human language is simply inserting concepts into these words that are not there. Especially when Paul says the following directly after his comment that "no one understands..."


He also goes on to say,


Two points on these verses:

1. Paul makes it clear that the "sounds" (languages) being spoken of here are not without meaning and that all languages in the world have meaning. It seems evident that he is speaking of human languages and how these languages cause people to feel like foreigners if no one is present who understands the language being spoken. Thus, Paul seems to qualify himself this concept of "no one understands" and that is because no one present in these cases is fluent in many of these languages being spoken.

2. Paul also makes it clear that this gift is a "sign" for unbelievers. Why would this be the case if it is an unintelligible, angelic language? How would unintelligible babbling ever be a sign to someone who is a skeptic? That makes no sense to me. However, Acts 2 shows us how "tongues" is a sign to unbelievers. It was a miraculous gift that allowed people to praise God in unique dialects that shocked those who listened. Essentially they recognized that something amazing was happening that someone would speak this dialect of theirs so far from their home. This is what made it a "sign" and drew the attention of the crowd in Acts 2 and opened them up to listen to the Gospel. So, this discussion Paul is having is not different from Acts 2.

In sum, glossias means languages. There is nothing in this context that would lead a first century reader to think Paul is speaking about an angelic language or estatic utterance that could not be understood by anyone except one who has the "gift" to interpret what is without human meaning. We have inserted this type of concept into the term "tongues" but that is not what the term itself means. Nothing in the context would lend us to think it was estatic utterances either. Paul is talking about the gift of speaking in unique dialects that have worldly meanings, but were unlearned by the listener and the audience and therefore were of no value to the group. Thus if the gift was unprofitable for the group, it should not be something they were bragging and boasting about. The purpose of gifts is to build others up in love, not self focus. If a gift isnt doing that, then it shouldn't be practiced in the group. It was only causing alienation and making unbelievers think these people were crazy. Again, there is no reason to insert a new definition for glossias in this context than the natural meaning of the word...especially when what we see in this context matches very well with what we see in Acts 2.

Again, Wormwood, you put it so much better than I could!
As usual, I am learning from you. Thank you!

 

[Wormwood]

New tongues and other tongues is not the same thing. Mark 16:17 / καινός (kainos) connotes new, recently made, new in species, character, or mode, new to the possessor, unheard of, unusual, renovated, better, of higher excellence.
Jesus said we would speak in a NEW tongue, not another language.

StanJ,

I do not think Mark 16:17 implies never heard of before angelic languages. First, this text is likely not in the original manuscripts of Mark. Second, the word for "new" here is kainos. This word is more indicative of "new to the possessor" than something never seen before. Kittle says...

Of the two most common words for “new” since the classical period, namely, → νέος and καινός, the former signifies “what was not there before,” “what has only just arisen or appeared,” the latter “what is new and distinctive” as compared with other things, νέος is new in time or origin, i.e., young, with a suggestion of immaturity or of lack of respect for the old (→ νέος for examples). καινός is what is new in nature, different from the usual, impressive, better than the old, superior in value or attraction,

Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–), 447.

So, in my estimation, "new languages" here does not imply never heard before utterances. It implies a new class of speech the user never had before.

I think it is important to think about the purpose of tongues. What is tongues about, biblically? Well, we see that this gift is a "sign" to unbelievers. The sign that is on display that we need to understand is that the Kingdom of God is available to all people of all backgrounds. After man's sin, God confused the language of man in order to disperse him so that his ability would be limited. What we see in Acts 2 is that God is once again uniting humanity under the banner of Christ so that "nothing will be impossible" for them. It is a beautiful picture of God's unifying work in Christ that welcomes all into a powerful, unified Kingdom that God is behind and will not be stopped. When we turn the biblical concept of tongues into a ecstatic utterance with no meaning, it strips it of its beautiful significance in Scripture and makes it a selfish expression of heightened spirituality that can have absolutely no edifying value to others.

Barrd,

Thanks for the kind words

 

[Barrd]

StanJ,

I do not think Mark 16:17 implies never heard of before angelic languages. First, this text is likely not in the original manuscripts of Mark. Second, the word for "new" here is kainos. This word is more indicative of "new to the possessor" than something never seen before. Kittle says...


So, in my estimation, "new languages" here does not imply never heard before utterances. It implies a new class of speech the user never had before.

I think it is important to think about the purpose of tongues. What is tongues about, biblically? Well, we see that this gift is a "sign" to unbelievers. The sign that is on display that we need to understand is that the Kingdom of God is available to all people of all backgrounds. After man's sin, God confused the language of man in order to disperse him so that his ability would be limited. What we see in Acts 2 is that God is once again uniting humanity under the banner of Christ so that "nothing will be impossible" for them. It is a beautiful picture of God's unifying work in Christ that welcomes all into a powerful, unified Kingdom that God is behind and will not be stopped. When we turn the biblical concept of tongues into a ecstatic utterance with no meaning, it strips it of its beautiful significance in Scripture and makes it a selfish expression of heightened spirituality that can have absolutely no edifying value to others.

Barrd,

Thanks for the kind words

True words, Wormwood.
I am no scholar, nor have I ever pretended to be one. I am a bard...a teller of tales, maker of poems, singer of songs...I am a writer of Christian fiction.
Scholars like you help me to understand, which, in turn, helps me in my own craft....and for that, I am grateful...

 

[StanJ]

StanJ,

I do not think Mark 16:17 implies never heard of before angelic languages. First, this text is likely not in the original manuscripts of Mark. Second, the word for "new" here is kainos. This word is more indicative of "new to the possessor" than something never seen before. Kittle says...

So, in my estimation, "new languages" here does not imply never heard before utterances. It implies a new class of speech the user never had before.

I didn't say angelic languages WW, I said never before heard or used. As you will note from my last post, the connotations are many, as I itemized.
new, recently made, new in species, character, or mode, new to the possessor, unheard of, unusual, renovated, better, of higher excellence.

I'm not going to debate the validity of Mark 16:17, as that is for another thread, but Acts 2:4 does confirm what Jesus said here, as does Acts 10:46 & 19:6.
I think Kittle probably says more than just the one connotation, but regardless, he's not here and I am, so I can't really put what you cite IN context. The Greek is clear and kainos would not have been used if Jesus simply meant OTHER tongues. He said kainos, and all translators use NEW as the properly rendered English word.
Strong's is a proven expositor and linguist, so I suggest you consult the following; http://biblehub.com/greek/2537.htm

 

[Wormwood]

I didn't say angelic languages WW, I said never before heard or used. As you will note from my last post, the connotations are many, as I itemized.
new, recently made, new in species, character, or mode, new to the possessor, unheard of, unusual, renovated, better, of higher excellence.

I'm not going to debate the validity of Mark 16:17, as that is for another thread, but Acts 2:4 does confirm what Jesus said here, as does Acts 10:46 & 19:6.
I think Kittle probably says more than just the one connotation, but regardless, he's not here and I am, so I can't really put what you cite IN context. The Greek is clear and kainos would not have been used if Jesus simply meant OTHER tongues. He said kainos, and all translators use NEW as the properly rendered English word.
Strong's is a proven expositor and linguist, so I suggest you consult the following; http://biblehub.com/greek/2537.htm

Well, I have heard some charismatics describe them as "angelic" but if you are uncomfortable with that phrase then I wont ascribe it to your views. I think the point is that you see them to non-human languages that are not of this world and therefore incomprehensible by anyone apart from a divine gift to interpret the unknowable.

As for the use of "new" in the discussion of new tongues or languages, I guess you would have to explain your statement, "Jesus said we would speak in a NEW tongue, not another language." As I read this, any "new language" would be "another language." I dont think something has to be foreign to human speech as a whole to be new. If I do not know German and I start suddenly speaking in German, I am speaking in both a "new" language as well as "another" language than that which I normally speak.

As for the Greek wording, I just dont think this word implies all that you are suggesting. The word means new. It means new not in the sense of "new model" or "new baby" that has never been seen before, but "new and improved" or "new to the possessor." I would think the word "neos" (where we get the word neonate) would be used if Mark was speaking of a new dialect previously unknown to humanity. I think kainos would express a fluency in a previously unknown language that is new to the possessor. Either way, I dont think either word implies what you are implying. They just mean "new." The context determines much of how we define that "new" and if we see it as "new to the possessor" or "renovated" or "unheard of," etc. In this context, I dont think we can for sure say this definitely means x and not y. So, I personally wound not see this passage as any evidence that these languages are certainly not of human origin. I have never seen a scholar imply this about this text or wording either. Perhaps you know of some who do?

I would also point out as I did previously, "tongues" is a sign to unbelievers. Here, this text in Mark confirms that tongues is a "sign" that accompanies those who believe. Again, I just do not think that incomprehensible utterances would be a sign to any unbeliever of anything. However, we see in Acts 2 how praising God in unknown human dialects is a powerful sign to unbelievers that God is at work.

 

[StanJ]

Well, I have heard some charismatics describe them as "angelic" but if you are uncomfortable with that phrase then I wont ascribe it to your views. I think the point is that you see them to non-human languages that are not of this world and therefore incomprehensible by anyone apart from a divine gift to interpret the unknowable.

As for the use of "new" in the discussion of new tongues or languages, I guess you would have to explain your statement, "Jesus said we would speak in a NEW tongue, not another language." As I read this, any "new language" would be "another language." I dont think something has to be foreign to human speech as a whole to be new. If I do not know German and I start suddenly speaking in German, I am speaking in both a "new" language as well as "another" language than that which I normally speak.

As for the Greek wording, I just dont think this word implies all that you are suggesting. The word means new. It means new not in the sense of "new model" or "new baby" that has never been seen before, but "new and improved" or "new to the possessor." I would think the word "neos" (where we get the word neonate) would be used if Mark was speaking of a new dialect previously unknown to humanity. I think kainos would express a fluency in a previously unknown language that is new to the possessor. Either way, I dont think either word implies what you are implying. They just mean "new." The context determines much of how we define that "new" and if we see it as "new to the possessor" or "renovated" or "unheard of," etc. In this context, I dont think we can for sure say this definitely means x and not y. So, I personally wound not see this passage as any evidence that these languages are certainly not of human origin. I have never seen a scholar imply this about this text or wording either. Perhaps you know of some who do?

I would also point out as I did previously, "tongues" is a sign to unbelievers. Here, this text in Mark confirms that tongues is a "sign" that accompanies those who believe. Again, I just do not think that incomprehensible utterances would be a sign to any unbeliever of anything. However, we see in Acts 2 how praising God in unknown human dialects is a powerful sign to unbelievers that God is at work.

That is what Paul taught.

The Greek kainos conveys what is meant, and I supplied ALL the connotations it can be used with. Bottom line, is that Jesus did not address it as NEW to the user, but new to MAN, to OUR reality.

It sure does, as I've supplied you, and using just ONE of them to base your opinion on is a tad disingenuous, given the totality of them suggest exactly what NEW means in English. Do you think that a NEW man does not mean what it means as far as salvation is concerned in Eph 4:24, Col 3:10, or 2 Cor 5:17?

Tongues, WITH interpretation is a sign to unbelievers, which Paul deals with in 1 Cor 14, but the NEW tongues, as exhibited in Acts, we an overflow of the Holy Spirit's baptism, and were declaring the wonders of God as Acts 2:11 state. You will also find in that section that the Holy Spirit caused those God fearing Jews to hear it in their OWN natives tongues, which were much more than the 12 apostles were speaking, if you count all the languages represented there. 12 Apostles...at least 15 languages identified. You do the math.

 

[Barrd]

Well, I have heard some charismatics describe them as "angelic" but if you are uncomfortable with that phrase then I wont ascribe it to your views. I think the point is that you see them to non-human languages that are not of this world and therefore incomprehensible by anyone apart from a divine gift to interpret the unknowable.

As for the use of "new" in the discussion of new tongues or languages, I guess you would have to explain your statement, "Jesus said we would speak in a NEW tongue, not another language." As I read this, any "new language" would be "another language." I dont think something has to be foreign to human speech as a whole to be new. If I do not know German and I start suddenly speaking in German, I am speaking in both a "new" language as well as "another" language than that which I normally speak.

As for the Greek wording, I just dont think this word implies all that you are suggesting. The word means new. It means new not in the sense of "new model" or "new baby" that has never been seen before, but "new and improved" or "new to the possessor." I would think the word "neos" (where we get the word neonate) would be used if Mark was speaking of a new dialect previously unknown to humanity. I think kainos would express a fluency in a previously unknown language that is new to the possessor. Either way, I dont think either word implies what you are implying. They just mean "new." The context determines much of how we define that "new" and if we see it as "new to the possessor" or "renovated" or "unheard of," etc. In this context, I dont think we can for sure say this definitely means x and not y. So, I personally wound not see this passage as any evidence that these languages are certainly not of human origin. I have never seen a scholar imply this about this text or wording either. Perhaps you know of some who do?

I would also point out as I did previously, "tongues" is a sign to unbelievers. Here, this text in Mark confirms that tongues is a "sign" that accompanies those who believe. Again, I just do not think that incomprehensible utterances would be a sign to any unbeliever of anything. However, we see in Acts 2 how praising God in unknown human dialects is a powerful sign to unbelievers that God is at work.

I've heard Charismatics refer to three categories of "tongues".
There are plain "tongues" in which they are given messages for the church. (Unfortunately, there is rarely an interpreter, so most of these "messages" are lost.)
Then there are "tongues of angels", in which they communicate with the Heavenly Host. (Evidently, while the angels can understand what is being said, humans cannot.)
And finally there is a "secret prayer tongue" which is given to them so that they can pray without Satan being able to understand what they are praying. (Of course, they can't, either, but that's beside the point.)

 

[Wormwood]

Stan,

I do not think I am being disengenious. Are you arguing that kainos must mean "new" in the other-worldly sense because it is used in Eph. 4:24, etc.? Then what about how neos is used in the following verses:

“Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.” (1 Corinthians 5:7, ESV)
“and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.” (Colossians 3:10, ESV)
“and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.” (Hebrews 12:24, ESV)

So, as I stated before, "kainos" does not, by itself imply what you are suggesting. It simply means "new" and neos can also be used as a synonym. In fact, Heb. 12:24 speaks of the "new" (neos) covenant and Luke 22:20 uses kainos in reference to the "new" covenant. So again, I dont think these words are as distinct with such nuanced meanings as you imply. Kainos does not only hold the connotation of "never seen before" and the fact Mark (although Mark likely didnt even write it) used this word and not neos does not prove the point that tongues spoken of in Mark 16 must be non-human languages. I know of no scholar who argues this.

17–18. The miracles Jesus speaks of in these verses are viewed as “signs” (σημει̂α, sēmeia) acts which point beyond themselves to the truth of the message. The book of Acts provides examples of most of the signs that Jesus says would be performed by those who accepted the gospel. Healings, exorcisms, and tongue-speaking are frequent occurrences in Acts.

Allen Black, Mark, The College Press NIV Commentary (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1995), Mk 16:17–18.

They shall speak with new tongues. This was the first intimation of the great miracle to be inaugurated on the day of Pentecost. The gift was continued but for a very limited time.

H. D. M. Spence-Jones, ed., St. Mark, vol. 2, The Pulpit Commentary (London; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1909), 348.

Compare 1:23 on demoniacs; the Acts furnish some examples of the work of the apostles. To speak in tongues, whether the well-attested adjective “new” is added or not, is the speaking in “other tongues” as this is described at length in Acts 2. The question as to what these “tongues” really were is treated fully in the commentary on First Corinthians 12:10 as well as chapter 14. We add only this: there were not two kinds of speaking in tongues; Acts 2 is decisive regarding the point that the tongues were foreign languages that had never been learned by the speakers but were perfectly understood by those who spoke these languages.

R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Mark’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961), 769.

Most of the signs listed here took place in the days of the apostles, and they are recorded in the Book of Acts.

Rodney L. Cooper, Mark, vol. 2, Holman New Testament Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 277.

They shall speak with new tongues (γλωσσαις λαλησουσιν [καιναις] [glōssais lalēsousin [kainais]]). Westcott and Hort put καιναις [kainais] (new) in the margin. Casting out demons we have seen in the ministry of Jesus. Speaking with tongues comes in the apostolic era (Acts 2:3f.; 10:46; 19:6; 1 Cor. 12:28; ch. 14).

A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933), Mk 16:17.

Most of the commentaries I have looked at hardly comment on this section of Scripture since it is quite obviously added at a later date and therefore not a text that one should use to establish any doctrine. However, of every commentary that does comment on it, not one scholar claims that kainos here infers "other wordly" or something entirely new to language as a whole. If this was so evident in the wording of the Greek as you propose, I would think at least one scholar would make mention of it. On the contrary, almost every commentary (as you can see above) list Acts 2 as examples of these "new" tongues.

So on the basis of this text being incredibly unreliable and the fact that no scholar I have ever read makes this argument about kainos implying a non existing language, I just dont see any validity to what you are claiming here. I know my comments will likely not sway your view on the matter, and we will likely have to agree to disagree. If you can find a scholar that will reinforce what you are claiming, I would be happy to look at their comments about the language here as well as arguments for seeing this text as worthy of establishing such a doctrine.

 

[Wormwood]

I've heard Charismatics refer to three categories of "tongues".
There are plain "tongues" in which they are given messages for the church. (Unfortunately, there is rarely an interpreter, so most of these "messages" are lost.)
Then there are "tongues of angels", in which they communicate with the Heavenly Host. (Evidently, while the angels can understand what is being said, humans cannot.)
And finally there is a "secret prayer tongue" which is given to them so that they can pray without Satan being able to understand what they are praying. (Of course, they can't, either, but that's beside the point.)

Yes, I have heard this too. I am not claiming that charismatics are doing something satanic in their practice of tongues (although it can certainly be unbiblical if it is not in order or edifying to others). I am just saying that there is just no justification for these various definitions. I think their practices are much more foundational to the definitions than the context and teaching of the Bible. In my estimation, I think the ecstatic utterances are primarily just excitement and emotion of worship being expressed from within the person and that these things are not related to the Spirit. I dont think they are "faking" anything or that they are manipulated by evil. Excitement and emotion can be a good thing. I just think these things come from the persons own spirit and emotion. That is not to say it is necesarrily bad (again, if it is done privately and not disruptive to the gathering of believers), but there is just no indication that these modern practices are the same thing that the NT describes.

I find it more than a coincidence that we do not find these phenomena in areas where these kinds of "tongues" are not coached and displayed. In Acts and 1 Cor. we read that these gifts are given according the Spirit's will and, in fact, they fell on people who are totally unprepared for it. If this gift were a legitimate act of the Spirit, then I think we would see it happening as the Spirit wills, regardness of denominational background, rather than only where it is seen, encouraged and taught. To me, this really shows that this is something that is of human origin rather than the Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not need us to teach and encourage peopel to seek "tongues" for Him to bestow the gift. This is clearly attested to in Acts and 1 Corinthians. He gives gifts as "he wills" not as "we will."

Again, the only real narratives we have on tongues teach that this "sign" was actual human languages and (as I have pointed out above) and Paul's descriptions in 1 Cor 12-14 only confirm the narrative of Acts 2. I think all sound hermeneutical principals are thrown aside when we start using the same word and create multiple entirely new meanings for it (even in the the same context!) without any real contextual justification.

 

[StanJ]

Stan,

I do not think I am being disengenious. Are you arguing that kainos must mean "new" in the other-worldly sense because it is used in Eph. 4:24, etc.? Then what about how neos is used in the following verses:

“Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.” (1 Corinthians 5:7, ESV)
“and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.” (Colossians 3:10, ESV)
“and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.” (Hebrews 12:24, ESV)

So, as I stated before, "kainos" does not, by itself imply what you are suggesting. It simply means "new" and neos can also be used as a synonym. In fact, Heb. 12:24 speaks of the "new" (neos) covenant and Luke 22:20 uses kainos in reference to the "new" covenant. So again, I dont think these words are as distinct with such nuanced meanings as you imply. Kainos does not only hold the connotation of "never seen before" and the fact Mark (although Mark likely didnt even write it) used this word and not neos does not prove the point that tongues spoken of in Mark 16 must be non-human languages. I know of no scholar who argues this.

When you use only one of many connotations, then yes IMO it is disingenuous to do so. ALL the connotations are menat to convey the true sense of the word, not just ONE.

The scriptures you use here do NOT contain kainos, they use neos, so I'm sure you will admit it is NOT the same word. Just as we use the word LOVE for many feelings, and Greek uses philios, storge, agape and eros to differentiate between the types of love.
English has a much smaller vocabulary than Greek ever has.

As spirits don't speak or use languages, they are ALL human in origin, but those in Acts had NEVER been heard or used before in the history of man.

 

[StanJ]

Most of the commentaries I have looked at hardly comment on this section of Scripture since it is quite obviously added at a later date and therefore not a text that one should use to establish any doctrine. However, of every commentary that does comment on it, not one scholar claims that kainos here infers "other wordly" or something entirely new to language as a whole. If this was so evident in the wording of the Greek as you propose, I would think at least one scholar would make mention of it. On the contrary, almost every commentary (as you can see above) list Acts 2 as examples of these "new" tongues.

So on the basis of this text being incredibly unreliable and the fact that no scholar I have ever read makes this argument about kainos implying a non existing language, I just dont see any validity to what you are claiming here. I know my comments will likely not sway your view on the matter, and we will likely have to agree to disagree. If you can find a scholar that will reinforce what you are claiming, I would be happy to look at their comments about the language here as well as arguments for seeing this text as worthy of establishing such a doctrine.

Probably because it is fairly straight forward, and as I said I won't get into whether it is acceptable, as far as I'm concerned, greater scholars than I have determined it is. Nevertheless, some scholars have not been impressed with the evidence against these verses, and have maintained that they are original. These scholars have pointed out that the witnesses which bring the verses into question are few, and that the verses are quoted by church Fathers very early, even in the second century. Read F.H.A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament.

It is NOT unreliable at all.

 

[Barrd]

When you use only one of many connotations, then yes IMO it is disingenuous to do so. ALL the connotations are menat to convey the true sense of the word, not just ONE.

The scriptures you use here do NOT contain kainos, they use neos, so I'm sure you will admit it is NOT the same word. Just as we use the word LOVE for many feelings, and Greek uses philios, storge, agape and eros to differentiate between the types of love.
English has a much smaller vocabulary than Greek ever has.

As spirits don't speak or use languages, they are ALL human in origin, but those in Acts had NEVER been heard or used before in the history of man.

Stan, I know that you believe that the dead are disembodied spirits who inhabit Hades...the good on one side, the wicked on the other, separated by a chasm. This belief is based on the story of the rich man and Lazarus, told in Luke 16.
Now, in that story, the rich man and Abraham have a conversation...so they must have spoken in some language.
And we know that angels do speak, not only to men, but to God and to one another.
But what has always intrigued me is the notion of a "secret prayer language" intended to keep Satan from hearing your prayers. Why would anyone wish to keep Satan from hearing their prayers? I should think that the sound of a devout Christian, uttering his or her prayers in the manner that Christ directed, would send Satan and his army of fallen angels screaming into the darkness from which they came...

And how do you get that the languages spoken in Acts 2 "had NEVER been heard or used before in the history of man"? The people hearing them recognized them, and understood them. They were not unknown languages....but until that moment they had been unknown to the Apostles.

As Wormwood says...this is a phenomenon that does seem to be prevalent in certain areas...like Southern Alabama, where I live...and non-existent in others...like Phoenix, Arizona, where I lived for awhile, or upstate New York, where I grew up.

 

[Wormwood]

I use a few of the connotations to show the range of the word's meaning fits with my understanding. As someone who is bilingual, surely you know that a word does not carry every connotation in every context! Let's look at an English word to illustrate:

Stud:

1.
a boss, knob, nailhead, or other protuberance projecting from a surface or part, especially as an ornament.
2.
any of various buttonlike, usually ornamental objects, mounted on a shank that is passed through an article of clothing to fasten it:
a collar stud.


3.
any of a number of slender, upright members of wood, steel, etc., forming the frame of a wall or partition and covered with plasterwork, siding, etc.

4.
any of various projecting pins, lugs, or the like, on machines or other implements.

5.
Automotive. any of a large number of small projecting lugs embedded in an automobile tire (studded tire) to improve traction on snowy or icy roads.

6.
an earring consisting of a small, buttonlike ornament mounted on a metal post designed to pass through a pierced ear lobe.

7.
Horology. the piece to which the fixed end of a hairspring is attached.

So are you suggesting that if I call you a "stud" that I am employing all of these meanings at the same time?! Surely I am not calling you a piece of wood or steel that forms the frame of a wall. I am not calling you an earring, consisting of a small, buttonlike ornament... You get the point. A word can have many different meanings, and the context usually will point to one particular meaning or connotation. Since the context in Mark 16 is vague, and "new" is a very generic term, there is no reason to try to press for a particular understanding. That is why we simply translate it as "new." The English is a very good representation of the Greek. To suggest the Greek gives us such specific doctrinal insight is simply not accurate and is stretching the language too far.

The scriptures you use here do NOT contain kainos, they use neos, so I'm sure you will admit it is NOT the same word. Just as we use the word LOVE for many feelings, and Greek uses philios, storge, agape and eros to differentiate between the types of love.
English has a much smaller vocabulary than Greek ever has.

That was my point. Neos is often used interchangeably with kainos, which proves that one does not have such specific connotations over the other such that we can develop such doctrines over which of the words is used. Neos is used in "new covenant" and kainos is used in "new covenant" Clearly, these words are not so distinct as you lead on. Yes, there are different words for "love" that can carry very distinct connotations. However, they are often used generically as well to avoid repetition. For instance, John 21:15-19. Most Greek scholars agree that John is likely using agape and phileo in generic ways to avoid repetition and is not making a theological statement about the nature of Peter's "love" toward Jesus. (He also uses different words for "lambs/sheep" simply to avoid repetition.

[SIZE=medium]How should the evidence of each of these endings be evaluated? It is obvious that the expanded form of the long ending (4) has no claim to be original. Not only is the external evidence extremely limited, but the expansion contains several non-Markan words and expressions (including ὁ αἰὼν οὗτος, ἁμαρτάνω, ἀπολογέω, ἀληθινός, ὑποστρέφω) as well as several that occur nowhere else in the New Testament (δεινός, ὅρος, προσλέγω). The whole expansion has about it an unmistakable apocryphal flavor. It probably is the work of a second or third century scribe who wished to soften the severe condemnation of the Eleven in 16:14.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Bruce Manning Metzger, United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 104.[/SIZE]

The text is not reliable. Every textual critic I have read very plainly state that this text is almost certainly added later. It is absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts, from the Old Latin codex, from the Sinaitic Syriac codex, about 100 Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts. Clement and Origen show know knowledge of the ending and Eusebius and Jerome attest to the fact that it was absent from almost every Greek copy of Mark known to them. If you look at the textual critic notes in the NA28 and the UBS4, they will both say the text extremely unreliable.

 

[StanJ]

I use a few of the connotations to show the range of the word's meaning fits with my understanding. As someone who is bilingual, surely you know that a word does not carry every connotation in every context! Let's look at an English word to illustrate:

Stud:


So are you suggesting that if I call you a "stud" that I am employing all of these meanings at the same time?! Surely I am not calling you a piece of wood or steel that forms the frame of a wall. I am not calling you an earring, consisting of a small, buttonlike ornament... You get the point. A word can have many different meanings, and the context usually will point to one particular meaning or connotation. Since the context in Mark 16 is vague, and "new" is a very generic term, there is no reason to try to press for a particular understanding. That is why we simply translate it as "new." The English is a very good representation of the Greek. To suggest the Greek gives us such specific doctrinal insight is simply not accurate and is stretching the language too far.




That was my point. Neos is often used interchangeably with kainos, which proves that one does not have such specific connotations over the other such that we can develop such doctrines over which of the words is used. Neos is used in "new covenant" and kainos is used in "new covenant" Clearly, these words are not so distinct as you lead on. Yes, there are different words for "love" that can carry very distinct connotations. However, they are often used generically as well to avoid repetition. For instance, John 21:15-19. Most Greek scholars agree that John is likely using agape and phileo in generic ways to avoid repetition and is not making a theological statement about the nature of Peter's "love" toward Jesus. (He also uses different words for "lambs/sheep" simply to avoid repetition.


The text is not reliable. Every textual critic I have read very plainly state that this text is almost certainly added later. It is absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts, from the Old Latin codex, from the Sinaitic Syriac codex, about 100 Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts. Clement and Origen show know knowledge of the ending and Eusebius and Jerome attest to the fact that it was absent from almost every Greek copy of Mark known to them. If you look at the textual critic notes in the NA28 and the UBS4, they will both say the text extremely unreliable.

The point is to START with the Greek in order to derive the true context. You can't just take an English word and say it connotes a single use when it doesn't in Greek. The context decides what the proper connotation is.

Let's stick to the Greek shall we and not obfuscate by using out of context and irrelevant English words.

That's like saying that love and like are interchangeable. Again they are two DISTINCT Greek words having similar but separate connotations.

I gave you a citation to read, which shows that is NOT factual, and it may not be in ALL texts, but as there are NO autographs and it is in many texts, I have no problem with it. You can read ALL the rational here; http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html

 

[Born_Again]

1Co 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

I think this is my favorite of Paul's "tongues" verses.

Notice, first of all, that he never says that he does speak in the tongues of angels...but only that if he did, but he did not have love, he would be nothing more than a bunch of annoying noise...
Having been in churches where folks are speaking in gibberish, I'd have to agree with him...

1Co 14:18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all

Okay, this post has been bothering me. In the instance of 1 Cor 13, "Tongues" is simply languages and really doesn't apply in this instance. It is separate from 1Cor 14. He is saying that no matter what language he speaks in, if doesn't say it with love, it means nothing. Has nothing to do with speaking in tongues. This particular chapter is near and dear to me and I have studied it intensely. Please don't blow this one out of context. You do this to enough scripture as it is...

 

[Barrd]

Okay, this post has been bothering me. In the instance of 1 Cor 13, "Tongues" is simply languages and really doesn't apply in this instance. It is separate from 1Cor 14. He is saying that no matter what language he speaks in, if doesn't say it with love, it means nothing. Has nothing to do with speaking in tongues. This particular chapter is near and dear to me and I have studied it intensely. Please don't blow this one out of context. You do this to enough scripture as it is...

First of all, your insinuation that I "blow scripture out of context" is totally false.
Secondly, I know what Paul is saying here, but I also know that a great many charismatics use this verse as their "proof text" that Paul spoke in the tongues of angels, showing that they can also speak in the tongues of angels...and as you just said yourself, this text means no such thing. Just as you said....it doesn't matter what language Paul (or anyone else) speaks, if there is no love, it's just a lot of annoying noise...you know, like the hurtful things some folks just have to post in a debate forum.
As it happens, 1 Cor 13 is also very dear to me, and has been for 53 years. Paul tells us that it doesn't matter what things we do, if we do them without love, they are useless.
Jesus also tells us that we are to walk in love for one another. In fact, He repeats this several times, even commanding us to love one another as He loves us. It seems pretty clear to me that those who love Him will also love one another. Conclusion: loving heart=Christian, but, no love=no Christian.
It really is that simple.
I'm sorry if my posts "bother" you. If you have a problem with me, please feel free to ignore me.

 

[StanJ]

Okay, this post has been bothering me. In the instance of 1 Cor 13, "Tongues" is simply languages and really doesn't apply in this instance. It is separate from 1Cor 14. He is saying that no matter what language he speaks in, if doesn't say it with love, it means nothing. Has nothing to do with speaking in tongues. This particular chapter is near and dear to me and I have studied it intensely. Please don't blow this one out of context. You do this to enough scripture as it is...

Again, clear evidence that some people strive about WORDS, just to get a reaction, and don't really read for context, nor use contextualization when reading. Clearly Paul is NOT talking about the tongues of Acts here, not of the tongues he addresses in chapters 12 and 14. Most literate people would NOT do that with a normal book, but for some reason, there seems to be a propensity with some believers to eisegete when it comes to the Bible. Even a grade 10 dropout like me, understands the basic grammatical rules of the English language.

 

[marksman]

I think anyone with half a brain cell would know that being "slain in the spirit" is as phony as a two dollar bill.

It certainly isn't Biblical.

Sorry you could not be so wrong. I have a whole brain and being slain in the spirit is not phony as a two dollar bill and I am not given to excess and fanaticism as I am autistic and a very measured person.

​In 1976 I was having all sorts of personal problems because of my autism and during a two week seeking the Lord series of meetings at the church I went forward for prayer. One of our ministers prayed for me to be delivered from a spirit of rejection. No one touched me and no one pushed me. Before I could do anything one way or another I was on my back on the floor. No one caught me and I was not injured. I stayed there for 30 minutes despite trying to get up several times. Whilst there, I felt God do an operation and release me from rejection.

Since that day I have not been bugged by a spirit of rejection. I was set free. That was an authentic experience that man had no part in other than to pray. If you claim that is as phony as a two dollar bill, then you have decided God is a cheat and leads people up the garden path because if being slain in the spirit is phony so is the being set free and I should still be in bondage to rejection, but the fact is I am not.

Second, I remember very well the first person I prayed for to be delivered from homosexuality. A young man who hated himself and hated being homosexual. I spoke the word of God to him and asked him if he wanted to be free of it. With tears he said yes. So I laid hands on him and commanded the spirit to come out of him. He let out a scream and fell to the floor. He lay their crying and when he got up you could see he had been delivered by the look of joy on his face.

Third, at our national conference I was assigned to help in ministry with one of the main ministers. The subject matter of the meeting was rejection. When Ian had spoken (he is most unassuming and without emotion) , he invited people to come forward for prayer for a release from the spirit of rejection. There was a line of people right across the front of the room. Ian started at one end and I started at the other. I stepped in front of the first person and realised I had no idea what to pray. Ian was too far away to get advice from so I said Lord tell me what to pray. The answer came to me immediately. I laid my hand on the persons head and said "He breaks the power of cancelled sin and sets the prisoner free." The person fell to the floor. The same thing happened to the second person I prayed for. When I got to the third person, they went down before I had finished praying. The same with the next person. When I got to the next, I lifted my hand and before it had reached the person's head they went down. The same happened to everyone after that. Everyone got up delivered from rejection.

As the church was a charismatic Brethren we were not into sensationalism. The founder of it had been a Brethren Elder for many years and was a man that was committed to the word of God. At the same time he allowed the gifts of the spirit to operate as the Spirit willed.

If you believe all that is phony you obviously have a greater insight into the mind of God than I do as all I saw and experienced was very authentic and God was glorified in everything that happened.

 

[Barrd]

Sorry you could not be so wrong. I have a whole brain and being slain in the spirit is not phony as a two dollar bill and I am not given to excess and fanaticism as I am autistic and a very measured person.

​In 1976 I was having all sorts of personal problems because of my autism and during a two week seeking the Lord series of meetings at the church I went forward for prayer. One of our ministers prayed for me to be delivered from a spirit of rejection. No one touched me and no one pushed me. Before I could do anything one way or another I was on my back on the floor. No one caught me and I was not injured. I stayed there for 30 minutes despite trying to get up several times. Whilst there, I felt God do an operation and release me from rejection.

Since that day I have not been bugged by a spirit of rejection. I was set free. That was an authentic experience that man had no part in other than to pray. If you claim that is as phony as a two dollar bill, then you have decided God is a cheat and leads people up the garden path because if being slain in the spirit is phony so is the being set free and I should still be in bondage to rejection, but the fact is I am not.

Second, I remember very well the first person I prayed for to be delivered from homosexuality. A young man who hated himself and hated being homosexual. I spoke the word of God to him and asked him if he wanted to be free of it. With tears he said yes. So I laid hands on him and commanded the spirit to come out of him. He let out a scream and fell to the floor. He lay their crying and when he got up you could see he had been delivered by the look of joy on his face.

Third, at our national conference I was assigned to help in ministry with one of the main ministers. The subject matter of the meeting was rejection. When Ian had spoken (he is most unassuming and without emotion) , he invited people to come forward for prayer for a release from the spirit of rejection. There was a line of people right across the front of the room. Ian started at one end and I started at the other. I stepped in front of the first person and realised I had no idea what to pray. Ian was too far away to get advice from so I said Lord tell me what to pray. The answer came to me immediately. I laid my hand on the persons head and said "He breaks the power of cancelled sin and sets the prisoner free." The person fell to the floor. The same thing happened to the second person I prayed for. When I got to the third person, they went down before I had finished praying. The same with the next person. When I got to the next, I lifted my hand and before it had reached the person's head they went down. The same happened to everyone after that. Everyone got up delivered from rejection.

As the church was a charismatic Brethren we were not into sensationalism. The founder of it had been a Brethren Elder for many years and was a man that was committed to the word of God. At the same time he allowed the gifts of the spirit to operate as the Spirit willed.

If you believe all that is phony you obviously have a greater insight into the mind of God than I do as all I saw and experienced was very authentic and God was glorified in everything that happened.

First of all, by your own admission, you are autistic. Autism is a strange disorder...I have a son who has autism. In adults it is often linked with paranoid schizophrenia, ocd....and hallucinations.
Now, I'm going to guess that you were in a place where these things go on normally, and you were caught up in the emotions of the moment. It happens even to "normal" people, and is probably one of the most common reasons why people go down on the first experience.

It is not unusual for people with these mental disorders to feel "rejected" even when they are not. They tend to be very insecure, and centered on self. And yes, they can be and often are delusional. Sometimes, too, they don't seem to feel pain, or pleasure. Now, I'm very glad that you feel that you have been "set free" from "the spirit of rejection"...but I do hope you are able to realize that God can do that without knocking anyone over.
No, God does not lead anyone up the garden path, and He is not a cheat. But we do have a vicious enemy who can and would do these things...

I have some deep suspicions about anyone saying that they "delivered" anyone from "the spirit of homosexuality". I've had to deal with a young man who thought he was homosexual. Long story short, he was "delivered" from it, and yes, there was a lot of prayer involved. But there was a bit more to it than that. One does not just "pray the gay away".

I want you to look through the Bible and see if you can find anything like the example you gave of Jesus or the Apostles ever going down a line, touching people on the head, chanting a few words, and BOOM...they fall down. Make it a challenge. Show me some proof from the Bible that this is not some demon at work, or some hallucination....or out and out fakery. If you can do that, I will apologize to you and to everyone else in the thread. On the other hand, if it is not in the Bible, where does your authority to do this come from? More importantly, where does the power to knock people over come from? If it isn't from God, then where does it come from? I know that autistic people tend to get obsessive about things like this...you will hold to this belief even if it is proven to you to be a fraud. And I know how frustrating it can be to try to reason with an autistic person. As someone else once put it, it's like trying to herd cats.

And finally, the so-called "charismatic movement" is all about sensationalism. It's a huge "look at me" party.
Again I say that the Holy Spirit would never be involved in calling attention to Himself. Rather, His whole purpose is to call attention to Jesus Christ.

Now, I do not claim to have any "special insight into the mind of God." I never have.
But I do have a Bible, and I can read.
And, as I've said, I've had people actually admit to me that they were faking, or helping someone else put on a show.
Including that little boy I spoke of earlier who was so afraid he was going to hell for his sin. In case you missed it, his parents allowed their church to keep him for two days and nights in a locked room with no light, no food, no water, and no bathroom, coming in at various intervals to "lay hands on" him and pray over him until he should be "baptized in the Holy Spirit". He finally crumbled, and began to babble nonsense. His parents were overjoyed! Their son was now "spiritual! He came weeping to me, needing reassurance that God still loves him. I told him that he had not sinned, because he had been forced, and he accepted that. I pray for him a lot. His parents have no idea that he came to me. They really don't like him being around me, but he is my grandson's best bud, and they tend to spend quite a bit of time here. I don't think my daughter is telling them that she brings them over here...and I'm not talking, either...

The fakes don't really bother me. God will deal with them in His Own time. I'm sounding a warning, is all, in the hope that, perhaps, I might save one or two.
No, the ones that worry me are the ones that insist that what they experienced is "real." There is no example of it in the Bible at all, and no authority to add it later, which there would be if it truly came from God.
So, if it doesn't come from God, there is only one other place it could come from...and that would be Satan.