 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
0CT0R0K
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 5/11/2003 7:04 PM (GMT -6) |   | I'm sure this topic has come up before, but I wanted to aim for a specific translation and interpreation of a few following verses found in an article about speaking in tongues:
6) It is a mistake for a woman to speake in tongues.
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak ..." (14:34). The prhibition here has a direct relation to the problem with which the Apostle is dealing, namely, speaking in tongues. Earlier in the same Epistle he told the women how to dress when they prayed or prophesied in the church (11:3-10), therefore he would not forbid them here in Chapter 14 that priveilege which is countenanced in Chapter 11. The setting of I Corinthians 14:34 has reference primarily to women speaking in tongues. It is clear and unmistakable that speaking in tongues was a gift limited to men and is never to be exercised by women. Now he is not saying that women may not teach or testify or pray, but that they may not speak in tongues. Eslewhere Paul writes, "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurb authority over the man, but to be in silence" (I Timothy 2:12). The point of this passage is that a woman's ministry must not usurp authority over the man. She may teach women or children, but not men.
If this admonition were heeded today much of the present tongues movement would be elimnated. The word "speak" in 14:34 is the same word used in verse 28, therefore it cannot mean mere "chatter" that would disturb a service in the church. The purpose of this entire section on speaking in tongues is to curb the wrong use of the gift. Verses 27-33 give instruction for men in the matter of speaking in tongues. "If any man speak in an unkown tongue ..." (14:27); verses 34-36 are directed to "women" exercising the gift of tongues. And if any women wanted to take issue with Paul, he would ask them one question, "Which book in all the inspired Scriptures was written as the result of the Holy Spirit revealing the woman?" (Verse 36). It is a mistake for a woman to speake in tongues.
I've been told by many that this is a wrong translation. What do you guys think? And what are your thoughts on tongues-speaking?
 | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/11/2003 8:03 PM (GMT -6) | | Do yourself a HUUUUUUUGE favor and get Gordon Fee's commentary on 1 Corinthians (New International Commentary on the New Testament). Besides being a top-notch scholar, Fee is thoroghly Pentecostal. You won't be disappointed.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/11/2003 9:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Octorok-
It seems to me (check out Fee on this too) that in addressing the problem of spiritual manifestation in chs. 12-14, Paul has three fundamental issues he raises: the need for intelligibility, the need for love, and the need for order. These he takes on respectively in chs. 12, 13, and 14. And in ch. 14 it’s not ALL about tongues. He deals with tongues in 14.1-28, and then in v. 29 turns to consider prophecy, another manifestation about which Paul cares a great deal. Here’s the text from 14.29 on:quote:
29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32 The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, 34 women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. 36 Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37 If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. 38 If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored. 39 Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.
Try this experiment. Try reading the text without vv. 34-35. From v. 33 jump straight to v. 36, like this:
“31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32 The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace, as in all the congregations of the saints. 36 Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?”
Much easier. Just consider the flow which such a reading gives you. The phrase “as in all the congregations of the saints” ends v. 33 and does not introduce v. 34, the opening sentences of which already is qualified by “in the churches.” Why would Paul begin THIS sentence with “as in all the congregations of the saints”? Take vv. 34-35 out of the picture and you have a nice flow of thought. Leave ‘em there and they stick out like a sore thumb. Are these verses original to Paul? I’m very tempted to agree with Fee that they are not. I in fact lean heavily in that direction and you can read Fee for the arguments that have nearly persuaded me. But if somebody wants to argue these verses are original to Paul, they still can be explained without thinking Paul was prohibiting women from “speaking in tongues” here (an inconceivable theory given Paul’s overall arguments).
Tom 
PS Who wrote the article you refer to?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
0CT0R0K
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 5/12/2003 5:53 AM (GMT -6) | | It's an article I found online like 3 or 4 years ago when I first became a Christian and was saved into a Charismatic church. I printed it out, but never saved or bookmarked the site or anything. It says at the top of my printed article that "Lehman Strauss, Litt.D., F.R.G.S" wrote it.
I can't come to the conclusion that speaking in tongues should be authorized in today's church. And when I bring up my arguments, people (fellow Christians) become very offensive to my objections, and tell me that it's just a matter of opinion, and they base their claims of tongues-speaking on EXPERIENCE. That a is very illogical statement to be making, to justify your reasons for one - on clear biblical scripture that is contrary to what they teach, and second to claim that since they have seen people do it, or do it themselves, it is real. Is this making sense?
I've been arguing this thing for a good week or more, and my head is likely to explode soon. I need some more in-depth opinions.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/12/2003 6:23 AM (GMT -6) | | Octorok: It says at the top of my printed article that "Lehman Strauss, Litt.D., F.R.G.S" wrote it.
Tom: I think the F.R.G.S. stands for "Friggin Right-on God Sent."
Octorok: I can't come to the conclusion that speaking in tongues should be authorized in today's church. And when I bring up my arguments, people (fellow Christians) become very offensive to my objections.
Tom: If by "should be authorized" you mean "may be allowed," then I'd love to hear your reasons for disallowing the speaking of tongues today. And I promise not to be offended.
Octorok: ...they base their claims of tongues-speaking on EXPERIENCE. That a is very illogical statement to be making, to justify your reasons for one - on clear biblical scripture that is contrary to what they teach...
Tom: Well, let's see the clear biblical teaching against speaking in tongues first. Experience doesn't count for everything, but it is important, especially if the expereience is shared by believers in the New Testament. But if the Scriptures so clearly condemn an experience, then that would be something. Which passages do this with tongues?
Octorok: I need some more in-depth opinions.
Tom: Real quickly, I think there's good biblical support for speaking in tongues being a positive, edifying experience for believers both in private and (with stipulations) in public too. It can be damaging to the public community when practiced wrongly, but that doesn't wipe out legitimate applications.
What d'ya think?
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 5/12/2003 6:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Tongues on the day of Pentecost were foreign languages.
Acts 2:
quote:
7 They were amazed and astonished, saying, "Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans?
8 "And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born?
9 "Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,
10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretans and Arabs--we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God."
As to the other kinds of tongues, I have volitionally stopped having an opinion on that. I just don't care one way or the other anymore.
Even though the skies are blue, don't they let the sunshine through?
Edited by - Laika on 05/12/2003 11:38:11 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
0CT0R0K
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 5/12/2003 1:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Well I did some searching on Google, and came up with the article, if you do get a chance, Tom I'd like for you to take a look at it (as well as anyone else interested). There are some certain translations of Scripture that have been questioned by many. Such as the translation of the word "perfect" or "complete" (1Cor.13:10).
www.bible.org/docs/theology/pneuma/tongues.htm
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/12/2003 1:34 PM (GMT -6) | | My own experience with congregations that speak in tongues has not been so great. Apart from the lack of intelligibility, I remember one time I was visiting an african-american church where the pastor was quite authoritarian and materialistic(demanding a lot out of the congregation in terms of donations). In the service, the pastor got up and started speaking in tongues. Then, one of the assistant pastors interpreted what he said. Then they pointed out the relevant passage.
From my point of view, the whole thing was orchestrated to justify the power that the pastor was wielding(probably for non-holy purposes). This violates my basic baptist understanding of the priesthood of the believers. Whereby those with the gift of tongues are construed as somehow more holy.
I also had another experience with an African-American pastor of a church in South Minneapolis, Phillipi Baptist Church. He believed in the importance of having the gift of tongues since he had been hurt by many supposed "Christians" many times. In his view, the gift of tongues was the signal he used to tell that someone truly was Christian. However, we got along fine and no I do not have the gift of tongues. Just the gift of judgement.
My uncle speaks in tongues and I thank God for giving him that gift, since he has had a rough time of things and needed the spiritual support. But, I think this is for his time with God in private, not to become an institutionalized feature of the church-service. One can always be made to feel through peer-pressure that one should fake the gift so as not to be seen as less holy than one's peers.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Seesaw
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 70
| Posted 5/12/2003 4:09 PM (GMT -6) | | I agree that tongues were foreign languages.
My only experiences with tongues have been a girlfriend in college who began speaking in them while we were praying. Needless to say, it did me NO good as I sat there wondering what the heck she was saying! About a year later, she told me she was homosexual.
I once was also with three college friends at some city-wide revival thing when the pastor said something along the lines of "Everyone at my church has a secret prayer language or a tongue" and then he told us all to speak our secret prayer language or tongues. My friends and I left because it was total cacophony and not edifying or helpful in any way. Had a nonChristian been there, they would have thought everyone was mad!
The Bible is very specific on "guidelines" re: tongues. There must be an interpreter, it must edify the Body, it must not be chaos. It must also not be done pridefully.
I am aware of other religions (cults) that also speak in tongues. As well, an insane person might speak in tongues. I've heard that tongues can also be demonic but offhand not sure about Biblical support for that? But, one can mistakenly believe that if one speaks in tongues it is a sign of godliness or maturity. I have actually found the opposite to be true, but that is only my experience. I have never attended a church where tongues were practiced, so I have not had much exposure to a person speaking in tongues other than what I mentioned.
The only other times I've had discussions on tongues is from people who thought I needed to speak in them and because I don't, then I must be missing out on the fullness of Christ in my life. That is something I very much disagree with. Speaking in tongues is not a mandate to knowing Christ and I don't agree that it is evidence of a person's salvation. I have known & know FAR too many godly men & women who did & do not speak in tongues. It is a lesser gift and a gift that can cause division as far with those who say "you MUST speak in tongues" and those who don't. It can cause a person to feel like a lesser Christian if they don't speak in tongues (or don't desire to).
The gifts are given as God distributes them and they are GIFTS; in other words, not everyone will receive the gifts of tongues and they have no reason to feel bad about that. Not everyone has every gift. We all have different gifts.
1 Cor. 14 is an excellent sermon on the gift of tongues. Paul said, "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue." Five words vs. 10,000 in a tongue.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 5/12/2003 5:10 PM (GMT -6) | | I am going to interject a few thoughts, even though it seems that is a sure way to kill a thread. I haven't figured out if my contributions are irrefutable, they are considered to be disease laden and it is thereby forbidden to respond to them or I am an interloper from outside the clique who is to be ignored.
I began my master's thesis in 1977 on the subject of tongues, since it was a very hot topic at the time. Dr. Strauss has put into print much of my argument, but there are a few areas where a different line of thought may be appropriate. quote:
These are the only instances of tongues-speaking recorded in the Bible, except the passage in First Corinthians. None of the later Epistles mention speaking in tongues. The gift was used only in the transitional period between Law and Grace. The sign gifts continued through the period of the Apostles while the New Testament was in the process of being written.
Here we find an obvious neglect of what Dr. Strauss has already mentioned, the Isaiah 28 passage. The sign of tongues, in Isaiah 28, was to show the judgement of God that had befallen Israel and was evidenced by the speach/tongue of their Assyrian captors. The confusing of tongues at the tower of Babel would be another example of God's judgment evidenced by tongues. During the "transition period between Law and Grace" there was another judgment that had happened or was about to happen. Israel was put on the back burner in favor of the Gentiles and/or the destruction of Jerusalem would happen before the completion of the New Testament canon. Either way, that would be the only two things the "sign" would point to as being a judgment against Israel.
Another area would be, quote:
If Christians would take seriously, within context, all of the teaching about tongues in I Corinthians, they could not fail to see that tongues-speaking would cease. ...
But when the canon of Scripture is made “perfect” (or complete), there will be no further revelation from God, neither in predictive prophecy nor in divinely revealed knowledge other than prophecy. The gifts of “prophecy” and “knowledge” will be entirely unnecessary with the completion of the Scriptures. ...
The sign gifts were “done away” (rendered inoperative) with the completion of the New Testament.
Even though I use the KJV without any thoughts of error included in this text, I recognize that what I consider to be the best text is not "perfect" or "complete" (all of the other translations are just as imperfect). There is never a thought of translating baptizo to mean immerse and thereby dispell any considerations of pouring or sprinkling as being proper methods of baptism. The word baptizo is always transliterated instead of being completed through translation. This verse, Hebrews 4:8 "For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day." would be perfect/complete if it was properly changed to read Joshua instead of Jesus. Even though there can be many other examples cited, these two should be sufficient to make my point. Regardless of what Dr. Strauss says, the canon is closed, but not perfect/complete.
If this thread survives this post, I will address the issue of tongues and women at a later time.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
0CT0R0K
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 5/12/2003 7:11 PM (GMT -6) | | I thank you Paul for your comments. I do look forward to any other things you have to say in the future in this thread.
Just curious, what do you mean by the canon being "closed"?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 5/12/2003 7:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Octorok,
The canon, those books/epistles that compose the Bible, hasn't been added to since the last of the apostles passed on. Therefore, it is closed to further additions. If you read some of the contemporaries to the apostles, like Clement of Rome, you won't find anything new, in the way of revelation, and the beginnings of Roman Catholic doctrine will be seen, i.e. submitting to the authority of deacons. Polycarp's writings were pretty good, but judged to not have the qualities necessary to be included in the canon. What we have is sufficient for faith and practice.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
0CT0R0K
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 5/13/2003 3:24 AM (GMT -6) | | "if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book" (Revelation 22:18).
It seems to me that being complete and closed mean the same thing almost. Anywho ... I still can't really decide on what the Bible says about tongues speaking. I've done a lot of rethinking and praying, and I think that what I've learned is that the misinterpretation of the canon being perfect/complete ceasing the charismatic gifts has led me down the wrong path. If it really is interpreted to be Christ's return, then charismatic gifts are still around. My only thoughts are that a entirely good portion of the churches today performing tongues-speaking and prophecy are complete whackos and going about it all the wrong way. And I've seen that first hand. But even if one person say, does actually have the gift to speak in tongues, and another to interpret it - should I listen to what they have to say? Is it better for me to turn my ears away to them, rather than listen and be possibly deceived somehow?
This whole subject is rather frustrating. And Paul, if you have any other things to add, please feel free to jump right in with your knowledge or maybe some links for me to look at.
Matt Slick from www.carm.org has a good conclusion to chew on:
In fact, the truth that we have these differences of opinion should unite us instead of divide us. The reason is simple. When we see that we have differences of opinion, it should humble us because it should bring to light the reality of our sinfulness and limited nature as Christians to fully understand God's word. Instead of maintaining an attitude of pride where one side condemns the other, we should be more gracious. We should acknowledge the possibility of the other side being right, even though we don't think so. We need to admit that our sinfulness is the problem, and not the other's lack of judgment.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 5/13/2003 8:56 AM (GMT -6) | | 0CT0R0K,
Your post about the frustration of figuring out the tongues issue was excellent: not in that you solved anything, but in that you are willing to work through it. THAT is worth more than finding the answer! It really is.
Starkman
Am I right? I say, am I right?
Charlie Brown | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 5/13/2003 3:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Octorok,
The Revelation quote is really only to be applied to that particular writing, but I agree in principle. To continue with the thought of completion, you do realize that we don't have a complete Greek manuscript? We have what is pieced together from the 5500 existing manuscripts, but none that are complete. Even the defective manuscript, Vaticanus, is only complete through parts of Hebrews, with rest being totally gone.
I Cor. 14.39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. I don't believe I have ever heard what is a valid example of the gift of tongues, but I am also very careful to refrain from forbidding its exercise. I do insist on all of the restrictions being met and have never had anyone try to speak in tongues during the assembly of the church. I wasn't too clear in stating my belief on one of those restrictions as the need for Jews to be present. All recorded examples of NT tongues are in the presence of Jews, for whom it is a sign. I Cor. 14.21With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; I Cor. 1.22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
Too many people want to take that which has been preserved for us to learn from and make it into a cultural situation that only applies to the first century. The 11th-14th chapters of I Cor. are just as applicible now as when they were originally written. There isn't a thought of making the latter part of chapter 11 (dealing with the Lord's Supper) a situation that only applied to the first century. So, why would any of the rest of the scriptures in this section, that deal with what is proper in the church assembled, need to be assigned to the "church history" category?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
might-be-don
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830
| Posted 5/14/2003 2:10 AM (GMT -6) | | Paul(4736-652) says:
quote:
I wasn't too clear in stating my belief on one of those restrictions as the need for Jews to be present.
I've been hanging out with tongue-talkers for 30 years and this is the first time I've heard this one. Learn something new every day.
peace and love, don
---
"No Rules, just Right" Outback Steakhouse | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 5/15/2003 8:38 AM (GMT -6) | | M-B-D,
Those you hang around with certainly wouldn't admit to the possibility of another restriction on what they practice. Of course, they ignore the restrictions that are very evident and would probably ignore anything previously unconsidered as well. They are usually convinced of their actions being appropriate by their experiences, not by scripture.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
might-be-don
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830
| Posted 5/15/2003 9:02 AM (GMT -6) | | Paul(4736-652),
Well... the folks I hang with are FAR from anything goes when it comes to 'spiritual' gifts. I have several times over the years reexamined my stand on tongues and as a result modified my stance.
I have just never run across the Jews must be present requirement taught by either supporters, or non-supporters. Can you provide any information on how this stance is supported in scripture or tradition?
peace and love, don
---
"No Rules, just Right" Outback Steakhouse | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/15/2003 10:15 AM (GMT -6) | | soedton ehtecripturs heactsu thatsonguet ydifesu?
Tom 
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 5/15/2003 11:12 AM (GMT -6) | | If God hadn't wanted women to speak in tongues, He wouldn't have given them the gift to do it, now would He have?
Tigress
The Angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear Him, and He delivers them.
-Psalm 34:7 | | Back to Top | | |
|
might-be-don
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830
| Posted 5/15/2003 12:19 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
soedton ehtecripturs heactsu thatsonguet ydifesu?
To remain in order, the above means... Tom will be sending might-be-don one hundred dollars a month for the next three years!
---
"No Rules, just Right" Outback Steakhouse | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 5/15/2003 3:01 PM (GMT -6) | | M-B-D,
I didn't think I quoted the New York Times to back my position. I clearly explained that Jews were always present in every NT example of tongues showing themselves (Acts 2, 10 & 19). Tongues were the validating sign for the Jews who didn't believe (unbelievers) God included Gentiles in His plan of salvation. And, the Isaiah 28 passage quoted in I Cor. 14 could only mean the Jews were "this people", since the Greeks (Corinthians) weren't even there for the Assyrian captivity around 750 BC. And, since the Jews are the ones seeking a sign, whereas the Greeks (Corinthians) seek after wisdom (I Cor 1.22). Maybe you know of another example where there weren't any Jews present?quote:
Tongues were a sign of that which Jews (and not Gentiles) needed to be divinely assured of; namely, that the legal or Mosaic age had passed away forever. (Merril F. Unger, New Testament Teaching on Tongues, Kregel Publications, 1971, p. 114)
If Tom tried his attempt at emulating tongues on John Doe unbeliever, do you think John Doe would be convinced of the error of his ways or would John Doe think Tom is "mad"? Tom might be edified while John Doe is thinking Tom is a madman. Tom might be floating toward the third heaven while John Doe is still headed straight to Hades (as are all unbelievers). (Tom, I'm not throwing rocks at you, it's just utilizing your post as an illustration) :)
Traditions. I suppose tongues, in the modern sense, has a tradition of almost 100 years now, that commenced with factions of the Holiness Movement. Beyond that time, you have a few isolated groups, like the heretical Montanists, who practiced tongues while the overwhelming majority didn't practice tongues.quote:
This is a clear statement that tongues and other miraculous manifestations had stopped altogether by the end of the fourth century even in erratic fringe groups. (Unger p. 140)
Tigress,
The restriction is for women to abstain from speaking (tongues or otherwise) during/in the assembly of the church. I suppose the gift could be exercised by women outside the assembly without violating that restriction.
EDIT: I found this in C.W. Parnell, Understanding Tongues Speaking, Broadman Press, no date, p. 21quote:
Augustine (354-430 A.D.) Commenting on 1st John: “In the earliest times, ‘The Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed and they spoke with tongues which they had not learned, ‘as the Spirit gave them utterance’. These were signs adapted to the time. For there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit in all tongues, to show that the Gospel of God was to run through all tongues over the whole earth. That thing was done for a betokening and it passed away.” (Augustine: “Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John”, translated by H. Browne. Vol. 7 of “The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers”. Hom. 6.10.
Edited by - Paul5388 on 05/15/2003 8:40:44 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
0CT0R0K
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 5/15/2003 4:13 PM (GMT -6) | | interesting find, Paul about the Jews information.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 5/15/2003 4:49 PM (GMT -6) | |
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1053053061-606.html
| | Back to Top | | |
|
might-be-don
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830
| Posted 5/16/2003 2:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Paul(4736-652),
First, I trust you understand that my info request wasn't intended to be adversarial.
You are right in that it will be difficult to find instances where Jews are not present in Acts.
I quite sure that John Doe unbeliever would think they were mad. I generally advocate that 'church' services not include unbelievers.
1 Corinthians 14:2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God.
Given the general use of tongues to be speaking to God, I wouldn't be expecting John Doe unbeliever to understand and benefit.
peace and love, don
---
"No Rules, just Right" Outback Steakhouse | | Back to Top | | |
| 52 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:45 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|