Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

If Corinth had the same "tongues" as Charismatics, and their tongues are fake,then...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • If Corinth had the same "tongues" as Charismatics, and their tongues are fake,then...

    If Corinth had the same "tongues" as Charismatics, and their tongues are not blessed, supernatural gifts, or at least do not prove the truth of their claims, then what does that say about the Corinthians' tongues in the Bible? This is a potentially loaded question, and so it really needs to be broken down into parts.

    First, were the Corinthians speaking national languages, or were they speaking incomprehensible phonetics that nations do not use as normal speech?

    Those who equate Corinthians' glossolalia with the charismatics' note that 1 Cor 14 says: "he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him". If "tongues" were meant for outreach to foreign nations and were real languages, then normally one would expect that those who speak in the tongues to speak to foreign men, not just to God.

    Paul also expects that uninformed believers who watch the Corinthians speaking simultaneously would think them to be having psychological confusion:
    "Therefore if the whole church comes together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those who are uninformed or unbelievers, will they not say that you are out of your mind (or literally "maniacs")?" (1 Cor 14:23) This is the same kind of reaction that mainstream Christians often have when watching Charismatics.

    Charismatics pray and sincerely ask for the gift of tongues like it says the first generation of Christians had. They point to Luke 11:11-13, saying that if children ask for a stone, the father does not give a fish. They ask how come they could get something deviant that they instead feel inspiring in themselves, when they sincerely asked God in prayer for the tongue gifts.


    Second, is what Paul said that uninformed believers would think about Corinthians, namely that they were having mental phenomena, correct when it comes to Charismatics?
    Many mainstream nonCharismatics think this.

    One Christian who is a former Pentecostal and works as a clinical hypnotist discusses the similarities between stage hypnotism and the charismatic movement in his essay:

    The Stage Hypnotist and the Charismatic Preacher: Strange Bedfellows

    “On the count of three, you will imagine that you are walking on the deck of boat as it rocks to and fro on the ocean”. ... The show has begun and all in the audience are transfixed by the skill of the entertainer and bizarre behaviours that begin to be manifested before them by seemingly ordinary people... But this is a stage hypnotist show, not a religious meeting, you might remind me. But wait, just imagine a change of audience, a change of leader, a change of language and music, a change of suggestions, and before you know it you could be talking about a charismatic religious rally.

    “Slain in the Spirit” or "falling under the Spirit's power", "falling before the Lord" or "resting in the Spirit" as it is sometimes called, is a typical example of one of these so-called signs and wonders. ... I liken it to the phenomenon of stage hypnotism where the often highly skilled hypnotist prepares his self-selected audience for hypnotic induction. I say this with some degree of authority as I have been professionally trained in clinical hypnosis and have practiced it to assist individuals with their psychological difficulties for some years now. Furthermore, I am forbidden by my professional association to practice potentially harmful stage hypnosis (not that I would want to anyway). Let me assure you, the phenomena you witness in these pentecostalist meetings is one of two things, role playing on the part of those who are ‘slain in the spirit’, or otherwise a hypnotic trance-like state that is induced by a preacher who over the years has happened upon the techniques of the professional hypnotist.

    "...The real power of hypnosis comes from the trust the hypnotist can instill in his subjects. They have to willingly grant him the ability to take over their critical thinking and direct their bodies. Some people are very trusting, or even looking for an excuse to abdicate their responsibilities and are able to be hypnotized within seconds, while others take more time to counter their fears."


    Similarly, just think about the type of statements made in charismatic, pentecostal and evangelistic meetings. I can remember some straightforward classics, “God is with us today, can’t you feel his presence?”, “He is here to do wonders, to make the lame walk again, to heal the broken-hearted”, “Expect a miracle” and the like. The music and worship preparation is also important in building up a state of expectancy in the audience. All this type of preparation is akin to similar techniques used by the stage hypnotist, except different wording is used and the religious themes are substituted by more audience-appropriate preparation techniques.
    http://psuedocults.blogspot.com/2008...arasmatic.html

    One scientific study of Charismatic believers found Charismatics in surveys rated Christians who they listened to as being more charismatic when they were told by the survey testers that the Christian was a healer:
    While their followers believe them to have special powers, a new brain imaging study by Uffe Schjødt at Aarhus University in Denmark suggests that it’s all just a product of their imagination. In fact, the brain imaging study is only part of the story. What’s even more remarkable is what it says about how some people come to fall under the spell of these charismatics.

    What they did was to take a small group of pentecostal Christians and a matched group of non-believers. Both were chosen so as to represent the extreme ends of the belief scale. They were asked to listen to prayers being read by three different people who, they were told, were a non-Christian, an ordinary Christian, and a Christian ‘known for his healing powers’. In fact, they were all ordinary Christians…


    When asked, the pentecostalists rated the one they were told was a healer as the most charismatic, and the person they thought was non-religious as much less charismatic (see the graph). Just telling... pentecostalists that someone has healing powers makes them think that they are highly charismatic. What’s more, they didn’t feel God’s presence in the prayers read by the person they were told was a non-Christian.
    So where does the hypnotism come in? Well, specific regions of the pentecostalist’s brains became somewhat activated when listening to the prayer from the ‘non-believer’, but highly deactivated when listening to the prayer from the ‘charismatic healer’. The prayer from the ordinary Christian resulted in deactivation too, but on a small scale.

    And the regions that were deactivated by the ‘charismatic healer’ were all associated with ‘executive function’ – the part of the mind that evaluates, monitors, and makes decisions. A similar response has been seen in the brains of people undergoing hypnosis – as well as meditation.

    In other words, they went into a bit of a trance.

    What Schjødt thinks is happening here is that, when we listen someone we trust implicitly, we switch off our critical faculties, and just let what they are saying wash over us. In the words of the researchers, “subjects suspend or ‘hand over’ their critical faculty to the trusted person.” - See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/epiphen....qjBXU9bk.dpuf
    Fr. Seraphim Rose used psychology to help explain modern glossolalia in his book Charismatic Revival As a Sign of the Times:
    Far from being given freely and spontaneously, without man’s interference–as are the true gifts of the Holy Spirit–speaking in tongues can be caused to occur quite predictably by a regular technique of concentrated group “prayer” accompanied by psychologically suggestive Protestant hymns (“He comes! He comes!”), culminating in a “laying on of hands,” and sometimes involving such purely physical efforts as repeating a given phrase over and over again (Koch p. 24), or just making sounds with the mouth. One person admits that, like many others, after speaking in tongues, “I often did mouth nonsense syllables in an effort to start the flow of prayer-in-tongues” (Sherrill p. 127); and such efforts, far from being discouraged, are actually advocated by Pentecostals. “Making sounds with the mouth is not ‘speaking-in-tongues,’ but it may signify an honest act of faith, which the Holy Spirit will honor by giving that person the power to speak in another language” (Harper p. 11)… A Jesuit “theologian” tells how he put such advice into practice: “After breakfast I felt almost physically drawn to the chapel where I sat down to pray. Following Jim’s description of his own reception of the gift of tongues, I began to say quietly to myself ‘la, la, la, la.’ To my immense consternation there ensued a rapid movement of tongue and lips accompanied by a tremendous feeling of inner devotion” (Gelpi p. 1).

    Can any sober Orthodox Christian possibly confuse these dangerous psychic games with the gifts of the Holy Spirit?! This is the realm, rather, of psychic mechanisms which can be set in operation by means of definite psychological or physical techniques…
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/epiphen...-religion.html

    Third, if you consider Charismatics' glossolalia and other unique phenomena to be supernatural, rather than mental confusion or otherwise natural phenomena, do you consider their glossolalia to be signs of their truth?


    One of the difficulties in seeing glossolalia, speaking in incomprehensible phonetics, as strong proof of theological truth is that other religions practice it as well. Some Greek pagan oracles practiced it in ancient times.

    Fr. Nicoczin writes about glossolalia in nonChristian pagan society in the region of Corinth:

    Corinth was greatly influenced by Greek paganism which included demonstrations, frenzies and orgies, all intricately interwoven into their religious practices. In post Homeric times, the cult of the Dionysiac orgies made their entrance into the Greek world. According to this, music, the whirling dance, intoxication and utterances had the power to make men divine; to produce a condition in which the normal state was left behind and the inspired person perceived what was external to himself and the senses.

    In other words, the soul was supposed to leave the body, hence the word ecstasy (ek stasis). They believed that while the being was absent from the body, the soul was united with the deity. At such times, the ecstatic person had no consciousness of his own.

    The Corinthians of Paul's time were living under the influence of Dionysiac religious customs. It was natural that they would find certain similarities more familiar and appealing. Thus the Corinthians began to put more stress on certain gifts like glossolalia.
    The university article below studies the comparison and similarities between Charismatic glossolalia and Hindu glossolalia, called "kriya":

    SPEAKING-IN-TONGUES AS KRIYA: THE HINDU CONNECTION.

    ...kriya is a spontaneous body motion, mumbling or speech in an unknown language which in traditional religious Hindu literature is supposed to signal the “awakening” of kundalini 2 or the spiritual energy that coils dormant at the base of the spine. The words kriya and karma share the same Sanskrit root ( kri , meaning “to do”) . Kriya would mean an action, deed or effort. Krishna lists, among the possible paths to spiritual attainment, that of karma yoga in the known fragment of the Mahabharata , the Bhagavad Gita or Song of the Lord.

    ...the bridging of the gap between cultures was made possible, historically speaking, through a particular colonial process (the British Raj in India), and Anglican missionary work (The Mukti Mission in Pune, India).. Pentecostal leaders in LA considered their revival as a consequence of the previous Mukti expansion:
    “It is clear that the eyewitness and participant in the Azusa Street revival Frank Bartleman, its African American leader William Seymour, and the writers of its periodical The Apostolic Faith saw the Indian revival as a precedent to the one in which they were involved. It was seen as a prototypical, earlier Pentecostal revival that they thought had become ‘full - grown’ in Los Angeles” ( Anderson, 2014: 15).
    http://www.academia.edu/9583833/SPEA...NDU_CONNECTION

    Fourth, this leads to the question: If it's true that the Corinthians' glossolalia was the same phenomenon as modern Charismatics', and if Charismatics' glossolalia is mental confusion or self-induced hypnosis or does not otherwise serve as reliable evidence for the truth of their theology, does this lead to further conclusions about the Corinthians' own "tongues"?
    13
    The Corinthian Christians' glossolalia was commonly the same phenomenon as modern Charismatics'.
    23.08%
    3
    Charismatic tongues are fundamentally mental, hypnosis, psychological, or otherwise natural
    30.77%
    4
    Charismatics' glossolalia is not a sign that they have theological truth
    30.77%
    4
    Corinthians' glossolalia was basically psychological or otherwise not a sign of their views' truth
    0.00%
    0
    None of the above (Please explain)
    15.38%
    2

    The poll is expired.

    Last edited by rakovsky; 05-15-2016, 01:40 AM.

  • #2
    1 Corinthians 14:18 -
    Scripture Verse: 1 Cor. 14:18

    18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.

    © Copyright Original Source

    "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

    "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

    Comment


    • #3
      There is no evidence in Scripture that the Corinthian glossa were "fake," so I reject the premise of the poll.
      Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

      Beige Federalist.

      Nationalist Christian.

      "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

      Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

      Proud member of the this space left blank community.

      Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

      Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

      Justice for Matthew Perna!

      Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

      Comment


      • #4
        I totally agree with NorrinRad. Your premise is completely false. The evidence that we as Christians believe is that the tongues spoken of on the day of pentecost were of the Holy Spirit. End of story. Now we can argue about whether or not tongues today are theological or false but your premise is wrong to begin with.
        A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
        George Bernard Shaw

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
          The evidence that we as Christians believe is that the tongues spoken of on the day of pentecost were of the Holy Spirit.
          Thanks for writing back!
          Do you think that the tongues spoken at Pentecost that foriegners understood were the same kind of tongues that Paul was talking about at Corinth?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by rakovsky View Post
            Thanks for writing back!
            Do you think that the tongues spoken at Pentecost that foriegners understood were the same kind of tongues that Paul was talking about at Corinth?
            I think over a dozen languages were spoken at Pentecost, many of which were understood by the pilgrims in town for the festival. I think the language-gift at Pentecost was the same as that in Acts 10 and Acts 19.

            And I see little or no reason to suppose it differed from the gift discussed in 1 Cor. 12-14.
            Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

            Beige Federalist.

            Nationalist Christian.

            "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

            Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

            Proud member of the this space left blank community.

            Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

            Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

            Justice for Matthew Perna!

            Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by rakovsky View Post
              Thanks for writing back!
              Do you think that the tongues spoken at Pentecost that foriegners understood were the same kind of tongues that Paul was talking about at Corinth?
              What does St. Paul tell us about the Tongues Spoken in Corinth? Have you read all of the passages.? St. Paul Very specifically mentions that Tongues is a manifestation of a gift of the Holy Spirit:
              4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; 5 and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; 6 and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. 7 To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues......
              In 1 Corinthians 14 St. Paul is very specific about how to use the gift of tongues though. But there is nothing that leads one to believe that it is distinguishable from the gifts of the day of Pentecost. What sets the book of 1 Corinthians apart is the back ground. The Corinthians were out of control in their worship. St. Paul was writing to them about how to be orderly.
              A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
              George Bernard Shaw

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                And I see little or no reason to suppose it differed from the gift discussed in 1 Cor. 12-14.
                One common reason given is that many people understood the tongues in Acts 2, whereas "no one understands" the tongues Paul is talking about in 1 Cor 13-14. Many mainstream theologians and Christians today divide them into two different categories.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
                  What does St. Paul tell us about the Tongues Spoken in Corinth?
                  That no one understands them, and, as you said, they are a manifestation of the spirit.

                  Have you read all of the passages.?
                  Yes.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by rakovsky View Post
                    One common reason given is that many people understood the tongues in Acts 2, whereas "no one understands" the tongues Paul is talking about in 1 Cor 13-14. Many mainstream theologians and Christians today divide them into two different categories.
                    I know they do. IMO, they do so with some degree of presupposition that for whatever reason does not consider Acts 10 and 19.
                    Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                    Beige Federalist.

                    Nationalist Christian.

                    "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                    Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                    Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                    Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                    Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                    Justice for Matthew Perna!

                    Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                      There is no evidence in Scripture that the Corinthian glossa were "fake," so I reject the premise of the poll.
                      There is one option that does nopt assume that tongues were fake. Speaking in tongues by anyone is no guarantee of theological accuracy.
                      Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                        There is one option that does nopt assume that tongues were fake. Speaking in tongues by anyone is no guarantee of theological accuracy.
                        The phrasing of the poll links that conclusion to the premise that the Corinthians' glossa were false, so I can't accept it. Speaking in unknown "tongues," whether real or not, has little or nothing to do with theological acumen of the speaker -- in Scripture, or elsewhere. If the poll were phrased differently, I could choose the option you suggest.
                        Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                        Beige Federalist.

                        Nationalist Christian.

                        "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                        Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                        Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                        Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                        Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                        Justice for Matthew Perna!

                        Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                          I know they do. IMO, they do so with some degree of presupposition that for whatever reason does not consider Acts 10 and 19.
                          It seems to me that they take into consideration Acts 10 and 19. I argued once to one of them that in these two chapters the passages were about speaking in foreign languages to teach foreigners the gospel, and he pointed out to me that in these passages it nowhere says that actual foreign languages were spoken.

                          Some of them also make the argument also that in Acts 2 the foreigners heard their own languages, but that it doesn't specify that the apostles were actually speaking the foreign languages, concluding thereby that the apostles didn't speak foreign tongues there, only that the tongues were understood.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                            The phrasing of the poll links that conclusion to the premise that the Corinthians' glossa were false, so I can't accept it. Speaking in unknown "tongues," whether real or not, has little or nothing to do with theological acumen of the speaker -- in Scripture, or elsewhere. If the poll were phrased differently, I could choose the option you suggest.
                            The poll only asks you to select as many statements as you agree with.
                            So if you agree that "Charismatics' glossolalia is not a sign that they have theological truth", then you would choose that option, #3. The poll itself does not require you to draw further conclusions beyond what you select.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by rakovsky View Post
                              It seems to me that they take into consideration Acts 10 and 19. I argued once to one of them that in these two chapters the passages were about speaking in foreign languages to teach foreigners the gospel, and he pointed out to me that in these passages it nowhere says that actual foreign languages were spoken.

                              Some of them also make the argument also that in Acts 2 the foreigners heard their own languages, but that it doesn't specify that the apostles were actually speaking the foreign languages, concluding thereby that the apostles didn't speak foreign tongues there, only that the tongues were understood.
                              It's pretty much impossible to not make any assumptions in the course of reaching conclusions.

                              I agree with your conversation partner that neither Acts 10 nor 19 show any indications that the "tongues" were for preaching the Gospel in other languages. Acts 2, considered superficially and apart from 10 and 19, could possibly be taken that way. Acts 10, especially considered in light of Peter's recounting in Acts 11, is clearly intended to be seen as similar to Acts 2, so that should affect how we read Acts 2 itself. Reading Acts 2 more closely, we see that the tongues-speakers were together in their meeting place, not actively addressing the festival-goers. The crowd heard the noise (of the wind-like sound, and/or the loud tongues-speaking) and was drawn to the disciples. Some heard words they understood, others did not and responded with mockery. The content of the words was "the mighty deeds of God," not explicitly any sort of Gospel message, and IMO more like the "exalting God" of Acts 10 than like evangelism. AFTER the crowd gathered, Peter alone stood up to address them, using part of Joel 2 in a way similar to the way Jesus used Isa. 61 in Luke 4, and then gave an evangelistic message; there was no indication he was speaking in "tongues," and there was probably no need for him to do so, since all of the festival-goers were from places in the Roman Empire, and most people in the Roman Empire had at least a functional knowledge of Greek, in addition to their own "native" languages.

                              As for what the people "heard" in Acts 2 -- Conclusions depend somewhat on how we parse words. The text does not say anything like, "We see their lips forming words, but the words we are actually hearing are different, and are our own native languages," and of course we would not expect anything so pedantically detailed. But that is what we'd have to have to be certain some kind of "gift of interpreting tongues" was in play. We don't know that it was, and we don't know that it was not. We can be fairly sure that if it was, it was some unusual, "passive" version, that operated inside the heads of the hearers without the intermediary action of some external interpreter as in the 1 Cor. 12-14 situation.
                              Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                              Beige Federalist.

                              Nationalist Christian.

                              "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                              Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                              Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                              Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                              Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                              Justice for Matthew Perna!

                              Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                              39 responses
                              176 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                              21 responses
                              132 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                              80 responses
                              427 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post tabibito  
                              Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                              45 responses
                              303 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                              406 responses
                              2,513 views
                              2 likes
                              Last Post tabibito  
                              Working...
                              X