Pentecostal Man’s Glossolalia Echos NBA Rosters

1 Samuel 10:10 And when they came thither to the hill, behold, a company of prophets met him; and the Spirit of God came upon him, and he prophesied among them.

The Spirit of God came upon the prophets in the Old Testament long before the Day of Pentecost came. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes DHK, I think most understand that. But what you fail to post is that the people were led by the prophets, which were led by the 'Spirit' of God. Up until "The Day of Pentecost" each individual wasn't filled with the Spirit of God, as they were then and are now.

Sheesh!...I even thought you knew better, but I suppose I was wrong.

MEE

 

Laugh at your own risk my friends. Someday God will have the last laugh.

And as you know, "he who laughs last laughs best".

Peace,

Tam

 

Are you Pentecostal, Joseph? Because if not, my original objections stand.

 

I understand fully MEE. What you fail to understand is how many today are led by a false spirit and false doctrine. Even on the Day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit did not come upon all. There were 3,000 that were saved. There were thousands more that were not.
DHK

 

I understand fully MEE. What you fail to understand is how many today are led by a false spirit and false doctrine. Even on the Day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit did not come upon all. There were 3,000 that were saved. There were thousands more that were not.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]That was elementary! Let me make it clear for you. ALL that were saved were filled with the Spirit of God.

Romans 8:9) But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Yes, I do understand that many are led by a false spirit and false doctrine! I've been very careful not to be caught up into doctrines of men and of devils!

Matt. 7:14) Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Glad to say, "I'm one of them."

MEE

 

Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

1. They first received the Word (and were saved).
2. Secondly, AFTER they were saved they were baptized.
3. Then they were added to the local church at Jerusalem.

Baptism was not part of salvation; it came afterward.

Baptism is part of your salvation. That is a false doctrine.

That makes this quote of yours:

very suspect.
In fact, I don't believe it.
DHK

 

very suspect.
In fact, I don't believe it.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]I'm trying to find where you get the idea that she believes baptism to be part of salvation.

 

In the Oneness Pentecostalism thread:

 

Baptism in water or baptism in the Spirit?

I think Baptists, if pressured, will say water baptism is essential...

 

Never! Not for salvation. They have left a trail of blood throughout history dying for that very conviction. Just before the reformation, and in the time during it, the anabaptists were called anabaptists because ana means again, and baptist means to baptize or to immerse. The state church was the Catholic Church. They looked upon the Anabaptists as heretics, mostly because of their doctrine of salvation and of baptism. Catholics believe that one is born again at the time of baptism in infancy. It is called baptismal regeneration. The Anabaptists believed what the Bible taught about the new birth: that one must believe in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and accept Him as Lord and Saviour of their life in order to be saved. Baptism had nothing to do with it. However baptism was the first step of obedience in the Christian life. And as soon as they made a profession of faith in Christ they were immersed. This angered the Catholics because, according to them they had been saved already by Catholic baptism. There was no need to be baptized "again." Therefore they called them "anabaptists." Many of them were persecuted to the point of death for this belief.
DHK

 

Studies have been done on this. The "speaking in tongues" of today is not speaking in any language. World War 2 code crackers examined it, and not only are they not speaking any known language, they are not speaking any unknown language, either. They tend to repeat the same types of sounds, and they make sounds that sound foreign to them. Thus, in the US, people trill the "R" a lot because it sounds foreign. The fact that foreign-sounding syllables are babbled proves that they are not speaking any real languages.

 

The Oneness Pentecostal religion is a false religion that was created in the early 1900s. It's teachings on Oneness was rejected as non-Christian heresy from the time of Jesus onward. Their baptism "in Jesus name" is a non-baptism, and the earliest Christian documents (such as the Didache from 50AD) show that baptisms were done using the Trinitarian formula.

 

Never! Not for salvation. They have left a trail of blood throughout history dying for that very conviction. Just before the reformation, and in the time during it, the anabaptists were called anabaptists because ana means again, and baptist means to baptize or to immerse. The state church was the Catholic Church. They looked upon the Anabaptists as heretics, mostly because of their doctrine of salvation and of baptism. Catholics believe that one is born again at the time of baptism in infancy. It is called baptismal regeneration. The Anabaptists believed what the Bible taught about the new birth: that one must believe in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and accept Him as Lord and Saviour of their life in order to be saved. Baptism had nothing to do with it. However baptism was the first step of obedience in the Christian life. And as soon as they made a profession of faith in Christ they were immersed. This angered the Catholics because, according to them they had been saved already by Catholic baptism. There was no need to be baptized "again." Therefore they called them "anabaptists." Many of them were persecuted to the point of death for this belief.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]So if I profess Christ, but am never baptized, I'm OK. Why, then, the emphasis on baptism at all?

 

Got a source to cite for that?

Edit to say: the "trilling the R's" comment sounds as if you are accusing tongue-speakers of faking it. is this your assertion?

 

TP, I'm sure some are faking it, but I don't know about the others. But I do believe it's completely of the flesh. The ramblings are not tongues.

 

As I said before, do you have a source.

Being "sure" some are faking it is as effective as me being "sure" that you are thinking of marshmallows right now. How do you prove this belief concerning the veracity of someone else's particular faith in Christ?

 

... and in any case, how does any of this make if OK to mock someone else's way of worship? Would Jesus tell the joke that started this thread? Really???

 

I read the studies in a book in 1994. Here is something I found on the net with similar information:

Some conclusions and opinions of linguists are:

William Samarin has written: "When the full apparatus of linguistic science comes to bear on glossolalia, this turns out to be only a facade of language — although at times a very good one indeed. For when we comprehend what language is, we must conclude that no glossa, no matter how well constructed, is a specimen of human language, because it is neither internally organized nor systematically related to the world man perceives." 18

J.G. Melton 14 wrote briefly of Samarin's findings, who concluded that glossolalia is not a true language. Only a few consonants and vowels appear in it.

An academic Internet mailing list, "The Linguist List" focused on glossolalia in early 1995. 15
- Some of the subscribers noted that glossolalia had a simple primitive structure, and exhibited much repetition of individual sounds.
- One commented that the words spoken within a given church tended to be similar, and unlike the sounds heard within in another congregation.
- Another commented that his observations among American churchgoers showed that they "seem to latch onto and then repeat sounds that sound foreign to them, and intersperse the name 'Jesus' in between the sounds."
- Still another said that: "there are two continental charismatic traditions - a French one concentrating on melodious spontaneous song and a German/English one concentrating on speech."
- A subscriber stated that "Some years ago as an undergraduate, I memorized the first eleven lines to Beowulf. Occasionally I recited them to people (I still do). Once I recited them to a friend from Alabama, and she told me that if I did that back where she came from, folks would say I was speaking in tongues."
- The moderator noted that the: "native language of the speaker was a pretty good predictor of the kinds of sounds that would occur in glossolalia; one general pattern was that sounds perceived as generally marking "foreign" speech (whatever that may mean) would occur, while sounds perceived as typical of the native language would not. Thus, for American English speakers, /r/ would be rendered as the alveolar trill, never as the American retroflex; on the other hand, these speakers would not include the low front vowel in their glossolalia, /ae/-as-digraph, because that's perceived as a typically "American" sound for some reason. On the other hand, truly exotic sounds--those not typical of the native language, but that don't happen to be familiar to speakers of the language--would tend not to occur: American English speakers don't produce clicks in their glossolalia."
- D.J. James quotes some conclusions of William Samarin: "When the full apparatus of linguistic science comes to bear on glossolalia, this turns out to be only a facade of language — although at times a very good one indeed. For when we comprehend what language is, we must conclude that no glossa, no matter how well constructed, is a specimen of human language, because it is neither internally organized nor systematically related to the world man perceives."

One analytical study of glossolalia was performed by an unknown person or persons. 16 An individual's ecstatic speech was tape recorded and played back separately to many individuals who sincerely and devoutly believed that they had received the gift of interpreting. Their interpretations were quite inconsistent. e.g. one said that "the utterances referred to a prayer for the health of someone's children." Another interpreted the speech as "praising God for a recent and successful church, fund-raising effort." It is obvious from that study that those particular interpreters were unable to extract significant meaning out of the glossolalia. However, they were probably not conscious of that fact.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/tongues1.htm

 

Interesting. So how does this prove that some are faking it?

And in any case, does the reference you cite make it OK to mock Pentecostals,w hich is the point of the originating post of this thread?

 

John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Three times in one chapter Jesus says that your love for him is demonstrated by your obedience to Him. Just like prayer and witnessing are commands to obeyed, so is baptism. In fact baptism is the first command in the Christian life that a believer should obey.
DHK