Have we confused tongues/int. with prophecy?

[Justin]

Originally Posted by Justin

Wasn't there a T&I confirming the doctrine of the trinity at a oneness church, or something like this? Does anyone have audio?

Originally Posted by TGBTG

The idea was that the "interpertation" usually favors the opinion of the interpreter.

We discussed this a few months ago in another topic in reference to "genuine" tongues and interpretation.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by DAII

Why is it God speaks in King James English in these T & I sessions also?

Because there are interpretations, and interpretations involve the mannerism in which the speaker personally thinks the words should be phrased.

It's a principle we find in the bible, and shows humanity is involved, but still God's Word. You can distinguish Peter's writings from Paul's by sheer virtue of their style. Yet they are the Word of God. God simply works with our personalities in such an extent that makes that kind of distinction ultimately irrelevant.

[missourimary]

Originally Posted by DAII

That is usually the bulk of the "messages" from the mind of God that I've heard or usually a confirmation of the preaching of "My servant"

Yet Paul says our spirit prays unto God and I have scarcely heard this prayer of praise or thanksgiving interpreted -

"Gloria a Dios" will never mean " Thus saith the Lord"

The practice does not line up to the witness.

So we have T&I that condemns people, rather than uplifting or encouraging. We have preaching that doesn't edify. We pull verses out of context and quote them at people as though they alone are truth. We claim all of it as the very voice of God, not to be questioned. And we wonder why people leave the movement either thinking there is no God or believing that God hates them.

[Cindy]

I just get so tired of people judging others. It's just sad.

[TGBTG]

Originally Posted by Justin

The idea was that the "interpertation" usually favors the opinion of the interpreter.

We discussed this a few months ago in another topic in reference to "genuine" tongues and interpretation.

I get what you meant. I couldn't find the right smiley to clearly articulate my feeling...lol

[DAII]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Because there are interpretations, and interpretations involve the mannerism in which the speaker personally thinks the words should be phrased.


It's a principle we find in the bible, and shows humanity is involved, but still God's Word. You can distinguish Peter's writings from Paul's by sheer virtue of their style. Yet they are the Word of God. God simply works with our personalities in such an extent that makes that kind of distinction ultimately irrelevant.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by missourimary

So we have T&I that condemns people, rather than uplifting or encouraging. We have preaching that doesn't edify. We pull verses out of context and quote them at people as though they alone are truth. We claim all of it as the very voice of God, not to be questioned. And we wonder why people leave the movement either thinking there is no God or believing that God hates them.

While we master our craft of self-righteousness and manipulation, generations are dying without hope.

[missourimary]

Originally Posted by DAII

A clear example of the reflection of personality in a message.

[missourimary]

Personally, I don't care if the interpretation is in King's English or not. What has been disturbing in the last 15 years is that the messages I heard were not encouraging or uplifting. They generally ended with everyone rushing to the altar sobbing or hiding in their pews hoping they wouldn't be deemed hard hearted for not sobbing. That may reflect the personality of the messenger as well, but it's done a lot of damage to the church, at least in my area.

[OneAccord]

While, like a good Apostolic, I still cling to the initial evidence doctrine, I have looked closely at Joel 2:28. This, we know, is the prophecy of the events that transpired on the Day of Pentecost But, I have, for a long time, found it puzzling that Joel never mentioned speaking in tongues. He stated clearly that those upon who the Spirit falls would prophesy- not speak with tongues. But yet we of the modern age, place great emphasis on tongues, but prophesying is almost always ignored. In fact, in all my years, I have never known of one person who recieved the Holy Ghost and prophesied as was the case in several instances in the Book of Acts. What would happened in many churches if a person received the Holy Ghost and began to utter prophecy rather than to speak in tingues. Would his baptism be accepted, or would the altar workers continue to urge him to seek for tongues? Just wondering....