1 Corinthians (various passages) - Paul is not a happy apostle

[Mendalla]

We're straying a bit here since Paul's topic in Corinthians is not about the legitimacy or plausibility of the gifts, but about how the community was "ranking" them and placing more importance on some, thereby making those with the favoured gifts seem more important/blessed. But I think that this sort of discussion about the plausibility is another area where gifts can be divisive, isn't it. If some think speaking tongues is a fraud or a psychological phenomenon while others believe it a legitimate and important gift of the Spirit, that can't be good for the unity of the community. So how do you balance a modern rationalist approach to religion with acceptance of spiritual phenomena like tongues? How do we respect both the rationalism and the spiritual need for something less rational that so many seem to have? Is this another variation of making one gift more important than the other? The ones we understand are more important than the ones we think are dubious?

 

[paradox3]

Music is an example of something that is often experienced as very emotional or spiritual. (Count me in.) But I am also told it is highly mathematical. Don't ask me how LoL

Sometimes it doesn't need to be a dichotomy is all I'm saying.

 

[Mendalla]

Don't ask me how LoL

Tones are basically numeric intervals that can be described mathematically. Rhythm is just beats per measure, so counting. Time signature is a ratio. There's a surprising number of mathematical elements in music. Even volume can be described in decibels, which is a measurable quantity.

The thing with music is that you could produce something that is legitimately music with just those mathematical elements but it would lack the emotional elements that a composer or performer brings to it. Music needs that "human (or whatever) touch", not just a bunch of notes arranged in a particular rhythm and meter.

 

[unsafe]

Jesus brought in division and division will stay until He comes back and fixes this Broken World -------the Bible is all about Belief or unbelief ----there is no compromise ----

Jesus said ---your either with me or against me -----You can't have your Cake and eat it to ---when it comes to the Bible -----you can think you can but you really can't -------

 

[Mystic]

There are 2 NT verses for which all Bible translations get it wrong. One of these is 1 Cor. 14:12, which is always translated like this:
"Since you are eager (zealous) for spiritual gifts, strive to excel in them to build up the church (NRSV)."
The underlined words literally mean "zealots for spirits" in Greek. The key word is "pneuma" which as some of you know means "spirit," not "spiritual gifts."
"Spirits" is a standard ancient Judaeo-Christian term for "angels," and so, 14:12 makes sense of 13:1: "though I speak in the tongues of people or angels" in 13:1. Speaking in tongues takes 2 forms--(1) recognizable human languages as in Acts 2 and in the modern cases I reference and (2) apparent gibberish. Paul construes the apparent gibberish as angelic speech sand can thus refer to "various kinds of tongues" (12:10) as opposed to various languages. Our next ancient description of ecstatic speech in public worship appears in the Shepherd of Hermas (Mandate 11), where ecstatic prophesying is portrayed as angelic speech.

Neither modern tpngues speakers nor their interpreters know the languages spoken. But just occasionally, as in the 3 examples I have provided, a native language speaker just happens to be present to confirm the accuracy of the interpretation of a divine speech in Korean, Swahili, modern Hebrew, and other languages that might be cited. Here it is a question of extensive coherent messages, not a few disjointed words. For example, Richard Bauckham was just a visitor, when the message in modern Hebrew directly addressed him and called him to missionary work in China. He had just been drafted in the U. S. army to fight in Vietnam. When he got out of the army, he moved to Hong Kong, studied Mandarin, and pastored a Chinese church. That's how he got involved in Bible smuggling and later in smuggling himself into China. As a result of his efforts and those of others, there are now about 80 million new Chinese charismatic Christians worshiping in house churches all over China under the Communist radar.

 

[paradox3]

If I am understanding this correctly @Mystic, speaking in tongues can involve recognizable language or apparent gibberish.

The recognizable language might be unknown to the individual but native speakers.of the language will understand it.

And you would classify the apparent gibberish as an angel language? According to Paul, someone with the gift of interpreting tongues is required to decipher it, right?

Is there anywhere else in the Bible that has angels speaking their own language? There are several stories of angels interacting with human beings. The angels sometimes are no different in appearance from humans. Other times they are large, winged and fearsome.

It generally seems that humans understand the messages from these heavenly beings. Or am I missing something?

 

[Mendalla]

he angels sometimes are no different in appearance from humans.

And sometimes they are totally f-ing bizarre, esp. in the Jewish scriptures. The winged humanoid is actually a fairly late portrayal. And if their appearance is bizarre, presumably their language would be, too.

Bible Gateway passage: Ezekiel 10 - New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition

God’s Glory Leaves Jerusalem - Then I looked, and above the dome that was over the heads of the cherubim there appeared above them something like a sapphire, in form resembling a throne. He said to the man clothed in linen, “Go within the wheelwork underneath the cherubim; fill your hands with...

www.biblegateway.com

 

[unsafe]

The Disciples at Pentecost spoke in tongues ---the Language they spoke was earthly language ----so they could Preach the Gospel to the Different nationalities in their different earthly languages --the Bible calls it the Tongues of Man

There is a Heavenly Language that can be given as well ----so there are 2 different types of tongues -----the Bible calls this the Tongues of Angels -------

Notice ----tongues of men -------and Of Angels -------

 

[paradox3]

In the Bible angels are heavenly beings created by God before the first humans. Throughout the narrative they relay messages to humans and assist God in other ways.

They must be capable of sin because Lucifer is said to be a fallen angel.

In popular culture angels are often believed to be the souls of departed humans. I don't think there is much biblical support for this idea although it might be implied in a few places.

Despite the popularity of 1 Corinthians 13, I have never seen my denomination engage much with the concept of angels or speaking in tongues.

 

[Mendalla]

They must be capable of sin because Lucifer is said to be a fallen angel.

Actually, he just tripped over a rainbow on his way to the loo.

We could do a whole thread on Lucifer, really, and how the figure has been used in various ways in literature and other cultural activities.

 

[paradox3]

Actually, he just tripped over a rainbow on his way to the loo.

We could do a whole thread on Lucifer, really, and how the figure has been used in various ways in literature and other cultural activities.

Not sure which passage I would pick, but Lucifer could be a good BPoTW topic.

 

[jimkenney12]

Is he ever called Lucifer in the Bible?

 

[Mendalla]

Is he ever called Lucifer in the Bible?

Not sure, actually. The term might have originated later, maybe even with Milton? I can check.

EDIT: Article below outlines where it came from. It is a result of the Latin translation of the name given to the King of Babylon in Isaiah 12, "Helel ben Shahar" which means "shining one" or "star of morning". Apparently it was Origen who somehow then equated this King of Babylon with Satan, resulting in the name getting applied to Old Scratch.

The Debunker: Is the Devil Called "Lucifer" in the Bible?

October means Halloween is coming—you know, the very witching hour of night when churchyards yawn and graves give up their dead and so on. But if you're still picking out your costume—and you're looking for something a little scarier than Sexy Donald Trump—you might need a refresher course...

www.woot.com

So the whole story of the fallen angels could be a BPoTW if someone has the relevant passages, but the name "Lucifer" is, in fact, not really a Biblical name, at least not for Satan.

 

[paradox3]

Isaiah 14: 12 uses Lucifer in the KJV

Morning Star or Son of the Dawn is more common in other versions

 

[Mendalla]

Isaiah 14: 12 uses Lucifer in the KJV

Morning Star or Son of the Dawn is more common in other versions

As the article explains, that's because the KJV was still referring to the Latin text, while most modern ones go to the original Hebrew. And, again, it is not referring to Satan there. That's a later Christian interpretation. Isaiah is referring to the King of Babylon by that title.

 

[paradox3]

A little searching tells me Origen and others linked Isaiah 14:12 ( the fallen star or King of Babylon) to Luke 10:18 - - -

"I saw Satan fall like lightning from Heaven" NET

Anyone know if there is other biblical support for the idea of Satan as a fallen angel?

 

[Mendalla]

I think maybe a thread on the origins and names of The Devil is in order. We're straying a bit here.

 

[paradox3]

I think maybe a thread on the origins and names of The Devil is in order. We're straying a bit here.

Sure. We should talk about demons as well. They, too, are sometimes characterized as fallen angels. There are many stories about demons in the Gospels.

Okay. Back to Corinthians

About valuing some gifts over others. Is our national church valuing innovation over other gifts right now? I don't want to discount some of the new things which are happening but I do wonder about this.

 

[Nancy]

Good thinking, reasoning, researching. My own feeble brain can't get past an idea asserted earlier in the thread: the ranking of gifts. I'm not sure that I would stay in a church that said my gift was less valuable to God than someone else's. Yet I recognize that some are more valuable at specific times to the workings of the earth-bound church. And if speaking in tongues is considered top-notch, why haven't I achieved it yet? Although I'm pretty good at jibberish. I guess it's the age-old question of why some are chosen and others aren't. Somehow I was chosen to be brought up in a Christian home, with a background and personality that seeks to be inspired by Jesus. What about those who grew up in other cultures, religions and circumstances?

Our own church does value innovation, and certain individuals over others. I remember attending an on-line seminar once where the ministers (knowing that lay people were involved in the session) made fun of some lay people who were acting needy. I was pretty disgusted but didn't say anything. (If it happened again, I would say something....) There was no effort to see the gifts of those congregation members, just their annoying traits.

 

[Mendalla]

About valuing some gifts over others. Is our national church valuing innovation over other gifts right now? I don't want to discount some of the new things which are happening but I do wonder about this.

Innovation is a big "buzzword" in society as a whole right now, so I am not entirely surprised to hear the church picking up on it. I have lived innovation for decades, being in IT, so I am bemused by this seeming infatuation with it.

The main thing is that the church needs to recognize that more traditional gifts still matter and should not be cast aside in the name of innovation. I have seen babies thrown out with the bathwater too many times in the name of new, kewl things.