gdeering

Hi Toto,

But isn't it fascinating then to have this spontaneously develop out of the slaves, women and miscreants first attracted to Christianity? Am I being overly dramatic? In any case we know so little about these first Christians that we should be dismissive about a significant kink in their worship?

That's my question, SiT is not part of the bedrock of textual Christianity, but its a facet of two later documents. I am not making a case but asking a question, still it seems worthy of ahemm... speculation.

Perhaps one could ask if the religion was oriented to Jews then discourse in other languages was not important. If the author wanted to cross a conceptual bridge than the idea of speaking in other known languages spontaneously points to a different intention for the Apostles.

One hears Paul knocking again...... and the charismatic aspect of SiT leads one along a mythical path.....

Anyway, there is plenty of other things to argue about, if this doesn't seem interesting to the braintrust so be it.

G-D

Toto

I don't think I'm being dismissive. The practice existed, but we don't know much about it or when it started.

There are other practices in Christianity that we don't understand. We don't really know where baptism comes from or why it is such a sacrament. It appears that early Christianity involved a lot of women in leadership roles, some of whom went into trances and channeled messages from noted persons. What happened to them?

Some of these early practices might have been associated with the heretics, and were dropped for that reason. Some might not have survived for other reasons.

I don't quite understand this. Why do you say it is not part of the bedrock of textual Christianity, if it is mentioned in the gospels and Pauls letters? What else is there?

The religion might have been oriented towards diaspora Jews, who retained some attachment to Judaism, but were Hellenized and spoke the language of their homes in the Roman Empire.

It's not that it isn't interesting. I just don't know where to go with it.

Speaking in tongues became a big thing in Christianity among the 20th century Pentacostals. I don't even know if the modern practice is related to the earlier references.

aa5874

Again, the MUMBO-JUMBO called speaking in tongues by Pentecostals is nothing at all like in Acts of the Apostles where the apostles supposedly spoke FLUENTLY in other KNOWN languages UNDER the direct power of the Holy Ghost.

If there were Jesus believers who spoke in tongues in any century it must have been the MUMBO-JUMBO version.

A Pauline writer seemed to be aware of the MUMBO-JUMBO version.

1Co 14:23 - So, according to a Pauline writer unbelievers would think believers were mad if they ALL spoke in tongues but the very Pauline writer, as if speaking in tongues (mumbo-jumbo), claimed talking in tongues was a sign for unbelievers.

1Co 14:22 - It appears to be true that the Pauline writers spoke in tongues (mumbo-jumbo) more than all of them.

1Co 14:18 - The Pauline writers were the mumbo-jumbo champions of the Christian world, they had at least two-tongues.