Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jayrok · 08-09-2007, 01:47 PM

As noted by MJers, Paul doesn't make reference to Pentecost, a pivotal event in Christianity. He does comment on the usefulness of speaking in tongues in his letters.

If Pentecost never really happened, what is the source for the reason Paul's congregation spoke in tongues? It's possible the story of Pentecost came about from Paul's sermon on speaking in tongues and interpretation. And of course it's possible the other way around. If not the latter, why did Paul's congregation speak in tongues?

Was this a typical pagan ritual? Thanks.

Toto · 08-09-2007, 04:23 PM

This has always seemed massively confused to me. The Pentacostal "speaking in tongues" described the disciples speaking and all of the foreign nationals around understanding their own language. (Technically this is "Xenoglossia".) The typical "speaking in tongues" associated with Christians, however, is just nonsense syllables that no one understands.

The practice apparently did not originate with Christianity, although I would not characterize it as a ritual.

Glossolalia

Quote:

Aside from Christians, certain religious groups also have been observed to practice some form of theopneustic glossolalia.

Glossolalia is evident in the renowned ancient Oracle of Delphi, whereby a priestess of the god Apollo (called a sibyl) speaks in unintelligible utterances, supposedly through the spirit of Apollo in her.

Certain Gnostic magical texts from the Roman period have written on them unintelligible syllables like "t t t t t t t t n n n n n n n n n d d d d d d d..." etc. It is believed that these may be transliterations of the sorts of sounds made during glossolalia. The Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians also features a hymn of (mostly) unintelligible syllables which is thought to be an early example of Christian glossolalia.

....

Glossolalia has also been observed in shamanism and the Voodoo religion of Haiti.

From The Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians

Quote:

Domedon Doxomedon came forth, the aeon of the aeons, and the throne which is in him, and the powers which surround him, the glories and the incorruptions. The Father of the great light who came forth from the silence, he is the great Doxomedon-aeon, in which the thrice- male child rests. And the throne of his glory was established in it, this one on which his unrevealable name is inscribed, on the tablet [...] one is the word, the Father of the light of everything, he who came forth from the silence, while he rests in the silence, he whose name is in an invisible symbol. A hidden, invisible mystery came forth: iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE oooooooooooooooooooooo uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO (the 7 vowels, 22 times each).

There are many cases of ecstatic speech that predate the Pentecost:

Ecstaticism as a Background for Glossolalia

Quote:

In three separate instances, Plato reveals his knowledge of ecstatic speech. In Phaedrus he discusses the question of "madness." He does this in terms of prophecy, inspiration, poetry, and love. In discussing madness as prophecy, Plato alludes to the prophetess at Delphi, the priestess at Dodona, and Sibyl, all of whom, he thinks, have conferred great benefits upon Hellas through their ecstatic speaking when out of their senses, but when not, little or none. In connection with inspiration as madness, he refers to certain families where madness has entered with holy prayers, rites, and by inspired utterances. For Plato, the contemporary poets were much akin to the prophets and priestesses; they created compositions during ecstatic trances and from ecstatic utterances. In Plato's discussion there seems to be a link between ecstatic speech and religions significance. Also it should be noted that Plato himself regarded the persons so gifted as of more value than the normal, sane persons.

In the Ion Plato further describes the poets when he likens them to the Corybantian revellers who became ecstatic both in action and in utterance. He likewise compared them with the Baeehi maidens of the Dionysian cult.

Again, in Timaeus he sought to draw a distinction between the diviner and the true prophet. The diviner was pictured as similar to ecstatic persons-demented, unable to evaluate the visions which he sees on the words which he utters. In describing these diviners Plato ascribed to them certain features similar to those of glossolaliaes: their speech being due to spirit possession; their being unable to discern what they said while in a given ecstatic mood; their state being unconscious. Plato recognized that many people had identified these diviners with the prophets of his own time, and so he was determined to draw a valid distinction. It is strangely similar to that distinction between prophets and glossolaliacs drawn by St. Paul in I Corinthians

The practice is very controversial among modern Christians. For example:

Speaking-in-Tongues.net

Quote:

History of Speaking in Tongues
Throughout recorded history there have been many occasions where people have spoken in unknown tongues which are also known as ecstatic tongues. Note most of these accounts predate Pentecost and were of non-Christian origin. Christians therefore can not say with confidence that every occurrence of glossolalia must be an expression of the will of God even though many do subscribe to this view. Those practicing speaking in tongues today portray Pentecost as the supreme example of supernatural tongues; however, the recorded cases of glossolalia go back as far as 1100 B.C. On that occasion a young Amen worshiper attracted historical infamy when he became possessed by a god and began to make sounds in a strange ecstatic tongue.

Seven hundred years later, the Greek philosopher Plato demonstrated that he was well acquainted with the phenomenon as he referred to several families who practiced ecstatic speech, praying and utterings while supposedly possessed. He also pointed out that these practices had even brought physical healing to those who engaged in them. Plato and most of his contemporaries asserted that these occurrences were caused by divine inspiration. He suggested that God takes possession of the mind while man sleeps or is possessed and during this state, God inspires him with utterances which he can neither understand nor interpret. This does NOT mean of course that one practising tongue speaking as seen today is possessed or not saved. That of course is just simply not true. When God confused the languages of His people who were rebelling at Babel in Genesis 11, they also spoke in “new tongues” and note this happened without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

In the last century before Christ, Virgil described the ecstatic tongues of the Sybilline priestess on the Island of Delos as the result of her being unified with the god Apollo. This happened while she meditated in a haunted cave amidst the eerie sounds of the wind playing strange music through the narrow crevices in the rocks.

Several of the mystery religions of the Greco-Roman world record the same phenomenon. Some of those most often listed are the Mithra cult of the Persians; the Osiris cult originating in the land of the Pharaohs, and the lesser known Dionysian, Eulusinian, and Orphic cults cradled in Macedonia, Thrace and Greece. Another indication comes from Lucian of Samosata (A.D. 120-198) who in De Dea Syria describes an example of glossolalia as exhibited by a roaming believer of June, the Syrian goddess, stationed at Hierapolis in Syria. It is also interesting to note that the term glossolalia used so widely today comes from the Greek vernacular which was in existence long before the day of Pentecost. It should be frightening to all Christians that what we see now in the Church today, resembles these occurrences of ecstatic tongues that took place in these ancient cults before the day of Pentecost and that what took place at Pentecost does not in any way resemble these occurrences. At Pentecost, it was undoubtedly and unarguably the speaking of foreign languages.

Ben C Smith · 08-09-2007, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This has always seemed massively confused to me. The Pentacostal "speaking in tongues" described the disciples speaking and all of the foreign nationals around understanding their own language. (Technically this is "Xenoglossia".) The typical "speaking in tongues" associated with Christians, however, is just nonsense syllables that no one understands.

It has confused me, too. Acts 2.5-11 describes apostles speaking in tongues and everybody understanding, regardless of their native languages. 1 Corinthians 14.2, 9, 13 describes someone speaking in tongues and nobody understanding, perhaps not even the speaker himself (see verse 14).

At this precise moment in time, the easiest solution to my mind is that early Christian speaking in tongues was glossolalia, a kind of babbling, but that the author or compiler of Acts misunderstood speaking in tongues as xenoglossy. If this solution is correct, then it might be an argument against the author of Acts ever having accompanied the apostle Paul.

Ben.

Chili · 08-09-2007, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This has always seemed massively confused to me. The Pentacostal "speaking in tongues" described the disciples speaking and all of the foreign nationals around understanding their own language. (Technically this is "Xenoglossia".) The typical "speaking in tongues" associated with Christians, however, is just nonsense syllables that no one understands.

It is really easy Toto is you see the diciples as the reformed shepherds that I once called the eiditic images (eidolon's, forms or ousia's) in the mind of Joseph. Each one of these shepherds had its own flock of sheep and they were the foreign nationals now finding harmony with each other in onmiscience.

Glossolalia is when the stream of words flow over the adamsapple without the Adamic influence upon them. In other words, it is non-rational speach but speach nonetheless which is similar to the star that the Magi followed without seeing the light that humans would look at. From here it is wrong for us to say that glossolalia is non-sensical because it did bring peace of mind and the Magi did arrive (actually, peace of mind is evidence that the Magi had arrived because quite often it leads to insanity).

Quote:

The practice apparently did not originate with Christianity, although I would not characterize it as a ritual.

Glossolalia is very natural in the transformation of the human mind but is, or becomes the enemy in Christianity where reason must prevail. This would be something like faith being the enemy of Christ if there is "no temple in the city of God," (Rev.21:22) as in "get thee behind me satan."

Vivisector · 08-09-2007, 08:04 PM

It makes one wonder why Luke included this. In other words, what situation did the author think he had explained through the account of speaking in foreign tongues?

V.

Toto · 08-09-2007, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisector

It makes one wonder why Luke included this. In other words, what situation did the author think he had explained through the account of speaking in foreign tongues?

V.

I tend to doubt that there was some event in Jerusalem that Luke knew about and felt the need to explain.

Luke is writing an explanation of the spread of Christianity from its presumed center in Jerusalem to all the nations.

In the tradition of deriving the story from the Hebrew Scriptures, Luke works in Joel

Quote:

'In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.

And then works in David, the presumed author of Psalms and the presumed ancestor in some sense of Jesus, who is interpreted as foretelling Jesus in Psalm 16 and 110.

Chili · 08-09-2007, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

[
In the tradition of deriving the story from the Hebrew Scriptures, Luke works in Joel

Quote:

'In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.

What he really means is that on everyone I pour out my spirit eternal life replaces the day-night concept.

Solo · 08-14-2007, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This has always seemed massively confused to me. The Pentacostal "speaking in tongues" described the disciples speaking and all of the foreign nationals around understanding their own language. (Technically this is "Xenoglossia".) The typical "speaking in tongues" associated with Christians, however, is just nonsense syllables that no one understands.

It has confused me, too. Acts 2.5-11 describes apostles speaking in tongues and everybody understanding, regardless of their native languages. 1 Corinthians 14.2, 9, 13 describes someone speaking in tongues and nobody understanding, perhaps not even the speaker himself (see verse 14).

At this precise moment in time, the easiest solution to my mind is that early Christian speaking in tongues was glossolalia, a kind of babbling, but that the author or compiler of Acts misunderstood speaking in tongues as xenoglossy. If this solution is correct, then it might be an argument against the author of Acts ever having accompanied the apostle Paul.

Ben.

Perhaps some of the confusion would go away if one were to admit that Paul disagreed on the function of glossolalic utterance with what prevailed as church tradition and recorded by Luke. The passage 1 Cr 14 is a scathing criticism of the pentecostalist view of the glossolalic utterance. Paul rejects the "instant Berlitz" of Acts 2 as a childish belief and the attempts at communicating through this babble as sure sign of madness to the outsiders (1 Cr 14:23).

To Paul, glossolalia was a sign of the presence of the Spirit (a common symptom of high manic excitement), which in and of itself was "unproductive". It was the ability to interpret the mental states as signs of God's presence that had value to Paul. In other words, if the abnormal behaviour perceived by the outsiders is matched by soundness of mind, and "maturity of thinking", then the outsider would be persuaded that something supernatural was really going on.

The Pentecost in Acts 2 as is almost certainly a "synthetic" event. Haenchen's observation that the "outsiders" and their differing view of the instant multilinguism is just impossibly contrived cannot be argued against intelligently. First, the commingling outsiders are able to receive their own language and then to communicate (in Greek presumably) to the narrator that this is what happened, however since each would be receiving just the one language - their own - the amazement at the feat could have only come until the other languages were confirmed, i.e. at some later point in time. Further, it is not immediately clear where the apparent "drunken state" of the faithful due to being "filled with new wine" observed by the mocking skeptics would explain away the reality (!) of the languages heard by the other outsiders.

But evidently, the account of the Pentecost has a knight's move in it.
No "xenoglossy" was actually happening ! What the drunken mien likely attests to is a high level of serotonin, a common symptom accompanying manic glossolalia. The sudden appearance of the Spirit among the believers, which in reality were scattered individual events, was rendered as an imaginary serial-synchronous happening.

Voila le mystere !

Jiri

aa5874 · 08-14-2007, 01:47 PM

Another point not mentioned is that speaking in 'tongues' was supposed to be an important means of spreading the gospel of Jesus. An Apostle filled with the Holy Ghost could have spoken to anyone in that person's tongue directly.

But what is interesting, whether xenoglosia or not, it appears that the speaker of 'tongues' did not understand what he was actually saying, he needed an interpreter.

So in effect the speaking of tongues, in Acts, would seemed like babbling to the apostles themselves until it was discovered by the onlookers that they were speaking known languages.

1 Corinthians 12. 8-10, 'For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit......to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues.

So Paul's problem is probably not the speaking of 'tongues' itself, but that the Holy Ghost has not provided any interpreters. And this appears to be evident, no interpreters, in 1 Corinthians 14:2, 'For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the Spirit he speaketh mysteries."

Just a little humor, I can recall a fundie who when speaking in tongues would say repeatedly, "Me Honda Me Honda Me Honda.........., but now I realise this is not glossolalia or xenoglosia, it is just English. 'Me' is an objective pronoun and 'Honda' is the name of a Japanese Company.

Bboyneko · 08-14-2007, 02:00 PM

hoopy blabby gazuoopawawaw na noo hikles duint yub yub yub! rewp pooky nabooky nab hif??

08-09-2007, 01:47 PM	#1
Jayrok Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: USA Posts: 471	Origin of Speaking in Tongues to Paul? As noted by MJers, Paul doesn't make reference to Pentecost, a pivotal event in Christianity. He does comment on the usefulness of speaking in tongues in his letters. If Pentecost never really happened, what is the source for the reason Paul's congregation spoke in tongues? It's possible the story of Pentecost came about from Paul's sermon on speaking in tongues and interpretation. And of course it's possible the other way around. If not the latter, why did Paul's congregation speak in tongues? Was this a typical pagan ritual? Thanks.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-09-2007, 08:04 PM	#5
Vivisector Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: KY Posts: 415	It makes one wonder why Luke included this. In other words, what situation did the author think he had explained through the account of speaking in foreign tongues? V.

08-14-2007, 01:47 PM	#9
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	Another point not mentioned is that speaking in 'tongues' was supposed to be an important means of spreading the gospel of Jesus. An Apostle filled with the Holy Ghost could have spoken to anyone in that person's tongue directly. But what is interesting, whether xenoglosia or not, it appears that the speaker of 'tongues' did not understand what he was actually saying, he needed an interpreter. So in effect the speaking of tongues, in Acts, would seemed like babbling to the apostles themselves until it was discovered by the onlookers that they were speaking known languages. 1 Corinthians 12. 8-10, 'For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit......to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues. So Paul's problem is probably not the speaking of 'tongues' itself, but that the Holy Ghost has not provided any interpreters. And this appears to be evident, no interpreters, in 1 Corinthians 14:2, 'For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the Spirit he speaketh mysteries." Just a little humor, I can recall a fundie who when speaking in tongues would say repeatedly, "Me Honda Me Honda Me Honda.........., but now I realise this is not glossolalia or xenoglosia, it is just English. 'Me' is an objective pronoun and 'Honda' is the name of a Japanese Company.

08-14-2007, 02:00 PM	#10
Bboyneko Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Savage, MD Posts: 553	hoopy blabby gazuoopawawaw na noo hikles duint yub yub yub! rewp pooky nabooky nab hif??

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.