Tongue Speaking not needed today

[Ingledsva]

Word order doesn't have the same meaning or importance in Greek as it does in English, and it's strictly necessary to move things around to get a translation that is proper English. After all, "I thank God all of you more in tongues I speak" doesn't make a very good English sentence, even though that's the word order in Greek. Basically, saying that it's a problem that the words are in the wrong order simply misunderstands how Greek is translated.

εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ, πάντων ὑμῶν μᾶλλον γλώσσαις λαλῶ·

1 Co 14:18 I am Grateful to the Theos that I, - of all of you, - more tongues/languages/ speak.

*

 

[Rise]

Did you notice that 1 Co 12:28-30 separates miracles - from mundane things like speaking in tongues/languages, and interpreting?

1Co 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

1Co 12:29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?

1Co 12:30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?

*

You're grossly misinterpreting that scripture, which can be proven by looking at the context.
The idea that speaking in tongues and intrepreting is not supernatural, but mundane, is disproven in the very chapter you quoted from.

1 Corinthians 12:
4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; 5 and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; 6 and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. 7 To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.

Here we see that the gift of tongues, interpretation, healing, and miracles are all linked together as the same work of the Holy Spirit.

Furthermore, you aren't even consistent with your own logic up to this point.
You already said you believe that the apostles spoke in foreign languages they didn't know by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Is that not a supernatural act of God empowered by His Spirit? Why would you try to call that mundane? By the dictionary definition of the word "mundane", you cannot use that to describe a supernatural act of the Holy Spirit.

You're trying to draw a division between the gifts of the Spirit that doesn't exist in the scripture.

 

[Windwalker]

Everything that is valuable has those who will attempt to counterfeit it.
A pattern in scripture is that Satan often tries to counterfeit the genuine things of God, mixing lies in with truth, in order to bring people into bondage to satan.

It is not surprising then that you have other religions practicing a form of this, but lacking the genuine power of the Holy Spirit behind it.

Except that since when does the counterfeit preceded the actual thing? You have Plato referring to it 400 years prior to the Christian church. If I showed you a 700 dollar bill from the year 2430, would you expect in the year 2430 to see the "real thing" show up that looks exactly like what has be in circulation for over 400 years?

The better argument is to acknowledge that Christians, just like any other religion has common religious experiences. They just have a different take on what it is. That's all.

This is an unsupported assumption on your part. There is nothing in the scripture to suggest that they were practicing states of ecstatsy.

You are saying that outside citing passages of scripture evidence does not exist? The evidence is plenty that it's the same thing as you see in other religions. Anthropology is evidence, isn't it?

It is possible, and common, to speak in tongues and prophesy without experiencing ecstasies of any sort.

Uhhh.... not really. If prophecy is inspiration, that is in fact something that comes through divine ecstacy. It doesn't come from calculated reason, you know.

This is also an baseless speculation on your part. There is nothing in scripture or early church history to suggest that Paul had such motives.

Why does that matter? Do you reject all understanding we have amassed in over 2000 years? That's quite tragic if you have. I'd suggest looking at that. That's a serious problem. I live in the year 2016, and there is a lot more information available to us today.

It is plainly clear from the scripture itself that the kind of order Paul was bringing was to require translation of tongues in a public setting so that everyone could benefit from it.
He recognized the value of individual tongue speaking as a way to build up the individual, but stressed that a corporate gathering is for the purpose of building up the corporate church body.

Sure, I've said this. Paul was all for having religious ecstacy experiences, but in the gathered assembly he wanted you to help build up others, rather than do you private work there. Not too hard to understand.

This is consistent with the fact that the main purpose of the gifts of the Spirit is to be used to benefit other people, building up the church body into maturity.
1 Corinthians 14:12
Ephesians 4:11-13

Is faith a gift of God? Isn't that primarily for your benefit first, so that through the exercise of it in your life you may be built up so that you may benefit others? Then isn't the individual's private experiences likewise to build them up so that they may be of benefit to others? Surely, yes. You have to put on your oxygen mask first in the airplane so you can be fit to help others, right? All that Paul is saying is that in the gathering, the focus should be on the body of those gathered. You don't go to church and do your private offerings do you, ignoring those around you, do you? That's all he was saying.

At Corinth, they weren't building up the Church if all they did was speak in tongues while they assembled.

That's right. In the gathering, follow ordered procedure. That's all he was saying.

 

[Rise]

Except that since when does the counterfeit preceded the actual thing?

Why do you assume tongues by the Holy Spirit was not around before pentecost?

According to Jewish oral tradition, when the High Priest went into the Holy of Holies he spoke in an unknown language that only God could understand.

Malachi 3:6
Hebrews 13:8

You are saying that outside citing passages of scripture evidence does not exist? The evidence is plenty that it's the same thing as you see in other religions. Anthropology is evidence, isn't it?

I was pointing out that you have mistaken beliefs about what is involved in Christian tongue speaking when you try to equate it with ecstasies which is more like a trance like state of being or an emotional feeling. Tongue speaking can be completely emotionless and without unusual experience. Nor is the purpose of tongues to try to achieve such a state of being. And there are people who have had ecstatic states that didn't speak in tongues to get there. While it's not impossible for the two to coincide, the two are not synonymous. In fact, pentecostal experience would tell us that they probably weren't usually experiencing ecstatic states while praying in tongues.

Furthermore, from a scriptural standpoint, there is absolutely no evidence for the claims you've made about the Corinthian church practicing some kind of trance like ecstaticism. If that were an issue Paul would have addressed it. Instead all he addresses is the issue of speaking in tongues without purpose, interpretation, and order.

Uhhh.... not really.

Says who? According to what source?
I can tell you from my experience in pentecostal churches that what I said is true.
I can also tell you from scripture that there is no basis for your claim that ecstatical experiences must coincide with prophecy and tongues.

If prophecy is inspiration, that is in fact something that comes through divine ecstasy. It doesn't come from calculated reason, you know.

You might have a wrong definition of ecstasy.

Ecstacy:
-an overpowering emotion or exaltation; a state of sudden, intense feeling.
-mental transport or rapture from the contemplation of divine things.
-an emotional or religious frenzy or trancelike state, originally one involving an experience of mystic self-transcendence.

You definitely have a wrong assumption about how the Holy Spirit brings revelation, if you think you need to be into a raptured trancelike state to receive it.
God will often speak as a still small voice: 1 Kings 19:11-13

From personal experience I can tell you that legitimate prophecy comes through people who are not experiencing any unusual feelings.
From a scriptural standpoint I can also tell you, again, that there's no basis for concluding that trances and prophecy go together.
Maybe amongst pagan sources they do, where some accounts sound more like a person giving themselves over to demonic possession while working themselves into a frenzy; but that is not the case with the Holy Spirit.

Actually, since the topic comes up, 1 Kings 18 has a great account of how the pagans were going into frenzies and cutting themselves trying to get their idol god to answer them, when all Elijah had to do was speak a simple prayer to get a response from the one true God.

Why does that matter?

If you care about historical truth, you can't just make up baseless speculations about motives and assign them to Paul.
There has to be some historical basis for your claim.

You might have an opinion, however baseless it may be, but don't try to pretend that opinion is historical fact when there's not a single shred of evidence to support it.

Sure, I've said this. Paul was all for having religious ecstasy experiences, but in the gathered assembly he wanted you to help build up others, rather than do you private work there. Not too hard to understand.

Paul gives no indication anywhere in the scripture that he is correcting them about ecstatic experiences.
As I said, tongues and ecstaticism are not linked together.

Is faith a gift of God? Isn't that primarily for your benefit first, so that through the exercise of it in your life you may be built up so that you may benefit others? Then isn't the individual's private experiences likewise to build them up so that they may be of benefit to others? Surely, yes. You have to put on your oxygen mask first in the airplane so you can be fit to help others, right? All that Paul is saying is that in the gathering, the focus should be on the body of those gathered. You don't go to church and do your private offerings do you, ignoring those around you, do you? That's all he was saying.

I don't disagree with your characterization here of what Paul was saying.
However, where you go into misinterpreting the scripture is when you try to read things into the scripture that aren't there, and which we have no reason to believe are there. Namely: that you try to equate esctaticism with speaking in tongues. That is a wrong assumption on many levels, as I already explained.

 

[Windwalker]

Why do you assume tongues by the Holy Spirit was not around before pentecost?

I'm not. But mention of Tongues' Speaking is only associated with the Christian church beginning in Acts 2. If you wish to use scriptural authority as the only trustworthy source, you do not see that gift bestowed upon any other individual in the Bible prior to Pentecost.

According to Jewish oral tradition, when the High Priest went into the Holy of Holies he spoke in an unknown language that only God could understand.

But that's not the Bible. If you see the Bible authors as really know what's true or not, then for all you know this guy could have been using them "couterfeit tongues", you speak of. Maybe there's a reason these tongues with him was not mentioned in the Bible. He could have been a closeted pagan for all you know.

But honestly, this mention you bring up only goes to support what I said at the outset, that tongues speaking has existed in many religions since the beginning of human religion.

Malachi 3:6
Hebrews 13:8

So, you're saying that these verses mean God doesn't do anything new or different, ever? That's quite odd considering what the Bible teaches about the new things that evolved over time. God was doing all sorts of thing he hand't done before. If you're saying God was giving tongues to people back then because he never changes anything at all according to what you think those verses mean, then I guess the whole second coming thing isn't happening, since that's for sure never happened yet!

I was pointing out that you have mistaken beliefs about what is involved in Christian tongue speaking when you try to equate it with ecstasies which is more like a trance like state of being or an emotional feeling.

I don't have any mistaken beliefs about what is involved. I have actual experience. Do you? That I equate it with the religious ecstasies of other religions comes from my own personal experience with it. Can you claim the same?

Tongue speaking can be completely emotionless and without unusual experience.

Yeah, so? I don't think you know what religious ecstasies are. It was actually in the dictionary definition you gave me as def. 2. I usually despise people quoting dictionaries rather than actual source material which goes considerably more into what these things are than what you read in one sentence in a dictionary. At least go to an encyclopedia Wiki doesn't take but a second to read.

Religious ecstasy is a type of altered state of consciousness characterized by greatly reduced external awareness and expanded interior mental and spiritual awareness, frequently accompanied by visions and emotional (and sometimes physical) euphoria.​

Please note, "altered state.... expanded awareness.... frequently [that means not always 100% of the time] accompanied by emotions". Again, not always, exclusively, etc. I think you mistake what "religious ecstacy" is as opposed just plain ecstacy, where many imagine it means something akin to "getting off". No... religious ecstacy is an altered state of consciousness where the individual become acutely aware of the divine (hence why often there is emotion - wouldn't you be exuberant if Jesus came to you?). Often times as well there is complete and utter stillness, Silence. In fact I'd say that's much more often the norm when you are talking religious ecstasies the world over. So "frequently" does mean always, nor even that it is the norm.

You should read some Abraham Maslow to crack the lid a little on this topic.

Nor is the purpose of tongues to try to achieve such a state of being.

That is correct. It is the result of being in such a state of being. Not everyone does that in that state of being however. But it is quite common. Hence why Paul says not everyone does it. Not everyone in altered states of consciousness (ASC) does.

And there are people who have had ecstatic states that didn't speak in tongues to get there.

You miss the obvious point here. Again, they are not speaking in tongues "to get there". They are speaking in tongues as a result of already being there! It's one expression of religious ecstatic states. Do you see it now?

In fact, pentecostal experience would tell us that they probably weren't usually experiencing ecstatic states while praying in tongues.

Why not? Have you ever had any actual experience having ecstatic or "Altered States of Consciousness"? On what basis do you imagine these tongues are not a result of ASCs, no part of them? What actual understanding of these do you have? Do you have any personal experience you can speak from?

Furthermore, from a scriptural standpoint, there is absolutely no evidence for the claims you've made about the Corinthian church practicing some kind of trance like ecstaticism. If that were an issue Paul would have addressed it. Instead all he addresses is the issue of speaking in tongues without purpose, interpretation, and order.

Actually, the entire book of 1 Cor. is about addressing the problems he was seeing with them. They were in fact doing the same things as the Pagans were, right up the hill at the temple of Diana. When Paul says he himself speaks in tongues more than them all, do you think Paul didn't have religious ecstacy experiences??? "Such a one was caught up to the 3rd heaven and heard things....". THAT sure sounds like a religious ecstacy experience to me! Doesn't it you?

So if Paul was a mystic, entering into ASCs, which clearly he was - he saw Jesus, for goodness sake!, and Paul says he speaks in tongues more than them all..... put it together here...

The only thing Paul was say is that practice should not be done in an orderly service which others are there for and aren't doing that and won't benefit from it. That issue came back in early Christianity later on in history as well. That's why eventually the clergy had these mystics go off into monasteries, away from everyone else.

Says who? According to what source?
I can tell you from my experience in pentecostal churches that what I said is true.

Experience in what way? As one?

I can also tell you from scripture that there is no basis for your claim that ecstatical experiences must coincide with prophecy and tongues.

Nonsense. You think someone speaking prophecy, in however you image that looks like, is just their plain-ole everyday "I'm doing the dishes right now", sort of state of consciousness? Goodness no. They are in a state of conscious communion with the divine itself. That's why they call it "inspired". It is "breathed into you". Believe me, you have to be the right place for that. You have to be opened, receptive, in tune with consciousnesses. That is that Altered State, that ASC I keep speaking about.
Some in an ASC will prophecy, some in an ASC will speak in tongues. "Not all prophecy, not all speak in tongues," says Paul.

Yes... it looks like they all where having ASCs going on there... including Paul.

 

[Windwalker]

(more... I was quite busy typing. )

You might have a wrong definition of ecstasy.

Nope, I don't.

Ecstacy:
-an overpowering emotion or exaltation; a state of sudden, intense feeling.
-mental transport or rapture from the contemplation of divine things.
-an emotional or religious frenzy or trancelike state, originally one involving an experience of mystic self-transcendence.

Number two speaks about mental transport, not necessarily emotions.... notice. But that "loosely' describes these ASCs I keep talking about. ASCs are "religious ecstasies".

You definitely have a wrong assumption about how the Holy Spirit brings revelation, if you think you need to be into a raptured trancelike state to receive it.
God will often speak as a still small voice: 1 Kings 19:11-13

Mystics love that verse! Yes, indeed, in ASCs, this is where you hear that Still Small Voice. They know intimately what that is.

From personal experience I can tell you that legitimate prophecy comes through people who are not experiencing any unusual feelings.

Really? Do tell...

From a scriptural standpoint I can also tell you, again, that there's no basis for concluding that trances and prophecy go together.

Trance is such an overworked and overstated notion. I think those who call an ASC a "trance" really don't know what they are talking about. They are speaking out of ignorance, not experience.

Maybe amongst pagan sources they do, where some accounts sound more like a person giving themselves over to demonic possession while working themselves into a frenzy; but that is not the case with the Holy Spirit.

Yeah, well.... as they say, 'the Lord moves in mysterious ways". Really though, speaking in tongues is a type of response that some people have in ASCs. The "gift" actually is the ASC, not how someone responds to it. People respond that way, the world over, because they are just wired that way. It's probably some preference to linguistic deconstruction as a path to opening themselves deeper in ecstacy. I heard it referred to ones as a "Jazz Mantra". That is absolutely perfect, and what it is. Don't kid yourself, early Christians were doing this too. It's a human thing. Humans responding in certain ways to religious states of ecstacy, or communion with the divine, or ASCs.

Actually, since the topic comes up, 1 Kings 18 has a great account of how the pagans were going into frenzies and cutting themselves trying to get their idol god to answer them, when all Elijah had to do was speak a simple prayer to get a response from the one true God.

You think that story reflects accurately all instances of religious ecstasies the world over?

If you care about historical truth, you can't just make up baseless speculations about motives and assign them to Paul.

They are not baseless at all. They are based upon a very wide array of experience, knowledge, and understanding.

There has to be some historical basis for your claim.

There is. There are lots of examples of religious ecstacy the world over throughout history. What you see with Paul and his various and repeated ASCs, it is perfectly consistent with history.

You might have an opinion, however baseless it may be, but don't try to pretend that opinion is historical fact when there's not a single shred of evidence to support it.

Well... I beg to differ.

Paul gives no indication anywhere in the scripture that he is correcting them about ecstatic experiences.

He's not. He's correcting them doing them in the wrong place. "When you come together... do this". He's speaking about what to do and not do in the congregation gathered together. He is correcting the about where they are doing it! He's not saying "don't do it! Period.". So, then it seems he both expected and approved of it as a normal practice. "I speak in tongues more than you all," says Paul.

As I said, tongues and ecstaticism are not linked together.

Now this is totally baseless. Yes they are. They definitely are. Have you ever had a religious ecstacy experience and spoken in tongues yourself?

I don't disagree with your characterization here of what Paul was saying.
However, where you go into misinterpreting the scripture is when you try to read things into the scripture that aren't there, and which we have no reason to believe are there. Namely: that you try to equate esctaticism with speaking in tongues. That is a wrong assumption on many levels, as I already explained.

Your argument is based on very flawed information and understandings. Do you have experience with this yourself to speak from a position of firsthand knowledge?

 

[Rise]

I
So, you're saying that these verses mean God doesn't do anything new or different, ever?

You misunderstand. Just about anything you see being done by the power of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament you can find in the Old Testament. The reason is because God's character and nature doesn't change. He always was a healer and protector of His people, He still is today, and He always will be. New circumstances may arise, but there are things about God and the way He interacts with His people that clearly, from the Bible, will never change.Tongues is an important part of aligning with God's will, as you pray the perfect prayers via the Holy Spirit through you. Given that, I believe it's likely than not that He did gift people with that prior to Pentecost.

Religious ecstasy is a type of altered state of consciousness characterized by greatly reduced external awareness and expanded interior mental and spiritual awareness, frequently accompanied by visions and emotional (and sometimes physical) euphoria.

That is basically what I posted already as the definition. My points still stands unaltered, which is:

You do not need to go into an altered state of consciousness to speak in tongues or interpret. Nor do you need to do that in order to prophesy. Nor do you speak in tongues because you only have a goal of achieving an altered state of consciousness.

Maybe that's not how it works in whatever non-christian religion you practice, but I can tell you that in Christian Pentecostalism you have a wrong idea about what operating in tongues/prophesy is like and what it is used for.
Tongues in Christianity is praying the perfect prayers that we don't have the understanding to pray ourselves.

It is that misunderstanding that is the crux of why you misinterpreted the scripture.

You miss the obvious point here. Again, they are not speaking in tongues "to get there". They are speaking in tongues as a result of already being there! It's one expression of religious ecstatic states.

From experience I can tell you that is not true in Christian Pentecostalism.
You don't need to achieve an altered state of consciousness in order to speak in tongues.

Have you ever had any actual experience having ecstatic or "Altered States of Consciousness"?

Yes.

On what basis do you imagine these tongues are not a result of ASCs, no part of them?

I know from extensive Pentecostal Christian experience, which is also in line with any mainstream pentecostal teaching you'll find on the subject, that the two subjects not linked. They can coincide, but one does not depend on the other.

Actually, the entire book of 1 Cor. is about addressing the problems he was seeing with them. They were in fact doing the same things as the Pagans were, right up the hill at the temple of Diana.

.

There is. There are lots of examples of religious ecstacy the world over throughout history.

Pointing to the fact that ecstacy is a part of other world religions doesn't even begin to provide evidence for your blind speculations about Paul's motives and the circumstances of the Corinthian church.
There is no documentary evidence whatsoever that would lead us to believe Paul not only felt the Corinthians were doing the same thing as the Pagans, but that he approved of them doing it so long as they tweaked the form of it a bit.
By definition, the pagans could not be doing what the Corinthians were, because they were utilizing a gift of the Holy Spirit - Which pagans wouldn't have. If they had the Holy Spirit then they wouldn't be pagans.
All of that speculation makes even less sense once you realize that ecstacy and tongues are not inherently paired together in Pentecostal Christianity.

When Paul says he himself speaks in tongues more than them all, do you think Paul didn't have religious ecstacy experiences???

He did both, but you are reading things into the text that aren't there when you assume Paul is saying "I experience ecstacy more than you all". There's no reason to read it that way, unless you mistakenly believe that the two concepts are linked in Christianity.

Nonsense. You think someone speaking prophecy, in however you image that looks like, is just their plain-ole everyday "I'm doing the dishes right now", sort of state of consciousness? Goodness no. They are in a state of conscious communion with the divine itself. That's why they call it "inspired". It is "breathed into you". Believe me, you have to be the right place for that. You have to be opened, receptive, in tune with consciousnesses.

Maybe in your world that's how it works, but many Christians walk in constant communion with God, always open to receive what He speaks, and did not have to achieve an altered state of consciousness to open the doorway. God can, and has, spoken to people while they were just doing their dishes, not expecting to hear from God.

It sounds like you work very hard to achieve a lesser imitation of what followers of Jesus freely receive as a gift.

Really? Do tell...

Prophecy is a regular occurence in the church communities I'm involved in.
One example that contradicts your assumptions would be spontaneous prophetic evangelism. You can be going about your day and have something communicated to you for someone nearby. You didn't seek it, you didn't have to work for it, but you were in communion with God and chose to respond to His leading to share a word from God with someone. Oftentimes accompanied by other gifts of the Spirit, such as healing or miracles. Many people I know do this regularly.

 

[psychoslice]

I personally don't believe that so called talking in tongues was ever meant to be dribble, its when we are all in one mind, we then talk a language that we all understand, its like talking about Christianity to someone who never heard of Christianity, to them its another language, until they come to understanding what you are talking about, then you could say they are talking a new language, or tongue.

 

[Windwalker]

You misunderstand. Just about anything you see being done by the power of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament you can find in the Old Testament.

"Just about" negates you citing those verses to say what you see in the NT you see in the OT, that God changes not. You cited those to suggest, not prove, that the "gift of tongues" mentioned in the NT was operating as part of what the HS did back then too. If "just about" everything is the same but not exactly the same, then those verses you offered do not apply to this at all. And they don't.

You seem to pull as your trump card for me demanding I give you documented evidence of the things I'm reading. Let's see your documented evidence that speaking in tongues prior to Pentecost is scriptural. You can't. You have to piece together the puzzle from what you can gather from other places. Right? If not, please cite the scripture that clearly says the HS poured out tongues prior to Pentecost. As they say, "Chapter/verse please". You can't switch your criteria to something different when it comes to me when you don't apply the same to yourself.

The reason is because God's character and nature doesn't change. He always was a healer and protector of His people, He still is today, and He always will be.

Sure, but that has nothing to do with how things were done back then. Does he send worldwide floods today? Does he order genocidal attacks on other nations? In fact, the OT explicitly states that God "repented". That means he changed his approach to things. Your argument is thin, to say the least.

Me personally, I believe tongues has always existed, and that one you see in Christianity, then and now, is the same thing. The only thing unique about it is the mythologies they hold about it. To talk about it differently, to wrap in in a theology or story line that is different, does not mean the phenomena is different. There are lots of mythologies about the creation of the earth - but it's the same earth they are all talking about.

Tongues is an important part of aligning with God's will, as you pray the perfect prayers via the Holy Spirit through you. Given that, I believe it's likely than not that He did gift people with that prior to Pentecost.

You present an argument without documented proof, and that's okay for you. But when you see me do that, for me you demand documented proof? Double-standard operating here..... Actually my argument is far more sound than your flimsily thin logic argument here. I can back mine up with actual research into actual tongues speaking and make comparisons and draw direct correlations. Seems what you have is just "I supposes" trying to make Christian tongues "something else" and then trying to force fit that into your mythologies to offer some consistence to them. I have actual data, not just "It must be, because this is different," circular reasoning arguments.

That is basically what I posted already as the definition. My points still stands unaltered, which is:

You do not need to go into an altered state of consciousness to speak in tongues or interpret. Nor do you need to do that in order to prophesy. Nor do you speak in tongues because you only have a goal of achieving an altered state of consciousness.

I'll put it this way, if you are not in a state of religious ecstacy and you start speaking in tongues, then you have a problem with your brain! It's would be like having Tourette Syndrome where you involuntary just start spewing what you have no control over. You see the inherent problem with your argument here? If it's not part of a religious experience, then it's a problem with your mind, it would be a type of disorder. However, you do not lose control when you speak in tongues. It's part of a religious experience. Those religious experiences, are in fact ASCs, or "religious ecstasies".

Maybe that's not how it works in whatever non-christian religion you practice, but I can tell you that in Christian Pentecostalism you have a wrong idea about what operating in tongues/prophesy is like and what it is used for.

As I said before, my idea is based first upon my own direct, firsthand personal experience as a Christian Pentecostal. When I said I had experience, you imagined I was speculating from outside of it? I don't have a wrong idea about it. I know firsthand what it is as I practiced it as a Pentecostal Christian.

Tongues in Christianity is praying the perfect prayers that we don't have the understanding to pray ourselves.

I'll allow that interpretation of what they are. That's one way you could talk about it. And likewise, I am speaking from experience with it, doing it myself. And absolutely when this is happening you are in fact in an Altered State of Consciousness. You are in a state where you "let go" and that happens. That letting go, and the speaking in tongues part is voluntary. It's not some sort of involuntary convulsive disorder, which it would need to be if your logic argument has any validity.

It is that misunderstanding that is the crux of why you misinterpreted the scripture.

Your assumptions about me is why you don't listen to or consider what I am saying or the sound basis for it. I am simply understanding and interpreting scripture in a context you don't see. It's only a "misinterpretation" because it doesn't fit how you've been conditioned to think about what you are reading, fitting them into the context you are reading from. The context I interpret from is a little larger than yours which you artificially contract to fit your theologies.

From experience I can tell you that is not true in Christian Pentecostalism.
You don't need to achieve an altered state of consciousness in order to speak in tongues.

From experience as a Christian Pentecostal I am telling you what I am saying is true, and you in fact are in ASCs when you do. This misrepresentation of saying "achieve ASC in order to speak", is pure rubbish. You do not "achieve" ASCs, you simply entered into them. It's not like trying to bench press your weight for goodness sake. It's not an accomplishment. And it is not for the purpose of speaking in tongues. Tongues are not the goal, they can, among many other things, be the result however. The fact you word this as you do to me says you really don't understand the phenomena.

Yes.

I know from extensive Pentecostal Christian experience, which is also in line with any mainstream pentecostal teaching you'll find on the subject, that the two subjects not linked. They can coincide, but one does not depend on the other.

I would be curious to understand what you experienced and when that you don't understand what I am saying? Describe your experiences if you will. I myself have a great deal of experience with this, and hence why I can and am saying everything I am here. Let's compare some notes and see where the disconnect is if you have comparable experience as me. This would make an interesting turn in our conversation, rather than you trying to make the Bible fit your theologies and assuming I don't have any experience with this, despite my saying from the outset I have.

Pointing to the fact that ecstacy is a part of other world religions doesn't even begin to provide evidence for your blind speculations about Paul's motives and the circumstances of the Corinthian church.

They are not blind at all. In fact they are based on direct, firsthand experience talking in tongues as a Pentecostal Christian, coupled with my awareness of other religion's doing the same thing, coupled with experience with others in other religions, coupled with my knowledge of these passages in the Bible from years in Bible College where I got a degree in theology, coupled with my continued experience with ASCs as a practicing mystic, etc, etc. etc. Blind, is hardly the word to use here. That's just a substanceless accusation designed to help make you sleep better at night.

There is no documentary evidence whatsoever that would lead us to believe Paul not only felt the Corinthians were doing the same thing as the Pagans, but that he approved of them doing it so long as they tweaked the form of it a bit.

So, the criteria of me is "documentary evidence", but not for you in saying they "must" have spoken in tongues in the OT? There is plenty of evidence, even if it's not "documentary". That's not required for it to be considered evidence.

Aside from that glaring double-standard you apply to me but not yourself, I never said he approved if they tweaked the form of it a bit. He didn't say that. Tongues speaking is tongues speaking is tongues speaking, now matter what religion it exists in. The ONLY thing he said was in the gathered congregation, it's better to take others into account and not do that there. Not "tweak the form", but don't do it in the gathered assembly.

By definition, the pagans could not be doing what the Corinthians were, because they were utilizing a gift of the Holy Spirit - Which pagans wouldn't have. If they had the Holy Spirit then they wouldn't be pagans.

Well now, that's the finest example of pure circular logic I've ever seen! "It can't be the same because we have the real thing and they don't, therefore what we have is real and what they have isn't.".

Let me stretch your imagination a little here. You're right, Pagans aren't Christians, but it's because they don't practice the same rituals and hold the same symbol sets and doctrinal beliefs. That does not mean they have different religious experiences. Evidence shows that the experiences are in fact the same at their core. ASCs are still ASCs in other religions. How others express these things, how they talk about them differs, but the experience is the same as evidence shows. You look at the color of the clothes the person is wearing and say "They are not like me", whereas in reality when you take the clothes off, they are in fact the same. For me, "God is no respecter of persons". The Spirit is poured out upon "All flesh".

All of that speculation makes even less sense once you realize that ecstacy and tongues are not inherently paired together in Pentecostal Christianity.

I have yet to realize that because they are in fact part of ASCs. Do you consider tongues to be a mental disorder, where someone just starts blurting stuff out they have no control over? I'm all ears to hear you elaborate further on this.

 

[Windwalker]

(Yet more excessive typing this morning... )

He did both, but you are reading things into the text that aren't there when you assume Paul is saying "I experience ecstacy more than you all". There's no reason to read it that way, unless you mistakenly believe that the two concepts are linked in Christianity.

Talk about assumptions and putting words into my mouth I never said, nor believe! I never said, nor implied Paul was saying he experiences ecstacy more than them. All he was saying, for effect was, that he speaks in tongues prolifically when in states of religious ecstacy, so they have no reason to boast if he doesn't. That's entirely a different understanding than what you assume I imagine he was saying.

Maybe in your world that's how it works, but many Christians walk in constant communion with God, always open to receive what He speaks

Would that this were in fact true!!! Wouldn't that be wonderful for them, and the rest of the world! Amen! But alas, it is the rare Christian who does. And those who do in fact have sufficiently moved into that state of constant communion. Out of the world's Christians, or out of all the world religions combined, you probably have less than 0.001% who live like this. To say this is true "theologically" is not at all the same thing as what the actual reality of it is. I would it were true, as this world would be a radically different place for all of us.

The thing you do not understand about ASCs is this. They are only "Altered states" by contrast to your "normal state" at the time. Those who have this communion with Spirit in time become transformed. Gradually, from "glory to glory", as Paul says, this "altered state" becomes the new "normal" state. And in fact that is what the hope of all spiritual growth and development is all about. The transforming of the mind and spirit.

Now I could go into great depth talking about this, but if you struggle to know what an ASC is to begin with, this would be way beyond what you'd follow at this point for now.

, and did not have to achieve an altered state of consciousness to open the doorway. God can, and has, spoken to people while they were just doing their dishes, not expecting to hear from God.

Yes, it does happen when you are doing dishes to, but they are spontaneously entering into these ASCs. These are known as Peak Experiences. Please do some research into this area, as you clearly do not understand what these are. These can happen "out of the blue", or they can be entered into through various practices, such as meditation. There are many reasons why these can hit you spontaneously while doing the dishes, and why they happen more consistently while practicing meditation. But this too goes into too much depth at this point. But make no mistake, whether it's the Peak Experience that hits during dishes, or walking down the street, or any other every-day activity, or the illumination of communion of Spirit in meditation, they are all Altered states of Consciousness, because they are a outside the "norm" of that person's "normal state". That's what makes them "Altered States".

It sounds like you work very hard to achieve a lesser imitation of what followers of Jesus freely receive as a gift.

Amazingly wild speculations and assumptions on your part. Your line of reasoning about what's going on the Bible is consistent with this approach you have with me.

Prophecy is a regular occurence in the church communities I'm involved in.

One example that contradicts your assumptions would be spontaneous prophetic evangelism. You can be going about your day and have something communicated to you for someone nearby. You didn't seek it, you didn't have to work for it, but you were in communion with God and chose to respond to His leading to share a word from God with someone. Oftentimes accompanied by other gifts of the Spirit, such as healing or miracles. Many people I know do this regularly.

Sounds to me like they are operating in altered states. Again, if you actually understood what these are, these ASCs eventually 'teach you' to be much more intuitive, in tune with yourself and others. That is what happens through these eventually.

Do you ever just pray where when you do you enter into states of deep quite, and experience deep peace? Yes? That's an ASC. If you do this frequently, eventually you become much more "in-tune" with the intuitive, the spiritual within yourself. This is very typical in all religions.

 

[Windwalker]

One other thing I thought of that I think may be a stumbling block for you is to understand that ASCs (altered states of consciousness), are not just one thing. There is a whole range of these altered states. There are degrees, or "levels" of them. A typical division is 4 general categories from psychic, to subtle, to causal, to non-dual, as well as various degrees within each of those, low-subtle and high-subtle, for instance.

If you read about this researcher's work he did in the field in this presentation to colleagues he gave, he has at least 9 stages he describes on page 13. What you have been attempted to say ASCs are is closest resembling Stage 3, or the 2nd Jhana. "Feelings of rapture, bliss, one-pointedness; no thought of primary object of concentration". Beyond this are the 3rd all the way to the 8th Jhana. The 3rd is described as "Feelings of bliss, one-pointedness and equanimity; rapture ceases". If you keep reading he goes into other types of ASC through a different meditative approach known as Insight meditation. He then compares "Normal" states of consciousness, which he rightly calls "Consensus Consciousness" (or Consensus Trance is another description of "normal" consciousness, with those in hypnosis, against those in these two other types of ASCs on page 17.

You will see rather quickly that your narrow definition is to say the least rather limited and wholly inadequate. In order to have a half-ways intelligent discussion about this, you have to be aware of the differences. Speaking in tongues is a "subtle-level" experience within an ASC. The "intuition" or "inspiration" aspects of it are much more at the psychic level, preceding the subtle. You can read about those categories and their descriptions here: https://integrallife.com/integral-post/stages-meditation

Here's an excerpt from the Pyschic level, and you will see this is what describes your "walking with God", intuitive sense.

In other words, you start to become free of the ego. This is the initial spiritual dimension, where the conventional ego “dies” and higher structures of awareness are “resurrected”. Your sense of identity naturally begins to expand and embrace the cosmos, or all of nature. You rise above the isolated mind and body, which might include finding a larger identity, such as with nature or the cosmos—”cosmic consciousness”, as R. M. Bucke called it. It’s a very concrete and unmistakable experience.​

So yes, this being in-tune with God, sensing the connection, the leading, et al. is part of the initial stages of spiritual awakening. That it becomes permanent for the person is a good thing, if that happens. This too is an ASC. It is not your "normal" consciousness that you had prior to awakening to that within you. If it was, everyone would be doing it. Since they are not, and you claim to be, you are not "normal", therefore your consciousness is "altered".

 

[Rise]

Tongues speaking is tongues speaking is tongues speaking, now matter what religion it exists in.

Me personally, I believe tongues has always existed, and that one you see in Christianity, then and now, is the same thing. The only thing unique about it is the mythologies they hold about it. To talk about it differently, to wrap in in a theology or story line that is different, does not mean the phenomena is different.

Well now, that's the finest example of pure circular logic I've ever seen! "It can't be the same because we have the real thing and they don't, therefore what we have is real and what they have isn't.".

Let me stretch your imagination a little here. You're right, Pagans aren't Christians, but it's because they don't practice the same rituals and hold the same symbol sets and doctrinal beliefs. That does not mean they have different religious experiences.

John 4:22
John 4:24
Deuteronomy 12:6

Not everyone who thinks they are worshipping the one true God are.
You can't do whatever you want and then claim you're doing it for God.

Acts 2:38
John 15:4
Matthew 7:16
1 John 2:2-4
John 14:23
John 15:16
Matthew 7:22
Deuteronomy 13:2-4
2 Corinthians 11:4
Acts 2:8
Acts 1:4-5
Acts 1:8
Acts 2:3-4

You must be in Jesus, obeying and abiding, to recieve the Holy Spirit.
That is judged by fruit.
Not everyone who appears to be doing supernatural works is in Jesus.

1 Corinthians 12:4
1 Corinthians 12:10

The gifts of the Holy Spirit come only through the Holy Spirit.

Scripturally, no one moves in any genuine gift of the Holy Spirit without the Holy Spirit.
Those who have the Holy Spirit are, by any Biblical definition, Christians.
You either have the Holy Spirit or you are operating in a counterfeit spirit.

The kind of universalism you are suggesting, that eveyone is off doing the same thing but just giving different trappings to it, is not Biblical. All throughout the Bible there is a sharp divide between the true followers of God and the worshippers of idols. Both can have manifestations of supernatural power (with satanic power always being inferior), but as scripture tells us power alone doesn't validate that someone is in Jesus.

In other words, you start to become free of the ego. This is the initial spiritual dimension, where the conventional ego “dies” and higher structures of awareness are “resurrected”. Your sense of identity naturally begins to expand and embrace the cosmos, or all of nature. You rise above the isolated mind and body, which might include finding a larger identity, such as with nature or the cosmos—”cosmic consciousness”, as R. M. Bucke called it. It’s a very concrete and unmistakable experience.

What does that have to do with the Gospel of Jesus Christ?
Jesus commissioned His disciples to go into all the world and preach the Gospel.

Biblically, the Gospel is quite clearly about Jesus making a way to restore our relationship to God, restoring what was lost in the Garden of Eden, so we can walk with God in perfect communion. It is personal, relational, and includes with it very specific promises about being co-rulers with Christ in the age to come after a physical resurrection.

The Good News of Jesus has nothing in it about trying to achieve identification with nature or generic ideas of embracing the cosmos.

The thing you do not understand about ASCs is this. They are only "Altered states" by contrast to your "normal state" at the time. Those who have this communion with Spirit in time become transformed. Gradually, from "glory to glory", as Paul says, this "altered state" becomes the new "normal" state. And in fact that is what the hope of all spiritual growth and development is all about. The transforming of the mind and spirit.

Yes, it does happen when you are doing dishes to, but they are spontaneously entering into these ASCs. These are known as Peak Experiences.

. These can happen "out of the blue", or they can be entered into through various practices, such as meditation. There are many reasons why these can hit you spontaneously while doing the dishes, and why they happen more consistently while practicing meditation. But this too goes into too much depth at this point. But make no mistake, whether it's the Peak Experience that hits during dishes, or walking down the street, or any other every-day activity, or the illumination of communion of Spirit in meditation, they are all Altered states of Consciousness, because they are a outside the "norm" of that person's "normal state". That's what makes them "Altered States".

You have your own definition of ecstasy that doesn't line up with what most people would accept as a common definition for ecstasy.

By even the definition you posted, referring to it as an "alterated state of consciousness" implies a change in your state of mind that you can consciously detect. It's a word highly associated with trances and elevated emotions for a reason.

Your definition of ecstasy is so all-encompassing that it ceases to have any real useful descriptive meaning - You may as well claim that any Christian who has experienced any amount of "renewing of their mind", by the power of the Holy Spirit (Romans 12:2, Romans 8:5-6), can be said to have had their consciousness permanently altered, thus living in a permanent state of "ecstasy".

I would not call any experience an ectasy, by it's accepted common definition, if the individual is not consciously experiencing something different than what they were before.

If you're claiming that some kind of change is happening that the person is not even able to detect, or they just live in a constant state of having already been changed, then it's a slippery definition that lets you claim anything that anyone experiences is attributed to an "ectasy" experience, even if they don't know it's happening.

At that point you should call it something else, because you've departed from the commonly accepted and dictionary meaning of that the word "ectasy".

"Just about" negates you citing those verses to say what you see in the NT you see in the OT, that God changes not. You cited those to suggest, not prove, that the "gift of tongues" mentioned in the NT was operating as part of what the HS did back then too. If "just about" everything is the same but not exactly the same, then those verses you offered do not apply to this at all. And they don't.

You seem to pull as your trump card for me demanding I give you documented evidence of the things I'm reading. Let's see your documented evidence that speaking in tongues prior to Pentecost is scriptural. You can't. You have to piece together the puzzle from what you can gather from other places. Right? If not, please cite the scripture that clearly says the HS poured out tongues prior to Pentecost. As they say, "Chapter/verse please". You can't switch your criteria to something different when it comes to me when you don't apply the same to yourself.

Back up and look at what you originally tried to assert: You tried to claim spiritual equivalence between what pagans did to what Christians did with regards to tongue speaking, and then used as evidence for their equivalence the fact that pagans appeared to be doing something similar prior to Pentecost.

I then pointed out that you would be wrong to assume that God's people could not have operated in this gift of the Holy Spirit prior to Pentecost. Especially when there is compelling evidence found in Jewish oral tradition that suggests it was experienced amongst God's people prior to Pentecost.
That gives precedence for the idea that God's people operated in a legitimate gift at some point prior to Pentecost which could have then later been counterfeited by Satan, as he is known throughout the Bible to counterfeit and corrupt everything God provides for His people.

I don't need to be, nor did I try to be, dogmatic about whether or not it happened prior to Pentecost - I'm just pointing out that it's not sound reasoning on your part to assume it couldn't have happened.

So, the criteria of me is "documentary evidence", but not for you in saying they "must" have spoken in tongues in the OT?

You are the one who made a supposedly factual claim about Paul's motives. You need to document or evidence the basis for that opinion if you want anyone to take it as a historical fact.

You'll note I never said anywhere that they "must" have spoken in tongues in the OT. I only pointed out that you were wrong to assume they didn't, and gave evidence that suggets it did happen amongst God's people prior to Pentecost.

It's would be like having Tourette Syndrome where you involuntary just start spewing what you have no control over.You see the inherent problem with your argument here? If it's not part of a religious experience, then it's a problem with your mind, it would be a type of disorder.

I never said anything about involuntary tongues. I don't know where you got that idea from.

Jeremiah 20:9
Acts 10:46
1 Corinthians 14:14-15

God's people make a choice to yield themselves to the Holy Spirit, and they speak in concert with the Holy Spirit.

Would that this were in fact true!!! Wouldn't that be wonderful for them, and the rest of the world! Amen! But alas, it is the rare Christian who does. And those who do in fact have sufficiently moved into that state of constant communion. Out of the world's Christians, or out of all the world religions combined, you probably have less than 0.001% who live like this. To say this is true "theologically" is not at all the same thing as what the actual reality of it is. I would it were true, as this world would be a radically different place for all of us.

Watch some youtube sermons by Dan Mohler and Todd White if you want to see an example of Christians who walk in constant communion with God. Although Dan Mohler talks about being in a constant state of experiencing God's presence, Todd White has never experienced that yet still walks in the same constant communion.
That is a modern American example of what normal Christianity can look like.

It has more to do with a willingness to yield than anything else. How surrendered to Jesus do you want to be? The only thing separating an average nominal Christian from people like them is the degree to which they have been willing to surrender themselves to Jesus, dying to their old corrupted self to live the way God intended for them.

 

[Shaul]

I will look up what internecine means... This dispute is has gone on for a long time, and there are plenty of books about it. My own family quibbled about this. Some family members read books to try and convince others of this and that. In the end they decided not to argue.

Well as Jesus said, he came to set father against son and mother against daughter. N'es pas? Sorry, I seem to have spoken in tongues there. ;-)

 

[Brickjectivity]

Well as Jesus said, he came to set father against son and mother against daughter. N'es pas? Sorry, I seem to have spoken in tongues there. ;-)

ha ha Its an interesting phrase. In this talk about division he also says "Three against two and two against three" which suggests the geometric shape of the hexagram, which some early Christians draw as an overlap between the tail of a fish and the base of a menorah. The whole conversation to which you refer is about judgment and renewal, so in that context this phrase is not much different from your Jewish idea where you are purified over generations. Possibly this refers to a one-time thinning of the herd though rather than something meant to be continual. Its not suggesting a continual state of confusion. It doesn't support the concept of glossolalia.

 

[Windwalker]

Not everyone who thinks they are worshipping the one true God are.
You can't do whatever you want and then claim you're doing it for God.

You've regressed down to quoting Bible verses? You know, I can quite easily read all of those verses in a different light than what you are able to see in them. For instance the passage in John 4 where it ends saying that the, "True worshipers will worship in Spirit and in Truth," to me very clearly speaks of Jesus saying that it's not your religious associations, your religious identity that make how you practice your religion "the true religion". He's smashing that outdated, ethnocentric idea of "saved by one's religion", saying that true religion, true spirituality transcends religions. Therefore, the Pagans, and not the Jews, who if they worship in Spirit and Truth, are the "True Worshipers". They will be entering to heaven before the pious religious ones who think they are saved because they believe "correctly". Jesus said it's not those who claim his name that are saved, but those who "do the will of my Father".

Here's a great example, the Roman Centurion with the sick child. He was a Pagan. Yet what did Jesus say about him? "Greater faith have I never seen in all of Israel"! Do you hear that? He's not judging on what religion they practice. He said a Pagan has true faith. Don't you think that being a "true Christian" should mean you shouldn't judge another man's servant either?

All the rest of your Bible verses you quote, I think you should try re-reading them in light of the context I exposed here it seems you are blind to at the moment. It may take you some time to process that, because it is so foreign to the way you've been conditioned to think about these things: what salvation is, who it is that is, and so forth. I think if you're willing you'll begin to see the whole religiocentric mode of thinking will need to begin to unravel in order for you to see others beyond it, to see others as God sees, to judge with the heart of love, not Bible verses supporting your conviction your saved and they're not.

You must be in Jesus, obeying and abiding, to recieve the Holy Spirit.

Sure, and who are my brothers and sisters, who is it that "follows" him, but those who do the will of the Father. That will of the Father is this, "To Love one another as I have loved you". Those who love, no matter what color their skin, no matter what religion they belong to, if they do as Jesus did in "neither do I judge you," are his brother and sister, are "true worshipers", regardless whether or not they have even heard of Jesus, or buy into the theologies of religious-Christian's who try to proselytize them.

"Truly I tell you tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you," said Jesus to the religious who judged who is saved and who is not - such as you are doing. If you want to claim to be a follower of Jesus, this is the first thing to look at.

That is judged by fruit.

You are absolutely correct. I quote the verse "By their fruits you shall know them", all the time! It is not by their beliefs, not by their skin color, not by their ethnicity, not by their religious identities or practices, not by any earthly thing. It is the true heart that matters, and the evidence of that is the fruits of the Spirit. You see that everyone in the world, and for you to say it's "false" or "counterfeit fruit," to me is the most offensive thing you could do to God as you self-righteously judge as him while you yourself are blind to Love. One of the fruits of the Spirit is not "Judging others". Those who do so have some repenting to do in order for themselves to be doing the will of the Father and begin to lay claim to being a friend of Jesus.

Not everyone who appears to be doing supernatural works is in Jesus.

The evidence of true worship is not so-called "supernatural" works. The evidence of a true worshiper is much more simple than that, "love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law."

1 Corinthians 12:4
1 Corinthians 12:10

Absolutely! Let's read that verse together, "There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work."

If you see the fruits of the Spirit in others outside your religious-comfort-zone, then be assured, it is the same spirit, the "same God at work".

The gifts of the Holy Spirit come only through the Holy Spirit.

That's right! They cannot be faked. Genuine love cannot be faked, even though many pretend to love in Christ's name while they actually are not, who rather judging another man's servant. But their fruits will expose that, soon enough.

Scripturally, no one moves in any genuine gift of the Holy Spirit without the Holy Spirit.
Those who have the Holy Spirit are, by any Biblical definition, Christians.
You either have the Holy Spirit or you are operating in a counterfeit spirit.

Being Christian does not mean joining a religion. A Buddhist, if he does as Jesus taught us to do, to love, is himself a follower of Jesus, regardless if he ever picks up a Bible, makes some religious statement of "faith", or ever stops being a Buddhist, or a Hindu, or a Muslim, or a Jew, or any other religion on earth. Joining a "group" is not what makes you one who follows Jesus.

The kind of universalism you are suggesting, that eveyone is off doing the same thing but just giving different trappings to it, is not Biblical.

Actually, it's not universalism I'm speaking about. I don't buy into that myself the way that is presented. I'm not a Universalist. I'd call myself a Lovist. But yes, what I am saying is in fact what the heart of what Jesus taught. It's right there in the verses you quoted at me. True Christianity, actually is borderless. Jesus did not come to establish a religion.

I'm out of time right now, but I'll probably weed my way through the rest of your reply later....

 

[lovemuffin]

εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ, πάντων ὑμῶν μᾶλλον γλώσσαις λαλῶ·

1 Co 14:18 I am Grateful to the Theos that I, - of all of you, - more tongues/languages/ speak.

The most significant problem with your attempt here is that you've ignored that γλώσσαις is in the dative case. You've rendered it as if it were an accusative. If you don't understand what this means or why it's important, then you aren't competent to weigh in on issues of translation in Biblical Greek. I'm not saying that to insult you, but because it's important to understand the limits of one's own knowledge. I'm not competent to decide difficult cases of Greek translation either, but knowing the meaning of the noun cases is very basic. this blog post is oversimplified but it makes clear the basic distinction between accusative and dative.

I'll also try to illustrate with an example, comparing 1 Cor 14:18 to Matthew 13:3. Here are the relevant snippets:

1 Cor 14:18 - ...γλώσσαις λαλῶ·

Matthew 13:3 - ...ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς πολλὰ...

In both snippets, the verb is λαλέω, i.e "speak". In Cor. it's 1st person present indicative ("I speak") and in Matthew it's 3rd person aorist indicative ("He spoke") but that doesn't interest us directly. In both snippets, the other words tell us something about the action. γλῶσσαις (in Cor.) and αὐτοῖς are both datives. English doesn't have a dative noun case, but indicates the meaning of the dative through the use of prepositions. This is also what happens in later Greek when the dative case falls out of use. So in Matthew, ελάλησεν αὐτοῖς is "He spoke to them". It is because αὐτοῖς is dative that we use the preposition "to", and from context it's clear that the dative is acting to specify the indirect object of the verb. That's why we insert the word "to." In the same sentence, πολλὰ is in the accusative, and because of that we know it's a direct object: "He spoke to them many things..."

1 Cor. 14:18 is slightly more complex, γλώσσαις is not the indirect object form of the dative, but rather an instrumental dative. "I speak with languages", or "I speak in languages". The dative form demands a preposition like "with" or "in". Your translation renders it "I speak languages" (leaving aside the comparative "more" for a moment), i.e you render it as if it were an accusative like πολλὰ, but in that case it would be γλώσσας instead. No matter what you do with the "more", if you don't include a preposition like "with" or "in" you are not translating it properly, because you are ignoring the information in the dative case. You can get a little bit more about types of datives here although it's also not complete.

 

[Windwalker]

The Good News of Jesus has nothing in it about trying to achieve identification with nature or generic ideas of embracing the cosmos.

By embracing the whole, you have embraced God. Let's not forget in the story of the Garden of Eden after man experienced sin he was cast out of the Garden. Isn't the whole story of Jesus about reversing that? I can tell you this, that if someone is in constant communion with God, as you've cited, you will in fact be very attune with and connected with the whole world. You will be restore to God, and the Garden.

You have your own definition of ecstasy that doesn't line up with what most people would accept as a common definition for ecstasy.

I do not have my own definition. That the "common" person doesn't understand what it is because they have no experience with it, nor education about it, does not invalidate actual full-fledged bona fide research into these areas. You don't take the "common" understanding as the definition. You take the specialists understanding, and hopefully from there at some point the "common" person get's it, as opposed to say the specialists are wrong because you read it in a dictionary and that's not what it says!

By even the definition you posted, referring to it as an "alterated state of consciousness" implies a change in your state of mind that you can consciously detect. It's a word highly associated with trances and elevated emotions for a reason.

Did you read the material I posted? "Elevated emotions" is not present in most of them. And that the ignorant and uneducated associate it with "trances", (meaning you're zoning or blanking out) does not mean that is the fact of these. When they refer to them that way, they often say "trance-like", meaning it only appears like that to someone outside of it. That's not the real actuality of it. You have to look at the actual data and research on these. Which is what I provided you. Did you just decide to not look at it because you think you know what's what here, against those who are experts in this?

And yes, you can detect this change. Clearly so. I thought you said you have experience with ASCs? Why wouldn't you know this? I asked you to describe your personal experience with them, and you never answered. The fact you say stuff like this makes it appear you in fact have no experience at all yourself, other than having people who don't know what they're talking about tell you about their wrong ideas about them.

Your definition of ecstasy is so all-encompassing that it ceases to have any real useful descriptive meaning - You may as well claim that any Christian who has experienced any amount of "renewing of their mind", by the power of the Holy Spirit (Romans 12:2, Romans 8:5-6), can be said to have had their consciousness permanently altered, thus living in a permanent state of "ecstasy".

Yes, that is precisely correct. From glory to glory. From one state of consciousness, the consensus trance you experience as "normal", to higher consciousness, "Let this consciousness be in you which was in Christ Jesus", leading to the eventual transformation of your own mind and being. That is precisely what happens. If you are to be "like Christ", how on earth do think that can happen unless you have your consciousness transformed? I'd like to hear how you imagine it could happen any other way? Explain to me how you think that happens? Magic?

Now as far as saying my definition is so all-encompassing to have no real descriptive meaning, that's nonsense. There are types of states of this religious ecstacy, or altered states of consciousness. It's just a general bucket term for all of them. You have to from there get into the various types of states. The reality of your argument about religious ecstacy meaning only one tiny slice of the whole, as if that reflects the whole, is what in fact renders the term meaningless. You need to talk specifics, like I am, recognizing that these are all part of the general category "religious ecstasies". They are all ASCs, with different types of ASCs that have to be looked at an recognized if you hope to have any actual meaningful conversation about anything related to this topic.

I would not call any experience an ectasy, by it's accepted common definition, if the individual is not consciously experiencing something different than what they were before.

Did I not say before that an ASC is only an ASC in relation to what is currently "normal" for the person? That "normal", that baseline of consciousness in fact can be transformed, as Paul clearly speaks of as the "renewing of your mind". So, as that mind is renewed, or transformed over time, what was previously an "altered state" is now the new "normal" state. So it's not an ASC any more.

Here's the thing about religious ecstasies you are hung up on. You keep imagining it's nothing but highly charged emotions. But as I've said repeatedly and you seem unwilling to be open to considering, it describes anything associated with religious experience of the divine.

If you're claiming that some kind of change is happening that the person is not even able to detect, or they just live in a constant state of having already been changed, then it's a slippery definition that lets you claim anything that anyone experiences is attributed to an "ecstasy" experience, even if they don't know it's happening.

As I've said, I don't think I would call the new "normal" as state of religious ecstacy. Even though the new normal contains the elements of what was originally a state of religious ecstacy (as many and varied in type and nature as those are), it is not experienced as "altered". But if the new "normal" then subsequently has an experience of consciousness that goes beyond its current "center of gravity", then that is an altered state. ASC is relative to current baseline. You are always aware when there is a shift.

At that point you should call it something else, because you've departed from the commonly accepted and dictionary meaning of that the word "ectasy".

Again, you and your silly "dictionary" as authoritative! Why don't you open an encyclopedia if you want any sort of actual understanding about things? Or better still, go read the actual experts in these fields. Here let me share what a search on Wiki has to say,

Marghanita Laski writes in her study "Ecstasy in Religious and Secular Experiences," first published in 1961:

"Epithets are very often applied to mystical experiences including ecstasies without, apparently, any clear idea about the distinctions that are being made. Thus we find experiences given such names as nature, religious, aesthetic, neo-platonic, sexual etc. experiences, where in some cases the name seems to derive from trigger, sometimes from the overbelief, sometimes from the known standing and beliefs of the mystic, and sometimes, though rarely, from the nature of the experience.

Ecstasies enjoyed by accepted religious mystics are usually called religious experiences no matter what the nature of the ecstasy or the trigger inducing it."
​

<snip>

According to practitioners, there are various stages of ecstasy, the highest being Nirvikalpa Samadhi. Bhakti Yoga especially, places emphasis on ecstasy as being one of the fruits of its practice.​

And so on, and so forth. Sounds like what I've been saying all along here. It's amazing how much greater understanding awaits us when we go to actual research and material available to us rather than reading a dictionary and thinking that qualifies us to say we are educated on a topic.

Back up and look at what you originally tried to assert: You tried to claim spiritual equivalence between what pagans did to what Christians did with regards to tongue speaking, and then used as evidence for their equivalence the fact that pagans appeared to be doing something similar prior to Pentecost.

I then pointed out that you would be wrong to assume that God's people could not have operated in this gift of the Holy Spirit prior to Pentecost.

I did not say they could not have spoken in tongues prior to Pentecost. In fact I said speaking in tongues has been happening in religious experience all along, regardless of which religion they are in. I was saying you demand scripture from me to back up what I am saying, but when it comes to you "supposing" it must have been there because God is the "same yesterday, today, and forever", is a bogus use of scripture and you therefore have no scriptural support. You apply a double standard to me which you yourself don't follow.

Especially when there is compelling evidence found in Jewish oral tradition that suggests it was experienced amongst God's people prior to Pentecost.
That gives precedence for the idea that God's people operated in a legitimate gift at some point prior to Pentecost which could have then later been counterfeited by Satan, as he is known throughout the Bible to counterfeit and corrupt everything God provides for His people.

No, it actually give support to what I said that is is a human religious phenomenon that exists in religions everywhere. This bogus "legitimate gift", is pure mythology. You have zero supporting evidence to say one is "real" and the other is not. This is a purely artificial distinction that you create to say "We have the truth and they have a lie". There is no evidence of difference whatsoever you can point to, other than who is practicing it. It's comparable to some racist saying blacks are not humans because their skin-color is not white. WTF?

But that is exactly what you are doing in saying their glossolalia is not "true glossilla" because they aren't Christians. Whatever fruits they bear are "fake", and all manner of illogical arguments to support one's prejudices against those who aren't yourself, who aren't part of your "group" identification. It's the same thing. You need to point to actual differences in the phenomenon itself, rather than purely superficial differences, such as which symbol they use, or religious rites, or beliefs, or differences in practices. Religious experience is religious experience. Glossolalia is the same regardless of the religion it's experienced within.

As far as saying it's actual known languages magically acquired, and that only Christians can magically speak fluent Chinese having never learned it, while all other "tongues" is just preverbal utterances without linguist structure, has no actual corroboration by objective research. It's all anecdotal, at best, like the preacher who claims to have brought 30 people back from the dead.

I don't need to be, nor did I try to be, dogmatic about whether or not it happened prior to Pentecost - I'm just pointing out that it's not sound reasoning on your part to assume it couldn't have happened.

I have assumed all along that it did. And I was happy you gave me actual material to show that it did. It supported what I expected to see. As far as this whole business of counterfeit tongues, you're going to have to back that up with some actual data, rather than paranoid conspiracy theories about the "devil". If it's counterfeit, it cannot be identical. Show me how it's not identical then.

 

[Rise]

You've regressed down to quoting Bible verses?

The Bible is our first authority for establishing and judging what is true, not a "regression".

As the recorded word of God, it gives us a baseline to judge our experiences because God's word is eternal and He does not change.
1 Peter 1:24-25
James 1:17

Personal experiences are subject to flaws of understanding, or deception.

Behind every false Christian belief system you will find someone elevating the word or experience of man over God's word.
Galatians 1:6-9

Absolutely! Let's read that verse together, "There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work."

If you see the fruits of the Spirit in others outside your religious-comfort-zone, then be assured, it is the same spirit, the "same God at work".

This is the crux of where you go wrong.
You assume that just because someone is manifesting supernatural phenomenon that they must be getting it from the Holy Spirit.
You did this when you tried to claim that ancient pagan manifestations of other tongues, which often resemble accounts of demonic possession more than pentecostal tongues, is from the same Holy Spirit the apostles received at Pentecost.

Biblically we can establish you are wrong to assume that.

No, it actually give support to what I said that is is a human religious phenomenon that exists in religions everywhere. This bogus "legitimate gift", is pure mythology. You have zero supporting evidence to say one is "real" and the other is not. This is a purely artificial distinction that you create to say "We have the truth and they have a lie". There is no evidence of difference whatsoever you can point to, other than who is practicing it. It's comparable to some racist saying blacks are not humans because their skin-color is not white. WTF?

Satan counterfeits and deceives:
2 Corinthians 11:13-15
Galatians 1:8
1 Timothy 4:1-2
2 Peter 2:1
2 Thessalonians 2:3-4
Revelation 12:9

Not everyone who thinks they are worshiping God, are:
John 4:22
John 4:24

Not all who appear to operate in the gift of Knowledge or Prophecy are actually operating in the Holy Spirit.
Deuteronomy 13:1-3
1 Kings 22:23
Jeremiah 14:14
Jeremiah 23:9-11
Jeremiah 23:16-18
Jeremiah 23:21-22
Jeremiah 23:33-36
Jeremiah 5:11-13
Lamentations 2:14
Ezekiel 13:6-7
Matthew 7:13
Matthew 20-23
Matthew 24:3-5
Matthew 10-11
Acts 16:16
As we were going to the place of prayer, we were met by a slave girl who had a spirit of divination and brought her owners much gain by fortune-telling.
Acts 16:18
And this she kept doing for many days. Paul, having become greatly annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, “I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.” And it came out that very hour.

Not everyone who appears to operating in a gift of signs and wonders is doing so by the Holy Spirit.
Matthew 24:24
Matthew 25:25
Exodus 7:11, Exodus 8:18
2 Thessalonians 2:9

Although some have been given supernatural strength by the Holy Spirit, not everyone who appears to have supernatural strength does so by the Holy Spirit:
Judges 14:6
Luke 8:29

God draws a distinction between the way pagans worship, and the way His people are to worship. What they were doing was not acceptable.
Deuteronomy 12:4
Matthew 6:7-8

We must spiritually discern the difference by the Holy Spirit.
1 John 2:22-26
1 Corinthians 2:14
1 Thessalonians 5:20-21
1 John 4:1
1 Corinthians 14:29

Ultimately satan, despite appearing to have some power, has no power when it comes to those empowered by God:
1 Kings 18:28-29
Exodus 8:18
Luke 10:19


This theme and pattern is well established all throughout scripture.

"Truly I tell you tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you," said Jesus to the religious who judged who is saved and who is not - such as you are doing.

You are taking that out of context.
The tax collectors and prostitutes were the ones repenting of their ways and following Jesus. Some of which even became his disciples.
The religious, in contrast, did not repent because they pridefully felt they had nothing to repent of.

You would be misusing that verse to claim that sinners are entering the kingdom of God without repentance and following Jesus.

By embracing the whole, you have embraced God. Let's not forget in the story of the Garden of Eden after man experienced sin he was cast out of the Garden. Isn't the whole story of Jesus about reversing that? I can tell you this, that if someone is in constant communion with God, as you've cited, you will in fact be very attune with and connected with the whole world. You will be restore to God, and the Garden.

Again, I ask, where in the Gospel do you find anything that remotely suggests the message of Jesus is to "embrace the creation and you embrace God"? . That's not the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That is not how you achieve restored communion with God and the removal of the effects of sin.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is, very clearly according to scripture:
Repent of your sins.
Recognize Jesus as having paid the price on your behalf.
Receive the Holy Spirit.
Be free of your sins and the consequences of it.
Follow Jesus and obey Him, letting the Kingdom of Heaven rule in your life.
Teach others to do the same.
Achieve your God given destiny and spend eternity reigning with Christ, and one day the perfect deathless dwelling of Eden we lost will be restored to us.

Sure, and who are my brothers and sisters, who is it that "follows" him, but those who do the will of the Father. That will of the Father is this, "To Love one another as I have loved you".

That's only half of it. You've left out the most important part:

You must love God first, and then love your neighbor as you love yourself.
Matthew 22:37-40

If you love God you do His will, and the Spirit of God abides with you.
John 14:23

 

[Windwalker]

The Bible is our first authority for establishing and judging what is true, not a "regression".

Quoting from the Bible, or quoting from a Dictionary, bypassing expressing your own opinions directly and therefore taking responsibility for them, is in fact a cop out. It's a regression into mindless parroting and rhetoric. Here's the funny thing you and those who are Bible-only quoters seem to not want to take responsibility for. They are your opinions whether you want to admit it or not.

Never, can anyone say legitimately, "It's not my words, but God's words". No, it is your idea of what you think you are reading, and you expressing your opinion and then lying to yourself and others that it's not. Anything that you say God's word say, is only what you think and believe it says.

Read this: http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...-of-scriptural-authority.173975/#post-4168991

As the recorded word of God, it gives us a baseline to judge our experiences because God's word is eternal and He does not change.

Nonsense. First of all, God's Logos (Word) is Eternal. The Bible is not. The Bible is ink on pages, and it does and has changed. That is a simple fact. Do not mistake words on a page with the Eternal Spirit. To make a book God is one thing only. Idolatry. The correct term for this is Bibliolotry, the worship of the Bible as God. The Bible is fallible. Do you know anything about how it was created, edited, modified, voted upon in committee meetings, and all of the jazz that went into creating the book you mistake as God and shut yourself off from God in so doing?

Personal experiences are subject to flaws of understanding, or deception.

Interpretation of texts is no exception to this! It's pure fiction and self-deception that you think you can bypass yourself in what you are reading on the pages of that book. Nobody can. There is no absolute interpretation. None of it can be considered authoritative in the absolute sense. Don't lie to others or yourself it can.

Behind every false Christian belief system you will find someone elevating the word or experience of man over God's word.

Behind every false Christian belief is one that believes it isn't their own point of view, but God's word. "It's not my words, but God's!". That, is what is behind everything false in religion. A complete lack of humility to say "I don't know". To say "I don't know," is in fact the beginning of Wisdom, through which Truth may begin to shine. That only happens when you step down from the pulpit with the Bible raised high in your hand screaming, "It's not my words, but God's!". That's the very beginning of error.

This is the crux of where you go wrong.
You assume that just because someone is manifesting supernatural phenomenon that they must be getting it from the Holy Spirit.

I'm not assuming anything. You can see the evidence for yourself. There are no differences in the phenomena themselves, only in the surrounding rituals and belief systems. If you get gasoline from a BP gas pump, versus a Stop 'N Go pump, your car is still being powered by the same thing.

Besides, who the hell said tongues are "supernatural"? I didn't. Tongues is a human religious phenomenon. They happen in states of religious ecstacy. All of what people attribute it to is just simply their mythologies about it, such as saying they are spirits who hop into you; channeling dead relatives, magical language acquisitions to preach to people who don't know the Greek language, a sign you are saved..... or..... fast forward to modern time, "a breakdown of the synapsis of the linguist centers of the brain, etc, etc, etc.

Here's the thing. The phenomenon is the same. The "explanations" for it are different. You are hung up on your explanation, your mythology, your way of viewing and understanding what they are. Since others in other religions don't share your mythology, to you "It must be something different!". No, hundreds of years ago when someone got the flu they believed it was due to "sin" or a "curse" or "bad spirits", etc. Now we know about germs and viruses. But the symptoms were identical! It was not a different illness, just simply different explanations.

This is what happens when we worship our beliefs. We cannot see past them, and cannot see God in others. We only see the differences in how we believe, and therefore deny you have anything in common with them. That, to me, is what true sin is. Truly falling short of the mark.

You did this when you tried to claim that pagan manifestations of other tongues, resembling possession accounts more than pentecostal tongues, is from the same Holy Spirit as the apostles at Pentecost experienced.

I think the story in Luke is mythological. It was his story, probably picked up from the myths of others, who like those in the Middle Ages believed the common cold was caused by spirits, trying to put a wrapper around cause and effect in mythological language. Very common thing to do. When you read Paul talking about it, written some 30 years before Luke wrote Acts, that was a practical discussion with it actually going on. And what I hear in that exchange is a little more light being cast upon it. And that light fits with what you see in all religions. The myth that is was "preaching the Gospel", is like saying a demon gave me a cold. That's not what the language supports in 1 Cor, nor the context of the discussion itself that was going on.

Nor does logic support it, for that matter! Why would God use a common religious expression as a "sign"? You want a real miracle as a sign for unbelievers, don't do what can and will be clearly mimicking what you see in these pagan temples! Just levitate the Christian 15 feet off the ground, then gracefully back down again. Now that would be a sign to unbelievers, alright!

I can just imagine the exchange back in Corinth. The Christian says "We have the truth, because see, we speak in tongues!" The pagan responds, "But we speak in tongues all the time up at the temple of Diana. How is that any different?" The Christian, using your argument responds, "Because it is. Our's comes from the Holy Spirit, and yours comes from Satan". Well, color me unconvinced. If it's meant to be a sign, then why do something commonplace? "I shall show you a sign! Behold the moon shall rise and shine light tonight after the sun goes down!" That's not a sign at all.

Talking in tongues is not a sign to those who do it themselves! It certainly doesn't work to impress unbelievers with much of anything at all, when they're used to seeing it happen all the time. "Oh look, he drinks water and eats food too, just like us. What's this he speaks of that being a sign to me about his God? How very odd he would think like this? We all drink and eat food."

Biblically we can establish you are wrong to assume that.

Biblically, shmiblically. You will only see in the Bible what your beliefs allow you to see. I read it differently, or at least understanding it differently as a whole than you do. I understand quite a lot about how people interpret things, and how they mistake their thoughts about something, as the reality of the thing itself. That's alright though, you're certainly not alone in this! That's why you have 30,000 plus Christian denominations all claiming they have it right and you're wrong. Welcome to the masses all thinking they're right because they read it in the Bible, mistaking the book for God himself.

Satan counterfeits and deceives:
2 Corinthians 11:13-15
Galatians 1:8
1 Timothy 4:1-2
2 Peter 2:1
2 Thessalonians 2:3-4
Revelation 12:9

Funny, when I read all of these it makes me think of all these preachers who preach their beliefs as "God's Word". They deceive not only others, but especially themselves. They are these who appear as an angel of light, a messenger of God, holding the Bible in their hands saying, "It's not my word, brother, it's God's word!". "By their fruits you shall know them". Division is not a fruit of the Spirit.

 

[Windwalker]

You are taking that out of context.
The tax collectors and prostitutes were the ones repenting of their ways and following Jesus. Some of which even became his disciples.
The religious, in contrast, did not repent because they pridefully felt they had nothing to repent of.

That's exactly right, and the point I was making. It's not those who claim to follow the "right God" who are 'saved', it's all those who are followers of the Way, in actuality, if not in name. They repented of sin and followed the path of Love - they followed Jesus. They all do, all who do this... Expand your thinking a little to see how that balloon fills the whole world, not just Christians. Think hard on this. Think very hard. Think with your heart.

You would be misusing that verse to claim that sinners are entering the kingdom of God without repentance and following Jesus.

No, they are not sinners if they follow the Way, the path of Love, the way of Jesus. If you follow the way of Jesus, if you love, if you follow Love, you are not a sinner because you are not sinning. All who do this enter into the Kingdom of God. Those who do not, are not. Those who are not, do not. It doesn't matter what religion you claim allegiance to. If you claim allegiance to Love, above and beyond your religion itself, then you follow the way of Jesus, you are following Jesus. Your religion is not what saves you. No religion does that. Do you not understand this?

Again, I ask, where in the Gospel do you find anything that remotely suggests the message of Jesus is to "embrace the creation and you embrace God"? . That's not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

"For God so loved the world he sent his only begotten son." I do not interpret that to mean "just men, and screw the world". There are many verses to speak of the love God has for all of creation, not just your little corner of this planet you see yourself as the king of the universe from.

But regardless of those, think about this. If God is Love, then that Love touches everyone and everything, from humans to asteroids. The poets speak of this display of Love which the Spirit of God kisses with Life. "When I consider the heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, or the son of man that you care for him?" If God so loved the world, his creation, and you experience the Love of God in you yourself, then how, how, how.... can one possibly not experience that very divine Love in themselves for everyone and everything, to the very point you see them and all of creation as a part of yourself, your own being? It is impossible to be otherwise.

And this is why Jesus taught, "Love God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.". These are the two commandments on which everything else depends upon. They are the first and last links in a great chain of being that if one end is broken the whole falls to the ground. Love comes from God and is God. When you have that in you as you seek that first, then that very selfsame Love in you, flows forth to others whom you love as yourself which is filled with that Love of God. You love others as you love God, in you, and in all things.

To Love another, means you Love God in you and in the world, in others, in everything. You naturally love the whole of Creation, as a pure extension of yourself in God. Your love becomes God's Love, your being becomes God's Being, and as God so loved the world, so do you. That is the Gospel. That is reconciliation with God.

That is not how you achieve restored communion with God and the removal of the effects of sin.

One does not "achieve" communion with God. Sounds to me like a problematic choice of words there. Do you believe you achieve salvation? Yet your word choice here seems to betray you. You are saying that what I am saying is not how you "achieve" this, suggesting you know how to correctly achieve this. So, how do you achieve reconciliation with God? What formula do you use? What works do you do to achieve this? What words do you speak to do this? What beliefs do you hold to lay claim to the Kingdom of God with those in hand like tickets to the show at the door? Please share. How do we "achieve" reconciliation with God?

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is, very clearly according to scripture:
Repent of your sins.
Recognize Jesus as having paid the price on your behalf.
Receive the Holy Spirit.
Be free of your sins and the consequences of it.
Follow Jesus and obey Him, letting the Kingdom of Heaven rule in your life.
Teach others to do the same.
Achieve your God given destiny and spend eternity reigning with Christ, and one day the perfect deathless dwelling of Eden we lost will be restored to us.

Wow, that all sounds so formalistic! Seven steps to follow in order to achieve entrance to the Eternal God of Love. Wow. This is not the Gospel.

That's only half of it. You've left out the most important part:

You must love God first, and then love your neighbor as you love yourself.
Matthew 22:37-40

I just saw this now! After I had written that entire section above about this! Too funny!

Yes sir! That's is THE important part! The single most important part of all of each and every religion. You do not get to heaven by converting to a religion! You become Love to the world when you do this commandment, no matter what religion you've signed up with. Period.

If you love God you do His will, and the Spirit of God abides with you.
John 14:23

Amen! And the will of God is to Love, even as I have Loved you. You don't have to part of the religion of Christianity to do this, to do God's will in loving others. And those who do, the Spirit of God abides in them - Pagan, Buddhist, Jew, Hindu, Christian, Atheist, and so forth. Those who do the will of God are the followers of Jesus, even if they do not claim the Christian religion as their faith or have ever even heard of Jesus. Those who love are born of God. Jesus might say today, "Atheists are entering the Kingdom before you," and he'd be right because those who love, in all walks of life, in all religious faiths, not just those who believe the 7 steps to heaven doctrine you think the Bible teaches, are the ones doing the will of the Father. If they choose Love, then they are all True Believers. They are children born of God, born of the Spirit. Believers in Love.

It's not that symbol at the top of the steeple that gets you in that Door.