Defend your Faith

[Kutless]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself;

27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
Here are the verses I was referring to. Paul told the man who spoke in an unknown tongue if there is no interpreter to speak to himself and to God [in an unknown tongue]. My point is if this unknown tongue is, as you as saying, known to the one who speaks it, then how is this man edified by speaking in an unknown tongue to himself? He already knows the language. He would therefore be speaking to himself words he understands.

This would contradict what Paul said in vs 14.

14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

Paul was making a point. He was speaking rhetorically. He couldn't make the point if he said "I speak Hebrew therefore I understand the Torah readings. He makes the point with a hypothetical when he says, "If I don't speak Hebrew how will it edify me to hear the Torah read in Hebrew."

He wanted them to discontinue the traditional use of Hebrew unless there was an interpreter present to make sense of the reading to everyone so they would be edified.

Can you counter the fact that it seems Paul was against the use of tongues in the synagogue?

Originally Posted by Kutless

Paul was making a point. He was speaking rhetorically. He couldn't make the point if he said "I speak Hebrew therefore I understand the Torah readings. He makes the point with a hypothetical when he says, "If I don't speak Hebrew how will it edify me to hear the Torah read in Hebrew."

He wanted them to discontinue the traditional use of Hebrew unless there was an interpreter present to make sense of the reading to everyone so they would be edified.

Can you counter the fact that it seems Paul was against the use of tongues in the synagogue?

I don't know where you get this stuff from but it is definitely not what Paul was saying.

First of all, Paul was writing to a Gentile church - one where Greek was the language commonly spoken. When they read the scriptures, they read from what we call the Septuagint (a Greek translation of what we call the Old Testament). This Gentile church didn't have synagogues and I seriously doubt it was allowed to meet in the Jewish synagogue.

[Kutless]

Originally Posted by Chan

I don't know where you get this stuff from but it is definitely not what Paul was saying.

First of all, Paul was writing to a Gentile church - one where Greek was the language commonly spoken. When they read the scriptures, they read from what we call the Septuagint (a Greek translation of what we call the Old Testament). This Gentile church didn't have synagogues and I seriously doubt it was allowed to meet in the Jewish synagogue.

were there not Jewish Christians?

Didn't Paul deal with other Judaic customs like circumcision and the Jewish form of baptism?

Originally Posted by Kutless

were there not Jewish Christians?

Didn't Paul deal with other Judaic customs like circumcision and the Jewish form of baptism?

Yes to both questions but that still doesn't mean they met in Jewish synagogues or spoke Hebrew. Gentiles would certainly have not been welcome in a Jewish synagogue.

[Kutless]

Originally Posted by Chan

Yes to both questions but that still doesn't mean they met in Jewish synagogues or spoke Hebrew. Gentiles would certainly have not been welcome in a Jewish synagogue.

I can agree to one of your responses.

As far as Hebrew I'm still puzzled. This is radical I understand. But so far you have been most helpful.

Would it be right to say that some of the Judaic customs were prevalent in the churches/assemblies? Look at Pauls head shaving, Tomothy's cicumcision, Pual's scolding of Peter not eating with Gentiles. There does seem to be some jewishness to the early church.

Originally Posted by Kutless

I can agree to one of your responses.

As far as Hebrew I'm still puzzled. This is radical I understand. But so far you have been most helpful.

Would it be right to say that some of the Judaic customs were prevalent in the churches/assemblies? Look at Pauls head shaving, Tomothy's cicumcision, Pual's scolding of Peter not eating with Gentiles. There does seem to be some jewishness to the early church.

There's no doubt that some Jewish practices spilled over into the early church, especially when you keep in mind that until there started to be large numbers of Gentiles getting saved, or until Acts 15 perhaps, the Church was considered a sect of Judaism.

[Kutless]

Originally Posted by Chan

There's no doubt that some Jewish practices spilled over into the early church, especially when you keep in mind that until there started to be large numbers of Gentiles getting saved, or until Acts 15 perhaps, the Church was considered a sect of Judaism.

Another example was the seats reserved for the wealthy in James 2:2-3. Customary. The cheif seats in Matthew 23:6

Is it possible that by this we see that certain grouops were continuing in certain practices? He added unto the church daily....so what if entire congregations converted?

What about Paul in Acts 21:20-26 Jewish customs were definitely part of the early church.

Now back to the Talmud. Bro Chan or anyone have a problem with this document?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Chan

Yes to both questions but that still doesn't mean they met in Jewish synagogues or spoke Hebrew. Gentiles would certainly have not been welcome in a Jewish synagogue.

There were those who were not called Jews in the synagogues around the Roman empire. Would you consider these non Jewish believers to be Gentiles?

Ac 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath. 43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.

Ac 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: 2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, 3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom F34 I preach unto you, is Christ. 4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.

Originally Posted by mizpeh

There were those who were not called Jews in the synagogues around the Roman empire. Would you consider these non Jewish believers to be Gentiles?

Ac 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath. 43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.

Ac 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: 2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, 3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom F34 I preach unto you, is Christ. 4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.

Proselytes were converts to the Jewish faith. That's not the same thing as Gentile Christians.