I agree totally I just hate that when a pastor thnks he has to shout scream pound the pulpit etc.I think it is all for show. God really isnt deaf or impressed by this sort of behaviour and neither am I.  Fortunately we dont get much of that in the UK, but its one reason why I rarely watch Godtv. It makes me cringe.

Dear Winsome, the article link you supplied comes from by Robert Sungenis that has not experienced receiving the Holy Spirit manifested by speaking in tongues; how would he know anything of it? He is certainly a fish out of water using the following non-substantive explanations as authority. He seems to be a physician of no value; there is no balm in his words.

Seems
indicates
not explicit
the possibility
This means
make little sense
If the tongues
Paul seems to assume
Paul apparently does not see
If there had been
it seems reasonable to assume
it would be strange for Paul
it remains a possibility
Biblical tongues may have always come
It is also implied

I didn't say he was filled with the Holy Spirit. I said he had received the Holy Spirit, which is what you claimed he had not. He received the Holy Spirit at his baptism. Whether he is currently filled with the Holy Spirit neither I nor you can know.

Why do you claim that I have received knowledge of this subject from those who have never experienced it? For your information I have received Baptism in the Holy Spirit and was a member of a lay Charismatic Community for 10 years, and attended a Charismatic prayer meetings for at least 15 years.

Whether I prayed in tongues with the sense that Paul uses the word I'm not sure. It's a topic I'm still on hold about.

Yes, his study makes sense in that it throws light on the subject.

Using qualifiers like it seems etc. is to me is a sign of someone trying to weigh up evidence that is not conclusive but open to different interpretations. My point in referring to this study was that he had done a lot of research which is useful to know about whether you agree with his conclusions or not.

There is a some disagreement about whether tongues means some sort of ecstatic language or just foreign languages, or both. And if both which usage of the word glossalalia  refers to which type on the different occasions it is used. We just don't know whether what Pentecostal/Charismatics call tongues is what Paul was describing or not. There is so little information about in early documents.

Steering clear of people who self-validate because I don't know their history:

There is no such word as UNKNOWN tongues in the Bible.  The Apostles would be able to validate their Apostoleship after people believed and were baptized.   These were the only people given the promise and no one spoke in tongues (means languages) outside of the contact with an apostle VALIDATING the gospel

Mark 16:20 And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

Because Paul left us the SIGN of "lying wonders" which are induced with theatrics,

2Cor. 12:12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.

Because these signs come close to deceiving the very elect (the Church) I don't see how you can endorse something left as a SIGN by which we identify false teachers: For all the watching world can know--since they don't speak a real language and teach doctrine interpreted into a known language--they might be cursing God.  That is why I would be careful.

People who knew prophets such as Isaiah and Malachi understood that Messiah would come washing away the dung of Jerusalem and to disqualify the crooked race.  When the people heard the gospel which included the command to be baptized they would expect His spokesmen to be able to PROVE that "this was that" which had been promised.

No male spoke in unlearned languages--the doubting Jews understood Cornelius--outside fo the contact of an apostle. Then, the phenomena was to a GROUP such as "the Gentiles" or "those far away."

No woman ever spoke in unlearned tongues (languages) at any time in the New Testament.  Those in Corinth would be transients and everyone wants to speak up in the language of their "spirit" without having to translate with the "mind."  However, the church is a school (only) of the Bible (only) and it would sound like MADNESS if people tried to sing or comment in lots of languages.

The mental, rational, spiritual is that which distinguishes the School of Christ from the worship centers of the pagans.

An idea common in Shamanism for instance. Originally, the followers of Dionysus were women only. The Bacchae or Maenads, were, and are, the female devotees of Dionysus. The word bakkhos (masculine) or bakkh (feminine) means someone who has been possessed by the god, who literally has the god within. (The word entheos, meaning "having the god [= theos] within," is the root of our word enthusiasm.) The feminine plural of this word, bakkhai, is Latinized as "bacchae," hence the Bacchae. See also The Retinue of Dionysus.

Males who could be induced or initiated were largely discounted.  Paul said everyone trying to speak in their native LANGUAGES would sound like---

Mainas , ados, hê, ( [mainomai] )
A. raving, frantic, lussa v. l. in S.Fr.941.4; bakchê E.Ba.915 .
2. as Subst., mad woman, esp. Bacchante, Maenad,  of the Furies; of Cassandra

That is why Paul was warning about the "uncovered prophesiers" (11:5) as the Mad Women of Corinth because many were just out of paganism working fo Apollo or Abbadon / Appollyon..

The next day an evil spirit from God came forcefully upon Saul. He was prophesying in his house, while David was playing the harp, as he usually did. Saul had a spear in his hand 1 Sam 18:10

"He prophesied in the midst of the house. He was beside himself; made prayers, supplications, and incoherent imprecations: 'God preserve my life,' 'Destroy my enemies,' or such like prayers, might frequently escape from him in his agitated state. The Arabic intimates that he was actually possessed by an evil spirit, and that through it he uttered a sort of demoniacal predictions." (Clark, 1 Sam 18, p. 270).

"In ancient times, says Justin, kings used a spear instead of a diadem: And as spears were the emblems of supreme power, hence they were reputed as attributes of the Divinity, and were worshipped as representatives of the gods." (Adam Clark, 1 Sam. 18, p. 270)

Larry,

Yoiu are welcome to your opinions.

I entered this thread to offer a couple of quotes from St. Augustine, not to get involved in a debate on tongues.

I shall leave it there.

God bless