- Thanks for the clarification. I had assumed that of the many options amongst dissociative states it was not those that included depersonalization, postMessage 1 of 63 , Jan 9, 2012View SourceThanks for the clarification. I had assumed that
of the many options amongst dissociative states
it was not those that included depersonalization,
post traumatic memory loss, or multiple personality
disorder etc etc. The more specific description
does make more sense, but seems to focus on some aspects of
the literary descriptions of early Christian experience
rather than others.
But just at the moment the crosstalk group seems to have
hares running in more directions than one would find
around the summit of Ben Chonzie (pron. Ben-Y-Hone), so
I will wait a bit before pursuing this one.
David Mealand, University of Edinburgh
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
- ... But it is important also to realize that Paul would not have written this if he had not encountered glossolalia, and that Paul was writing about aMessage 63 of 63 , Jan 12, 2012View SourceAt 03:44 PM 1/12/2012, Gordon Raynal wrote:
>David,But it is important also to realize that Paul would not have written
>Thanks for this note.
this if he had not encountered glossolalia, and that Paul was writing
about a generation after the Crucifixion, whereas Acts purports to
describe something that happened a short time after the Crucifixion.
And Paul does refer to glossolalia as one of the gifts of the spirit,
and therefore legitimate. So we do have a phenomenon that is
important to study and understand.
>On Jan 12, 2012, at 5:21 PM, David Mealand wrote:[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > Bob points out that Paul concedes that tongues
> > could be allowed, if followed by interpretation, but
> > Paul also adds a further restrictive clause that
> > they are not allowed, if there is no interpreter there.
> > One of the problems for a pan-Pentecostal theory
> > of Christian origins is surely the severity of Paul's
> > restrictive restraints. Not all simultaneously, only two
> > per session, or three maximum, and only if an interpreter
> > is present. The spirits are subject to the prophets.
> > Not confusion but peace is the true way. This regulator
> > is not asleep at the wheel.
>Well said. Which means with interpreter's present there is a
>standard, if you will, for the content of the holy communication and
>"a place" within a broader spectrum of activities central to the
>gatherings. And this takes us back to the language of the
>community... the language of theology, ethics, wisdom.
> > Of course Paul is not banning prophecy, but he is
> > not letting it run amok. I am familiar with an occasional
> > scenario after which a Friend of long standing will say
> > "that was an unquiet meeting": a more severe rebuke than it
> > appears to be if the quantity of ministry has been
> > too plentiful.
> > David M.
> > ---------
> > David Mealand, University of Edinburgh
>The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
>To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: email@example.com
>To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: firstname.lastname@example.org
>List managers may be contacted directly at: email@example.com
>Yahoo! Groups Links