|
Didaktikon
|
51# |
Rank:Posterior Maximus I
Score:17450
Registered:
29/08/2007
|
Reply To TBerry
(Date Posted:19/03/2008 01:48:04)
TBerry,
You're absolutely correct, and I must unreservedly apologise! You see, when I was originally putting together the Acts essay, I used a large body of work that I had been preparing for a doctoral dissertation. I went into much greater detail therein, including references to Acts 11, but eventually excised it from my smaller piece for lack of need. You see, everything that's relevant, including Peter referring to what had happened with the Apostles at Pentecost, is contained in Acts 10! Mea culpa, I simply remembered doing the work, but muddled which paper it appears in.
Its ok brolga, you're missing my whole point - im not talking about tongues etc - stop jumping to that conclusion. Im talking about the fact that Acts 11:15-16 is not mentioned in Ian essay anywhere - have a look for yourself. He keeps telling me that 'oh of course ive covered all that' but fact is he hasnt cover it at all. And the real understanding is that the subjects within Luke 24, Acts 1 & 2 inlcude more than just the disciples - indeed as Peter alludes by used that Acts 11:15-16 scripture that the whole context and focus group of whom jesus was originally talking to is now openned right up for all the world - including the gentiles. (forget about tongues for a moment).
Of course, there's nothing in Acts 11 that supports your contention, either: it's naught but a minor digression, one (however) which you've apparently latched on to.
Acts 11:15-16 NKJV
15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. 16 Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, ‘John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’
(direct quote and usage of Acts 1:5 that is evidently only supposed to refer to 12 disciples, but Peter is using it to show the context now has wider implications than that!)
Sure, Peter was reminiscing about what had transpired with him and his fellow apostles at Pentecost. You see here's the thing: there is a pattern to Acts, and it relates to the inclusion of corporate people groups into the Body, mission and work of God. But the implications are actually quite different to what you suppose, and in many respects they hinge more on the work that Philip originally did in Samaria.
Acts 15:8-11 NKJV
8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.”
(lets stop putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples - they neither called for such aclaim but are our examples of what is now freely given to all without distinction)
You're still missing the point. If you read my essay on Acts, you would have noted that I addressed the issue of God giving the Spirit "in like kind" to gentiles in chapter 10, and just as importantly, 'why'. And what a stir it caused among the Jewish-Christians who had accompanied Peter! But your proof-text of Acts 11 adds no additional information to the discussion at all, anyway, as the passage simply replicates material found in chapter 10. Further, there is nothing in Acts 10 or 11 which mirrors either your group's experience or its theology.
Now can we please return to the discussion, proper? In my previous post (a response to you) I introduced a considerble volume of explanatory information that renders your opinions on the matter completely without merit. Would it be too much to ask that you 'rewind' a little, and do me the honor of responding to it? 'Rabbit-trails' and side issues can be addressed later 
Thanks,
Ian
(Message edited by Didaktikon On 19/03/2008 01:53:13)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Akriboo
|
52# |
Rank:Newbie
Score:570
Registered:
16/03/2008
|
RE:2 Questions
(Date Posted:19/03/2008 02:12:40)
Hi TBerry, Very interesting point you have made. I have read Ian's responses and know where he is coming from. However, I am still a little unsure as to the reason why you think that Acts 11:15-16 is specifically talking about the 120 in Acts 1? Ian has at great lengths explained why Act 1 & 2 can not apply to the 120 but to the Apostles only. Not only did he use our current English grammar, but also the Greek. As an observer thus far, it seems to me that Ian has demonstrated his position using scripture quite convincingly. I just want to ask you to explain why you think that Peter's word relate to the 120? Having consideration that the commencement of the chapter, Peter was talking to his fellow apostles who were with him at the day of Pentecost...would it not make sense if Peter is relaying an event to his fellow apostles who were sharing a similar experience previously to say exactly what he said? Put yourself in that position, do a hypothetical where you are a rally and you went up to a group of pastors and said to them, "I was just outside talking to this guy about Jesus when all of a sudden he began to sing ‘oh for a thousand tongues'. I then remembered that we used to sing it as well and it was exactly the same as we sang it" If you are directing your conversation to a select group (in this case the pastors), then why do you think that the conversation is referring to everyone that is in that rally? I just need you to explain why you think that Peter was talking about 120 and not only about the apostles...having in mind Ian's explanation. God bless Akriboo
|
RF_on_the_edge
|
53# |
Rank:Regular Poster
Score:3180
Registered:
12/03/2007
|
RE:2 Questions
(Date Posted:19/03/2008 04:17:37)
TB
Just to reinforce Ian's assertion about Ac 11 being covered in his analysis of Ac 10 ...
Y'know I thought Ian was making the point that the relevant issues of Ac 11:15-16 were all covered in the essay, 'cos as far as I could see they were.
As an aside, what do you make of the "in the beginning" bit? It seems to take away from the RF position that tongues always accompanied receiving the Spirit.
|
|
TBerry
|
54# |
Rank:Newbie
Score:530
Registered:
12/03/2008
|
RE:2 Questions
(Date Posted:19/03/2008 05:54:40)
Ive made it more than obvious that there were others in reference - i havent even been harping on the 120. The point is, the way peter uses Acts 1 quotes later on to the broader community - the whomsoever implies that we can likewise do the same. Say to anyone in any context now the gospel is open to all - gentile, jew, bond, free, multigenerational. You too can have exactly what the disciples had. Its not too much to ask of God - its been blown right open (even if it was initially only for the disciples - the fact is the latter rain is on and aint nobody gonna stop it with mere words). And that if it was good for Peter to use this stuff out of context to the point of Luke including it in his recount of Acts, then obviously its a fine example for us to follow. Let us open up the pentecost experience to all and sundry now. I do not believe the Lord wants us to preach a message that somehow closes it all off with the disciples. Beyond the fact they (and others) were the subjects of Jesus conversations - its all in the Word now. You say why, i simply say why not? Lets go for it - if its good enough for the gentiles even to grasp, then we should all be going with it too.
|
|
MothandRust
|
55# |
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:32740
Registered:
27/02/2004
|
Reply To TBerry
(Date Posted:19/03/2008 06:01:06)
Reply to TB:
You too can have exactly what the disciples had. Its not too much to ask of God - its been blown right open (even if it was initially only for the disciples - the fact is the latter rain is on and aint nobody gonna stop it with mere words).
You too can have flames appear on your heads, experience the sound of a violent blowing wind, and speak in a language that will be understood by people in their own native tongues!?? Exactly what the disciples had? Really? Wow, sign me up, sound awesome!
--------------------------------------------------------------
“The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic” - Darwin
|
|
TBerry
|
56# |
Rank:Newbie
Score:530
Registered:
12/03/2008
|
RE:2 Questions
(Date Posted:19/03/2008 07:18:10)
True but - the apostle Paul spoke in tongues; different to that of the disciples of the pentecost day. However he didnt become cinical about it like you. He was happy to pray in tongues at a personal level despite the apparent difference to that of those disciples at pentecost. Its ok moth, you dont need to feel insufficient just because of the way we speak in tongues is somewhat different to the first outpouring. You dont have to bag it. I mean isnt this your whole point! - that the disciples had something only they were given. The rest of us just speak in plain old tongues as per the apostle Paul. But its there and still available. Be happy with what the Lord has given you - but we dont have to compare with the disciples or devalue the tongues we've been given hey.
| | |
