Good morning, TBerry.
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.
Actually, unless you first understand the context that underpinned Peter's comments, then you're not in any position to be making assumptions concerningits application, or its supposed continuing relevance.
Say to anyone in any context now the gospel is open to all - gentile, jew, bond, free, multigenerational.
Agreed. Completely. But this isn't a discussion about the gospel, which is, of course, timeless. No, we've been discussing what happened to the apostles at Pentecost, and just as important, why. 
You too can have exactly what the disciples had.
Really? That would be the old, "...every promise in the Book is mine, every chapter, every verse, very liiiiine..." sort of 'folk' theology, eh? The fact is that not every promise in Scripture is actually universal. And as I've pointed out (about a million times already), the promise concerning the specific empowering at Pentecost was specifically made by Jesus Christ, specifically to his apostles. Now for whatever reason, you've gone out of your way to avoid, like the plague, engaging with what I have very clearly proven to be the case, and from the English text that's available to all! Instead of actually engaging with what I've written, and attempting to refute the same, you've simply persisted in repeating your own views, over and over, as if doing so proves your point. Really quite silly, if you think about it.
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).
Right. 
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.
Two things: (1) Peter didn't use "this stuff" out of context at all; and even if he had, (2) Peter was an apostle, one who was specifically empowered by Christ, and specifically led by the Holy Spirit. No person living today can claim the privileges to 'infallibility' the apostles exercised.
Let us open up the pentecost experience to all and sundry now.
Sure, but it still wouldn't help you or the various Revivalist sects, as your 'experience' isn't the Pentecostal one! Unless, of course, your 'experience' happened strictly in a group context, one that incorporated the sound of a violently blowing wind, and a theophany of parting flame, and the distribution of authentic languages that were understood by 'unbelievers' who were present. You see, if your experience doesn't replicate the full range of manifestations that are described in Acts 2, then it simply isn't Pentecostal! Capiche? 
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.
Have you not read a single word that I have written in my previous posts?! 
What you may, or may not, care to believe is irrelevant! What is relevant, however, is the very clear record that was left to us.
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.
Amazing!
The apostle Paul spoke in tongues; different to that of the disciples of the pentecost day.
Indeed he did! Paul's was the simple gift of tongues, and not the manifestation of miraculously spoken foreign langauges that we read of at Pentecost. Here's the rub: they are not the same!
However he didnt become cinical about it like you.
Really? Have you not read 1 Corinthians 12 through 14?!
He was happy to pray in tongues at a personal level despite the apparent difference to that of those disciples at pentecost.
'Apparent' difference, huh? Try this one -- different in: (1) form, (2) function, (3) purpose, (4) practice, and (5) relevance.
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.
Bloke, the way that you speak in 'tongues' has absolutely nothing in common with what occurred at Pentecost. If you want to find biblical warrant for your 'experience', then you need to look to the situation encountered by Paul at Corinth, not Jerusalem. And the simple of gift of tongues, the type that Paul writes about in his letter, is not presented as the 'sign' of having 'received' the Holy Spirit! So if you accept this, then you've no grounds whatsover for linking what you do, to the phenomena of Pentecost, or (for that matter) to the promise of Acts 2:38 that your group hinges everything on. 
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.
There you go! A tacit admission that what you have isn't what the apostles experienced at Pentecost! So if what you have is the simple gift of tongues, and according to Paul, the "least of all gifts", then you've no grounds for linking your experience to the events of Pentecost, have you?
Try spending a little time thinking long and hard on the ramifications of this.
Blessings,
Ian
P.S. I've politely asked you, several times now, to engage with the points that I've raised that disprove your position. To respond to them. To attempt to refute them. But in spite of this, you've not done so, at any point! Consequently, as with my previous interractions with 'MM', I'm rapidly tiring of such 'one-sided engagement' So in closing, engage or diminish: I have better things to do with my time then 'bash' my head against a brick wall in the vain hope that you'll start engaging with me. So please, have a 'crack' at addressing the many, many holes that I've pointed out in your argument.
(Message edited by Didaktikon On 19/03/2008 18:09:14)
My family goes camping this time every year with another family, to spend time together, and to reflect on Christ's Passion and Resurrection.
)
)
