Forum for ex-members of Revival Churches
Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums > Bible, Beliefs, Scriptures and 'The Word' > Didaktikon debunks Revivalist 'Theology' Go to subcategory:
Author Content
TBerry
  • Rank:New User
  • Score:610
  • Posts:26
  • From:Australia
  • Register:12/03/2008 10:03 PM

Date Posted:12/03/2008 10:40 PMCopy HTML

Hello - i have 2 questons regarding the 12-disciples only tongues theory thats been raised...

It was stated that only the 12 disciples would have received the tongues manifestation at pentecost.
It was also stated that tongues at pentecost were clearly defined languages (which they were).

Question 1:  Why then were a total of 15 languages heard, when only a total of 12 people evidently spoke in tongues? (Acts 2:8-12)

Question 2: If as has been eluded, tongues was for preaching, why did Peter not stand up and preach the gospel in his newly given tongue? Why did he simply use his learned mother tongue to do the preaching?
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #1
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:12/03/2008 10:56 PMCopy HTML

Good morning, TBerry.

Hello - i have 2 questons regarding the 12-disciples only tongues theory thats been raised...

Sure.

It was stated that only the 12 disciples would have received the tongues manifestation at pentecost. It was also stated that tongues at pentecost were clearly defined languages (which they were).

Yep.

Question 1: Why then were a total of 15 languages heard, when only a total of 12 people evidently spoke in tongues? (Acts 2:8-12)

The languages on that day were indicative of the various regions in which the Jews were dispersed following the sacking of Israel and Judea by Assyria and Babylon. This answers the "what". Now the Greek construction of the relevant passage in Acts states the apostles "began to speak"  the various languages. There is no reason to dismiss the possibility (actually the "fact") that the twelve "began to speak" the different languages, by course.

Question 2: If as has been eluded, tongues was for preaching, why did Peter not stand up and preach the gospel in his newly given tongue? Why did he simply use his learned mother tongue to do the preaching?

Because there is no allusion whatsover that the purpose of the manifestation at Pentecost was for "preaching".

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #2
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:13/03/2008 8:21 AMCopy HTML

Question 2: If as has been eluded, tongues was for preaching, why did Peter not stand up and preach the gospel in his newly given tongue? Why did he simply use his learned mother tongue to do the preaching?

How do you know he used his 'learned mother tongue' anyway?

14 - But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:

As far as we know, he may have been 'still' speaking in a language that was interpretable by all the different dialects there that day. Just a thought... I can't why you'd think he was using his learned mother tongue and not his 'newly given tongue' for this statement. It's not even implied that there's a differentiation.
[LINK SiteName=Mothrust: Movies and Modern Myth Target=_blank]http://aintchristian.blogspot.com.au/[/LINK] Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #3
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:13/03/2008 2:22 PMCopy HTML

One might ask the same question about the epistles. Where they written in "tongues" to those he sent them to?

Magic text? Makes about as much sense as a magic language, I suppose.

1 Peter 1:1 tells us Peter was directing his message to other than Galileans. I don't have time at the moment to see if all those 'tribes" link up with Pentecost names, but note that Asia is linked so I am assuming others are also.

Come again?

Again I would assume that the majority, at the time of the Passover gathering, would be able to communicate with a common language.

I dunno, and we don't want to make asses out of you and me... I know... the old 'assume' line IS old, but meh, it's late. Assuming is

I would conclude it only logical that Peter was speaking in his 'learned mother tongue'.

I'm not sure that's conclusive, but I'd say it's a fair guess. The point I was making was that Revivalists make this supposed distinction here. As if Peter was speaking away in magic language then turned to the crowd in his native tongue to explain why they were speaking in a magic language. but this is when arguing they're arguing against the idea that the initial tongue experience here enabled them to speak in languages that other dialects could understand... ya know... ya know what I mean? erm... it's been established that other dialects could understand them - according to the Holy Babble, but then other scriptures say that no man understands tongues... It's all mixed up and I find it sickening (cough) when people try to add up all the scant mentions of tongues and languages and try to tie them up into a convoluted 'salvation' doctrine... but that's just me, but maybe not solely.

[LINK SiteName=Mothrust: Movies and Modern Myth Target=_blank]http://aintchristian.blogspot.com.au/[/LINK] Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #4
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:13/03/2008 9:18 PMCopy HTML

Good morning, Pete.

How do you know he used his 'learned mother tongue' anyway?

14 -
But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:

As far as we know, he may have been 'still' speaking in a language that was interpretable by all the different dialects there that day. Just a thought... I can't why you'd think he was using his learned mother tongue and not his 'newly given tongue' for this statement. It's not even implied that there's a differentiation.


We know that he preached in Greek on that day, and for reasons which I clearly outlined in my "super" Acts essay.

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
TBerry Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #5
  • Rank:New User
  • Score:610
  • Posts:26
  • From:Australia
  • Register:12/03/2008 10:03 PM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:13/03/2008 11:54 PMCopy HTML

 

How do you know he used his 'learned mother tongue' anyway?

14 - But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:

As far as we know, he may have been 'still' speaking in a language that was interpretable by all the different dialects there that day. Just a thought... I can't why you'd think he was using his learned mother tongue and not his 'newly given tongue' for this statement. It's not even implied that there's a differentiation.

MothandRust

The writer of Acts was Luke as we know - he was a Greek Physician and Gentile (you'll notice how he became saved half way thru Acts as he starts using the term 'we' instead of 'them'). He was also a historian and writer. He would have heard the common language at the time (greek).

Ian

not sure about your summation of the tongues heard at penecost (ie. you say only 12 spoke in tongues so some of them spoke in two languages).  This as you know is a stretch!  More obvious would be the fact that 120 spoke in tongues and within that the 15 different languages were heard.
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #6
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:14/03/2008 12:26 AMCopy HTML

TBerry,

not sure about your summation of the tongues heard at penecost (ie. you say only 12 spoke in tongues so some of them spoke in two languages). This as you know is a stretch! More obvious would be the fact that 120 spoke in tongues and within that the 15 different languages were heard.

The explanation that I offered is not, even in the slightest, a "stretch". The text quite clearly, and specifically, indicates that only the Twelve miraculously spoke in the languages of the Diaspora on that day. This is so in the Greek, obviously, but also in English translation. Consider, in English we have a grammatical rule known as the rule of Concord, which states: that a pronoun must agree with its antecedant in case, person, number and gender. Acts 1:26 ends with the eleven original surviving apostles, to which was added Matthias. Acts 2:1, the very next verse, describes that "... they were altogether in one place ..." To whom does the "they" refer? According to this simple rule of English grammar, it would be to the eleven apostles plus Matthias. And if you cared to read back into chapter one before verse 26, you will find that the direct subject of the discussion remained the apostles from verse one through 14, and from verse 21 onwards! (Including the all-important promise of being baptised in the Holy Spirit!) This is a simple fact that you can verify for yourself from any English version.

Further, have you reflected on the fact that the crowd identified the ones speaking "in tongues" were all Galilieans (see 2:7)? The gospels make it very plain that Jesus' disciples were not all Galileans in the first place, but included Judeans and others among the number. However, isn't it provocative that all the surviving apostles were Galileans? Further still, note verse 14: "But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted is voice ..." And what are we to take of verse 15: "...these men are not drunk..."? This clear and gendered statement excludes the various Mary's, Martha, etc from consideration. These are simply a very few immediate examples that rather effectively dismiss your position that the supposed "120" were in view. I can give more, if you'd like.

And to close, how is it that you find the possibility of 12 men speaking about 15 languages and dialects difficult, but 120 speaking 15 languages/dialects less difficult? Where is the logic in that? Wink

Blessings,

Ian

P.S.I think you continue to read into the text what it is that you've been taught to believe, rather than reading out from the text what is clearly there.
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
TBerry Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #7
  • Rank:New User
  • Score:610
  • Posts:26
  • From:Australia
  • Register:12/03/2008 10:03 PM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:16/03/2008 11:52 AMCopy HTML

 Ian, still see your claims as wrong - you're not reading the bible.  Acts 1:14 for example shoots your whole point down. Peter addressed the 120 believers and chose Matthias in front of them (120 believers) and spoke in tongues with then (120 believers) and clearly states "These people (120 believers) are not drunk.

Acts 1:12-26 NLT

 12 Then the apostles returned to Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives, a distance of half a mile. 13 When they arrived, they went to the upstairs room of the house where they were staying.
   Here are the names of those who were present: Peter, John, James, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, James (son of Alphaeus), Simon (the Zealot), and Judas (son of James). 14 They all met together and were constantly united in prayer, along with Mary the mother of Jesus, several other women, and the brothers of Jesus.

 15 During this time, when about 120 believers were together in one place, Peter stood up and addressed them. 16 “Brothers,” he said, “the Scriptures had to be fulfilled concerning Judas, who guided those who arrested Jesus. This was predicted long ago by the Holy Spirit, speaking through King David. 17 Judas was one of us and shared in the ministry with us.”

 18 (Judas had bought a field with the money he received for his treachery. Falling headfirst there, his body split open, spilling out all his intestines. 19 The news of his death spread to all the people of Jerusalem, and they gave the place the Aramaic name Akeldama, which means “Field of Blood.”)

 20 Peter continued, “This was written in the book of Psalms, where it says, ‘Let his home become desolate, with no one living in it.’ It also says, ‘Let someone else take his position.’

 21 “So now we must choose a replacement for Judas from among the men who were with us the entire time we were traveling with the Lord Jesus—22 from the time he was baptized by John until the day he was taken from us. Whoever is chosen will join us as a witness of Jesus’ resurrection.”

 23 So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they all prayed, “O Lord, you know every heart. Show us which of these men you have chosen 25 as an apostle to replace Judas in this ministry, for he has deserted us and gone where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and Matthias was selected to become an apostle with the other eleven.

Acts 2:1-16 NLT

 1 On the day of Pentecost all the believers were meeting together in one place. 2 Suddenly, there was a sound from heaven like the roaring of a mighty windstorm, and it filled the house where they were sitting. 3 Then, what looked like flames or tongues of fire appeared and settled on each of them. 4 And everyone present was filled with the Holy Spirit and began speaking in other languages, as the Holy Spirit gave them this ability.
 5 At that time there were devout Jews from every nation living in Jerusalem. 6 When they heard the loud noise, everyone came running, and they were bewildered to hear their own languages being spoken by the believers.

 7 They were completely amazed. “How can this be?” they exclaimed. “These people are all from Galilee, 8 and yet we hear them speaking in our own native languages! 9 Here we are—Parthians, Medes, Elamites, people from Mesopotamia, Judea, Cappadocia, Pontus, the province of Asia, 10 Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt, and the areas of Libya around Cyrene, visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism), Cretans, and Arabs. And we all hear these people speaking in our own languages about the wonderful things God has done!” 12 They stood there amazed and perplexed. “What can this mean?” they asked each other.

 13 But others in the crowd ridiculed them, saying, “They’re just drunk, that’s all!”

Peter Preaches to the Crowd

 14 Then Peter stepped forward with the eleven other apostles and shouted to the crowd, “Listen carefully, all of you, fellow Jews and residents of Jerusalem! Make no mistake about this. 15 These people are not drunk, as some of you are assuming. Nine o’clock in the morning is much too early for that. 16 No, what you see was predicted long ago by the prophet Joel:
RF_on_the_edge Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #8
  • Rank:Regular Poster
  • Score:3180
  • Posts:156
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:12/03/2007 10:25 PM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:16/03/2008 11:04 PMCopy HTML

TBerry,

As a 'non-Greek-geek' it seems to me that you seem to have missed the point of Ian's post. E.g., you haven't addressed the issue of the fog of dynamic equivalence and you haven't addressed the issues of Ac 2:7 and 2:14 which have made it through the fog of the NLT's dynamic equivalence.

That said, since you quote from the NLT's translation, can we take it as read that you also support the following paragraphs from the NLT (1 Co 12)?

27 All of you together are Christ's body, and each of you is a part of it. 28 Here are some of the parts God has appointed for the church:

   first are apostles,
   second are prophets,
   third are teachers,
   then those who do miracles,
   those who have the gift of healing,
   those who can help others,
   those who have the gift of leadership,
   those who speak in unknown languages.

 29 Are we all apostles? Are we all prophets? Are we all teachers? Do we all have the power to do miracles? 30 Do we all have the gift of healing? Do we all have the ability to speak in unknown languages? Do we all have the ability to interpret unknown languages? Of course not! 31 So you should earnestly desire the most helpful gifts.

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #9
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:16/03/2008 11:20 PMCopy HTML

Good morning, TBerry,

Ian, still see your claims as wrong - you're not reading the bible. Acts 1:14 for example shoots your whole point down. Peter addressed the 120 believers and chose Matthias in front of them (120 believers) and spoke in tongues with then (120 believers) and clearly states "These people (120 believers) are not drunk.

Well, now. I don't think anyone has ever suggested to me before, that I'm not reading the Bible when I do my exegesis! Laughing But seriously, I think you need to go back and review my previous post on the subject. It would probably help if you also read my Acts essay too, as both clearly disprove your misunderstanding of the thrust of the passage from Acts 1:15 passim, and then grammatically (one from English, the other from Greek). Consequently, you might care to revise some basic English grammar principles, as such will certainly aid your comprehension in tracing the flow of the passage.

Acts 1:12-26 NLT

12 Then the apostles returned to Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives, a distance of half a mile. 13 When they arrived, they went to the upstairs room of the house where they were staying. Here are the names of those who were present: Peter, John, James, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, James (son of Alphaeus), Simon (the Zealot), and Judas (son of James). 14 They all met together and were constantly united in prayer, along with Mary the mother of Jesus, several other women, and the brothers of Jesus.

'Yep'. I spent quite a bit of time in my Acts essay addressing this passage, and its significance.

15 During this time, when about 120 believers were together in one place, Peter stood up and addressed them. 16 “Brothers,” he said, “the Scriptures had to be fulfilled concerning Judas, who guided those who arrested Jesus. This was predicted long ago by the Holy Spirit, speaking through King David. 17 Judas was one of us and shared in the ministry with us.”

To begin with, it's probably worth pointing out to you that the NLT is being somewhat interpretative when it says, "... Peter stood up and addressed them (the 120)." The Greek text that the NLT translators used was the UBS4/NA27, and it doesn't state that at all Wink However, who it was that Peter was then addressing, or who was around at the time, really isn't the salient feature in the current dispute. After all, from verse 21 onwards Peter was very clearly addressing the surviving apostles; and verse 26 ends with the subject of the passage being Matthias and the remaining eleven apostles. I highlight why this is important in my previous post.

Acts 2:1-16 NLT

1 On the day of Pentecost all the believers were meeting together in one place. 2 Suddenly, there was a sound from heaven like the roaring of a mighty windstorm, and it filled the house where they were sitting. 3 Then, what looked like flames or tongues of fire appeared and settled on each of them. 4 And everyone present was filled with the Holy Spirit and began speaking in other languages, as the Holy Spirit gave them this ability.

Again, the NLT is being overly interpretative in its choosing of some of the language used at this point. To begin with, the original Greek text doesn't say, "... all the believers". What is generally translated into English as, "they were all" in a majority of English versions, is esan pantes in Greek: the 3rd person active, imperfect, indicative plural verb for "to be"; coupled with the nominative, plural, masculine form of the adjective for "all". The reason that the majority of English translations use the 3rd person plural, subjective, personal pronoun "they", is that it best 'fits' the meaning of this particular Greek construction. And, as I very clearly pointed out to you in my earlier post, the Rule of Concord demands that the antecedant for "they" is Matthias and the eleven surviving apostles. I go into much greater detail in my Acts essay, describing precisely why the '120' could not be in view.

7 They were completely amazed. “How can this be?” they exclaimed. “These people are all from Galilee, 8 and yet we hear them speaking in our own native languages! 9 Here we are—Parthians, Medes, Elamites, people from Mesopotamia, Judea, Cappadocia, Pontus, the province of Asia, 10 Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt, and the areas of Libya around Cyrene, visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism), Cretans, and Arabs. And we all hear these people speaking in our own languages about the wonderful things God has done!” 12 They stood there amazed and perplexed. “What can this mean?” they asked each other.

And the above causes you something of a significant dilemma! A good number of Jesus' disciples were not from Galilee, but from Judea Innocent

14 Then Peter stepped forward with the eleven other apostles and shouted to the crowd, “Listen carefully, all of you, fellow Jews and residents of Jerusalem! Make no mistake about this. 15 These people are not drunk, as some of you are assuming. Nine o’clock in the morning is much too early for that. 16 No, what you see was predicted long ago by the prophet Joel:

As I pointed out to you previously, the original Greek text doesn't use a non-gendered word for "people", but the Greek plural, demonstrative, and masculine pronoun houtoi: which is a gendered reference! Further, according to the canons of Greek grammar, the pronoun houtoi has as its antecedant tois hendeka: "the Eleven"! No matter how you might care to "wiggle" around the issue, Luke was explicitly clear in what he was saying Wink

Now if we were to humour your suggestion for a moment, that the '120' experienced the manifestations of Pentecost, this still wouldn't help or support your Revivalist doctrine! Consider: nothing that occurred at Pentecost AD 30 is actually reflected in your Revivalist 'experience'! No sound of a violent wind. No sheet-like theophany having the appearance of flame, which then distributed and rested over each of the 'anointed'. No miraculous speaking of authentic languages. And perhaps most telling of all, with Revivalism what appears in Scripture as a strictly corporate event is 're-interpreted' by you fellows into being an strictly individualistic one! So, no matter how one looks at things, Acts 2 simply isn't the "this is that" of Revivalism Undecided

So, in closing I'll restate an earlier comment: I fear that you are reading into the text what you have been taught to believe, rather than reading out from the text what is actually there Wink

Blessings,

Ian

P.S. My aim in this thread has been to demonstrate, and then from English versions, that one can quite clearly work out who it was that was involved in various aspects of the Acts 2 narrative, if one is prepared to read methodically, and with one's eyes open. I do commend to you my Acts essay, given that I go into much greater detail than is possible here, in establishing the facts as they stand. If you really do wish to argue the toss, then you're going to need to do so from the source--the Greek.
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
TBerry Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #10
  • Rank:New User
  • Score:610
  • Posts:26
  • From:Australia
  • Register:12/03/2008 10:03 PM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:17/03/2008 5:14 AMCopy HTML

Acts 1:13-14 NKJV
13 And when they had entered, they went up into the upper room where they were staying: Peter, James, John, and Andrew; Philip and Thomas; Bartholomew and Matthew; James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot; and Judas the son of James. 14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.

Ian said: 'Yep'. I spent quite a bit of time in my Acts essay addressing this passage, and its significance.

Ian would you like me to explain for you the significance - the significance is that the 12 where not alone - the women and Mary and Jesus's brothers where there right from the start. Nothing else can be read into this scripture. I doubt very much that the women and Mary and Jesus's brothers quietly left once the disciples started receiving the Holy Spirit at pentecost.

Ian you keep saying that every english bible clearly says how only the 12 received - where, show us simply how it says that (not long winded explanations) - just give us a short and power packed demonstration of the word of God, the way the word of God is intended to be read in whatever language it is.  God has perfectly preserved his word in whatever format it is - He doesnt need Ian as a source of enlightenment and real meaning (sounds like Joseph Smith to me, when you start coming up with 'specially' revealed significances.  God is up-front and his word works!

My question is: Ian do you speak in tongues? If so then why are you withholding and talking people out of what you received?
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #11
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:17/03/2008 6:07 AMCopy HTML

Hi again,

Ian said: 'Yep'. I spent quite a bit of time in my Acts essay addressing this passage, and its significance.

I did, indeed Laughing

Ian would you like me to explain for you the significance - the significance is that the 12 where not alone - the women and Mary and Jesus's brothers where there right from the start. Nothing else can be read into this scripture. I doubt very much that the women and Mary and Jesus's brothers quietly left once the disciples started receiving the Holy Spirit at pentecost.

Sure. Could I suggest that you go back to your English Bible version, open it up, and start reading from chapter one, verse one. When you do, you will quickly note the very important context which frames the entire passage. Consider, for example, what is clearly the subject from verse two: "...he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles." Verse three, "... to them..." Verse four, "... and while staying with them ... but you will be baptised with the Holy Spirit... " Go ahead, read the passage again. Notice that all the promises, all the communications are from Jesus to his surviving apostles! No commands to 'tarry' are given to anyone else. No promise concerning being baptised with the Holy Spirit is given to anyone else. It's all there, right in front of you, in simple English. And of course, the Pentecost passage clearly states that the apostles were to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit for empowerment. There is no mention of them becoming 'saved' at that time anywhere in the text. Ergo, the distinction between this, and your Revivalist mis-understanding about receiving the gift (which is) of the Spirit in salvation, is perfectly clear!

Ian you keep saying that every english bible clearly says how only the 12 received - where, show us simply how it says that (not long winded explanations) - just give us a short and power packed demonstration of the word of God, the way the word of God is intended to be read in whatever language it is. God has perfectly preserved his word in whatever format it is - He doesnt need Ian as a source of enlightenment and real meaning (sounds like Joseph Smith to me, when you start coming up with 'specially' revealed significances. God is up-front and his word works!

I have given you 'long-winded' explanations for no other reason than to demonstrate how, and why, your superficial skim reading 'of' (I would suggest 'into') the passage has led you completely astray. As I've said a couple of times now: you are reading into the passage what you've been taught (and hope to find), rather than reading out of the passage what is actually there. And I'm pretty confident that I've more than made my case with this respect.

My question is: Ian do you speak in tongues? If so then why are you withholding and talking people out of what you received?

What has the issue of whether or not I speak in 'tongues' have to do with anything?! We've been discussing what Scripture clearly presents (in English too), and not whether I can say "yabba, dabba, dooo" over and over. If you think about it, the very fact that you raised the subject of 'tongues' with me simply proves my point: that Scripture isn't the ultimate authority for you, personal experience is Undecided

Now you've much to think about, and I'm still waiting for you to get back to me concerning the multiplied inconsistencies between what the Pentecost passage states, and what Revivalists claim for themselves.

Blessings,

Ian

P.S. Your quip about Joseph Smith is actually quite ironic, as you're far closer to him in theology and practice than am I Laughing You see, Scripture wasn't sufficient for old 'Smithy' either; his claims were based upon, and required the acceptance of, extra-biblical personal experience too Wink
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
RF_on_the_edge Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #12
  • Rank:Regular Poster
  • Score:3180
  • Posts:156
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:12/03/2007 10:25 PM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:17/03/2008 7:11 AMCopy HTML

Acts 1:13-14 NKJV
13 And when they had entered, they went up into the upper room where they were staying: Peter, James, John, and Andrew; Philip and Thomas; Bartholomew and Matthew; James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot; and Judas the son of James. 14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.

Ian said:
'Yep'. I spent quite a bit of time in my Acts essay addressing this passage, and its significance.

Ian would you like me to explain for you the significance

RF Tactics Alert: Ian already said that he'd addressed its significance fom his pov. TB shows no evidence of having read the material he was referred to, let alone evidence for addressing the apostles-only pov. TB introduces his own pov with a somewhat sarcastic remark, rather than a reasoned response to Ian's invitation, let alone the proferred pov.


- the significance is that the 12 where not alone - the women and Mary and Jesus's brothers where there right from the start. Nothing else can be read into this scripture. I doubt very much that the women and Mary and Jesus's brothers quietly left once the disciples started receiving the Holy Spirit at pentecost.

RF Tactics Alert: No accounting for context, in this case the difference in time between when they returned to Jerusalem after Jesus' ascension, and 'the day of Pentecost'. The presence or absence of disciples other than the apostles is not the issue being discussed. The issue is how many spoke in tongues.


Ian you keep saying that every english bible clearly says how only the 12 received - where, show us simply how it says that (not long winded explanations)

RF Tactics Alert: Ignores the succinct evidence and explanations already given by Ian. Ignores the succinct counters offered by Ian against the arguments previously presented by TB. Why is there a refusal to engage with the more detailed explanation proferred in the essay?


- just give us a short and power packed demonstration of the word of God, the way the word of God is intended to be read in whatever language it is.

RF Tactics Alert: What does 'a short and power packed demonstration' mean? Ignores the clear and short explanations already given. Refuses to engage with the more detailed explanations proferred in the essay.


God has perfectly preserved his word in whatever format it is - He doesnt need Ian as a source of enlightenment and real meaning (sounds like Joseph Smith to me, when you start coming up with 'specially' revealed significances.

RF Tactics Alert: Who said that apostles-only pov is a 'specially' revealed significance? Ignores the fact that others have the same pov. Ignores the history of apostles-only pov. Ignores the need of most if not all RF'rs to rely on translations. Ignores the fact that RF has its own 'specially revealed significance' wrt tongues.


God is up-front and his word works!

RF Tactics Alert: This has nothing to do with the point being discussed viz 120 vs apostles-only. Ian has in fact affirmed his belief in these points.


My question is: Ian do you speak in tongues? If so then why are you withholding and talking people out of what you received?

RF Tactics Alert: These questions have nothing at all to do with the point being discussed viz 120 or apostles-only. There is nothing in this thread which suggests Ian is 'withholding and talking people out of speaking in tongues'.


TBerry Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #13
  • Rank:New User
  • Score:610
  • Posts:26
  • From:Australia
  • Register:12/03/2008 10:03 PM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:17/03/2008 9:49 AMCopy HTML

Ian you do not answer the points - Acts 1:14

"They" does not obviously refer to only 12 disciples all the way thru Acts chapters 1 & 2.

Use this example:

2 guys were sitting on a bench. They were eating sandwiches. Along came 5 friends at that time in the same place. They all started playing cards together. After some time a lot of interest was aroused by onlookers, many of whom joined them in the card playing games. They become louder and louder as night-time came. Nearby neighbours became annoyed with the noise they were making and rang the police complaining about all the noise they were making.

Ian, your theory equates to this entire text use of the word "THEY" to only refer to the initial subjects of the 2 guys sitting on a bench. The noise made at the end of the passage evidently is only a result of 2 people all of a sudden. Do you get where i'm coming from with regards to the first 2 chapters of Acts now. The "they" is cummulative, growing and growing to the very point of Acts 2:39 opening the "they" who will experience this beyond race and generation. "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call."

The reason i divert answering everything else may be the same reason Ian does not seem to anwer the basic principles presented. I admit your theory all sounds nice but it becomes lost in its awkwardness. I could not fathom having to go through all this everytime just to explain basics of salvation to the new comer. I'm happy to be blindly follow the simplicity of the words presented in the bible and that are actually there on the page, rather than the intricacies of those word somehow imbedded between the lines. The word of God is "quick and sharp and powerful", not longwinded and as though not is all as it seems!
TBerry Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #14
  • Rank:New User
  • Score:610
  • Posts:26
  • From:Australia
  • Register:12/03/2008 10:03 PM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:17/03/2008 10:05 AMCopy HTML

just to add - ian the tongues point has everything to do with it.  Your study simply presents the possibility that not all present had this experience - only the disciples.  The underlying conclusion therefore to be drawn from that is that the reader negates any importance in the passages of Acts 1 & 2. And therefore as a result of your wonderful study says to self, "now i get it - i dont need to receive that - it was only for the disciples".  Well done Ian.

Ian, dont you get the feeling sometimes in your heart of hearts that you are playing the part of the saducee or pharisee too much to the detriment of simple faith. After all Jesus said unless you become as a little child you can not enter the kingdom of God. Children do not pose such sophisticated arguments; children trust; children do not hold a grudge easily, children have a good grasp on face-value living and literalness.  We can all be Children of God here if we become child-like.  Jesus never stood up for himself when he had the ultimate chance.  If the substance of what you're saying Ian is worthy of true belief then you only need to state it once.
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #15
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:17/03/2008 10:20 AMCopy HTML

Reply to TBerry (12/03/2008 16:40:44).
Ian you do not answer the points - Acts 1:14

"They" does not obviously refer to only 12 disciples all the way thru Acts chapters 1 & 2.

Use this example:

2 guys were sitting on a bench. They were eating sandwiches. Along came 5 friends at that time in the same place. They all started playing cards together. After some time a lot of interest was aroused by onlookers, many of whom joined them in the card playing games. They become louder and louder as night-time came. Nearby neighbours became annoyed with the noise they were making and rang the police complaining about all the noise they were making.

Ian, your theory equates to this entire text use of the word "THEY" to only refer to the initial subjects of the 2 guys sitting on a bench. The noise made at the end of the passage evidently is only a result of 2 people all of a sudden. Do you get where i'm coming from with regards to the first 2 chapters of Acts now. The "they" is cummulative, growing and growing to the very point of Acts 2:39 opening the "they" who will experience this beyond race and generation. "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call."

The reason i divert answering everything else may be the same reason Ian does not seem to anwer the basic principles presented. I admit your theory all sounds nice but it becomes lost in its awkwardness. I could not fathom having to go through all this everytime just to explain basics of salvation to the new comer. I'm happy to be blindly follow the simplicity of the words presented in the bible and that are actually there on the page, rather than the intricacies of those word somehow imbedded between the lines. The word of God is "quick and sharp and powerful", not longwinded and as though not is all as it seems!

(Message edited by TBerry on 17/03/2008 03:53:20)

T Berry, the simplicity of salvation is even more simple than even revivalist present it.

Ian ( i would dare to say, and stand to be corrected) would not present the salvation message to unbelivers in the same manner of depth that he goes about trying to make you see the errors of the revivalist salvation doctrine.

e5

Sea Urchin Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #16
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9110
  • Posts:436
  • From:Australia
  • Register:15/02/2007 7:34 AM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:17/03/2008 11:01 AMCopy HTML

Ian, dont you get the feeling sometimes in your heart of hearts that you are playing the part of the saducee or pharisee too much to the detriment of simple faith. After all Jesus said unless you become as a little child you can not enter the kingdom of God. Children do not pose such sophisticated arguments; children trust; children do not hold a grudge easily, children have a good grasp on face-value living and literalness.  We can all be Children of God here if we become child-like.  Jesus never stood up for himself when he had the ultimate chance.  If the substance of what you're saying Ian is worthy of true belief then you only need to state it
       _____________________________________________________________________________

What are you saying TB? Are you changing the RF salvation doctrine by qoting this scripture??

"Jesus said that unless you become as a little child you cannot enter the kingdom of God"

I thought the RF preached that Jesus said " you must speak in tongues to be saved" !

Or is ' being saved' not the same as 'entering the kingdom" ?

Could you please clarify what you believe the salvation message is?

Urchin
Your unfailing love, O Lord, is as vast as the heavens; your faithfulness reaches beyond the clouds. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the ocean depths.
TBerry Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #17
  • Rank:New User
  • Score:610
  • Posts:26
  • From:Australia
  • Register:12/03/2008 10:03 PM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:17/03/2008 11:23 AMCopy HTML

 Sea Urchin,

no point, therefore no answer...
Sea Urchin Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #18
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9110
  • Posts:436
  • From:Australia
  • Register:15/02/2007 7:34 AM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:17/03/2008 11:32 AMCopy HTML


And now TBerry, to really throw the cat among the pigeons -

Jesus didn't actually go around preaching the 'salvation message' at all - but He did preach the kingdom message!  He only spoke about being born again once and that was in private discussion BUT He went about preaching the kingdom, kingdom living and kingdom principles. He provided for the hungry, He healed the sick, He delivered the demoniacs, He raised the dead, He comforted those in need, and He reached out to the lost and lonely of the world - in other words, He showed us by His deeds and actions the example of how we should live and how to be like Him.

I yearn to be more like Him so that I can show Him and His great love and mercy to others. "To know God is to show God". I spent many many years believing the rf salvation message and preaching it to all and sundry without huge revival results. And yet now I simply tell (and show) people that Jesus loves them so much that He died for their sins and they don't HAVE to do anything but believe on Him and accept Him and by His grace they are saved. Eph 2:8 'For by grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves, it is the GIFT OF GOD'. Quite simple, the gift of God - and yet RF has to 'add to' the gift of God. As soon as we 'add to' what God has already given us we put ourselves back under the law, for grace and law do not go hand in hand. Being under grace is not a reason or excuse to sin or do the wrong thing - but BECAUSE of the grace of God, we WANT to do the right thing.

Does any of this make any sense at all TB?

Urch
Your unfailing love, O Lord, is as vast as the heavens; your faithfulness reaches beyond the clouds. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the ocean depths.
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #19
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:17/03/2008 11:35 AMCopy HTML

TBerry - After all Jesus said unless you become as a little child you can not enter the kingdom of God. Children do not pose such sophisticated arguments

Earth5 - The simplicity of salvation is even more simple than even revivalist present it.Ian would not present the salvation message to unbelivers in the same manner of depth that he goes about trying to make you see the errors of the revivalist salvation doctrine.

I intended to leave this to the experts but I see the convo is too fun for people not to poke at. You're on the money there E5, that TB would call the simplicity of biblical christianity a complicated thing whilst being apologetic for their convoluted three point criteria is a head-shaking wonder.

The Revival doctrine is very much like bubble gum in the hair... easy to get stuck with but not an easy thing to get out... hmm not sure if that analogy fits... this week, some of my students learnt their spelling words incorrectly. Each night they 'learnt' the incorrect spelling but thought it correct. I had to explain how important and difficult it can be to 'unlearn' something then relearn it the correct way. Tberry, the reason you find things too complicated is because you've 'learnt' how to spell incorrectly in the first place and are unable to see the gospel message for the actual simplicity it has.
[LINK SiteName=Mothrust: Movies and Modern Myth Target=_blank]http://aintchristian.blogspot.com.au/[/LINK] Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
Sea Urchin Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #20
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9110
  • Posts:436
  • From:Australia
  • Register:15/02/2007 7:34 AM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:17/03/2008 11:39 AMCopy HTML

Sea Urchin, no point, therefore no answer...
 ____________________________________

That's correct TB, there was no 'point' but there was a question (could you please clarify what you believe the salvation message is?) but if you are unable to answer it..well, maybe you need to think about why you can't answer it. What do you believe IS the salvation message?
Urchin

Your unfailing love, O Lord, is as vast as the heavens; your faithfulness reaches beyond the clouds. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the ocean depths.
RF_on_the_edge Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #21
  • Rank:Regular Poster
  • Score:3180
  • Posts:156
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:12/03/2007 10:25 PM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:17/03/2008 12:48 PMCopy HTML

TB

Ian you do not answer the points - Acts 1:14

"They" does not obviously refer to only 12 disciples all the way thru Acts chapters 1 & 2.

Use this example:

2 guys were sitting on a bench. They were eating sandwiches. Along came 5 friends at that time in the same place. They all started playing cards together. After some time a lot of interest was aroused by onlookers, many of whom joined them in the card playing games. They become louder and louder as night-time came. Nearby neighbours became annoyed with the noise they were making and rang the police complaining about all the noise they were making.

Ian, your theory equates to this entire text use of the word "THEY" to only refer to the initial subjects of the 2 guys sitting on a bench. The noise made at the end of the passage evidently is only a result of 2 people all of a sudden. Do you get where i'm coming from with regards to the first 2 chapters of Acts now. The "they" is cummulative, growing and growing to the very point of Acts 2:39 opening the "they" who will experience this beyond race and generation. "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call."


I am stunned, gob-smacked. Are you serious? Do you really think that your pov was not understood? Do you really not see that your pov was specifically dealt with up front, and has been repeatedly dealt with since then? Do you really not see the difference between your analogy and what's recorded in Acts 1 and 2? Do you really think that the 120 were all Galileans? Do you really think RF'rs will not see through this?

Or, is this to be your exit strategy ... ignore what's been presented, and pretend you haven't been understood.

I'm happy to be blindly follow the simplicity of the words presented in the bible and that are actually there on the page, rather than the intricacies of those word somehow imbedded between the lines.

Really? You see, the RF tongues doctrine requires convluted thinking that denies obvious instruction such as 1 Co 12. Even when I was a 'true believer' I realised that inferences had to be made to come to the 'no tongues => no Holy Spirit' conclusion. There was a need to rely on 'intricacies of those word[s] somehow imbedded between the lines'. On the other hand the principle that belief and subsequent confession produce salvation results from 'follow[ing] the simplicity of the words presented in the bible and that are actually there on the page'.

just to add - ian the tongues point has everything to do with it. Your study simply presents the possibility that not all present had this experience - only the disciples. The underlying conclusion therefore to be drawn from that is that the reader negates any importance in the passages of Acts 1 & 2. And therefore as a result of your wonderful study says to self, "now i get it - i dont need to receive that - it was only for the disciples". Well done Ian.

C'mon The point is that the accuracy or otherwise of the apostles-only interpretation has nothing to do with whether or not the presenter speaks in tongues .. or wears a beard ... or parts his hair down the middle of his head ... or ...

Ian, dont you get the feeling sometimes in your heart of hearts that you are playing the part of the saducee or pharisee too much to the detriment of simple faith. After all Jesus said unless you become as a little child you can not enter the kingdom of God. Children do not pose such sophisticated arguments; children trust; children do not hold a grudge easily, children have a good grasp on face-value living and literalness. We can all be Children of God here if we become child-like. Jesus never stood up for himself when he had the ultimate chance. If the substance of what you're saying Ian is worthy of true belief then you only need to state it once.

Amazing. Do you dare to judge another man's servant, and in particular his heart? Have you never heard Jesus' exhortation to be as wise as a serpent.or meditated on the exhorations to wisdom in the Proverbs? Have you missed the point that Jesus exhorted us to child-like humility and worship God with amongst other things our minds. Do you recall that Paul exhorted us to be 'men' (mature) in our understanding?

Can you not see the problem with saying that the apostles-only case ought only be made once, while you repeatedly re-state your own case? Do you really think that God's Words to Israel or through Jesus were not worthy of true belief because He stated them more than once?  Is this to be your exit strategy, that you've made your point, and that you will be 'more righteous' and leave it there?
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #22
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:17/03/2008 7:06 PMCopy HTML

Good morning, TBerry,

If you go back and re-read one of my earlier responses, you'll discover that I actually did answer the question you asked concerning the group who were prone to meeting in the upper room. However, you've yet to answer my questions; I'm hoping that you'll try, though Wink

Now you've been furiously ducking-and-weaving, misconstruing this, extrapolating that. Might I humbly request that you actually engage with what I've already written, even if just the once? I've answered all of your questions, TBerry, please do me the courtesy of responding to mine.

Blessings,

Ian

P.S. I would probably be correct in assuming that your entire spirituality is built on (and around) your 'tongues' experience. This being the case, if Acts 2 doesn't teach what you believe it does, where does that leave you (and your experience)? Something to ponder ...
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
TBerry Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #23
  • Rank:New User
  • Score:610
  • Posts:26
  • From:Australia
  • Register:12/03/2008 10:03 PM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:18/03/2008 6:17 AMCopy HTML

 Look guys rather than throwing "cats among the pigeons" etc - lets just stick to the original questions maybe.  Im not indicating any forms of self-righteousness or condemnation on anyones part.  Theres a lot of assumptions going on. I was just wondering if there are any simple answers, as apposed to the go read this long winded explanation type thing.

I'm firm on this one thing - Acts 1 and 2 describe experiences that happened to more than just the 12 disciples. Otherwise at what point do you stop calling the "THEY" in the whole book of Acts refering to them.

I'm sorry if you cant accept the way i feel - but i feel that your explanations are very complicated and hard to understand and get your head around.  You all seem to feel frustrated that i dont want to support you.
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #24
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:18/03/2008 9:21 AMCopy HTML

Look guys rather than throwing "cats among the pigeons" etc - lets just stick to the original questions maybe. 

The original question has been answered ad-nauseum and you yourself believe it's in no-one's interest to keep repeating the same replies again and again. How many similies do you want? I think it's fine to bring up some side issues that relate very much to the intitial questions... (Wind, tongue flames etc.)

Im not indicating any forms of self-righteousness or condemnation on anyones part.  Theres a lot of assumptions going on. I was just wondering if there are any simple answers, as apposed to the go read this long winded explanation type thing.

I don't think you'd be satisfied with simplicity... afterall, the actual simplicity of the gospel message seems to be lost on you in the first place. Comprehension skills are something you might need to practise. Long winded explanations are necessary for the studious researchers who need the issue thoroughly examined. It's not you anyone is truly trying to convince, as your current mindset is resolved to keep itself fixed, but the future readers who are trying to make sense of the bible, who are caught up in Revival doctrine, might just hopefully have the adequate comprehension skills to address the text given thus far.

Try explaining 'simply' to a Jehovah Witness, that you don't have to call on his 'name'... they'll come back with a dozen scriptures that make very plain sense that if you don't get God's 'Christian' name correct you'll actually be communicating with Satan. The JWs have seared their understanding, and their interpretation of scripture.

I'm firm on this one thing - Acts 1 and 2 describe experiences that happened to more than just the 12 disciples. Otherwise at what point do you stop calling the "THEY" in the whole book of Acts refering to them.

We empathise with your firmness and have all been there. Neural pathways get burnt and it's nigh impossible to course correct if you can't appreciate you're out of step in the first place.

I'm sorry if you cant accept the way i feel - but i feel that your explanations are very complicated and hard to understand and get your head around.  You all seem to feel frustrated that i dont want to support you.

I myself used to feel frustrated at people's inability to see error, but as a teacher, I've learnt to be more patient. That's helped when dealing with people in your situation. And patience is what I see in others who have replied to you thus far. This forum is actually here for people who are leaving Revival, or have left, or are dealing with family that are in Revival. Therefore, you are a temporary guest here, as is your Male Member friend. I won't shed a tear if you don't support us... I'm long past expecting miracles, but I appreciate your manner on the board and the discussion it's brought about.
[LINK SiteName=Mothrust: Movies and Modern Myth Target=_blank]http://aintchristian.blogspot.com.au/[/LINK] Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
Sea Urchin Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #25
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9110
  • Posts:436
  • From:Australia
  • Register:15/02/2007 7:34 AM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:18/03/2008 9:22 AMCopy HTML

I was just wondering if there are any simple answers, as apposed to the go read this long winded explanation type thing. I'm sorry if you cant accept the way i feel - but i feel that your explanations are very complicated and hard to understand and get your head around.  You all seem to feel frustrated that i dont want to support you.
          ____________________________________________________________________

TBerry, I would like to say (with all respect) that YES there are simple answers.

Pick up your Bible (any version) and pray that God opens your eyes and gives you a fresh revelation before reading it - I do this every time I read scripture. God actually wants to reveal things to us but we have to first seek with an open mind and then receive what He reveals with an open heart.

Instead of trying to reconcile scripture with what you have been taught in the past or even what you are reading here - go straight to the Word of God. It is not 'hard to get your head around' at all when you are genuinely seeking answers - let the Holy Spirit guide you. His purpose is to point the way to Jesus, to teach us and guide us. The Holy Spirit WILL open up scripture to you and reveal things to you that you may not have seen or understood previously. Pray to Him for guidance, He is not just a 'thing',  He is the third person of the trinity and He has a specific role to help and guide us.

Urchin
Your unfailing love, O Lord, is as vast as the heavens; your faithfulness reaches beyond the clouds. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the ocean depths.
RF_on_the_edge Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #26
  • Rank:Regular Poster
  • Score:3180
  • Posts:156
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:12/03/2007 10:25 PM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:18/03/2008 11:05 AMCopy HTML

TB

I'm firm on this one thing - Acts 1 and 2 describe experiences that happened to more than just the 12 disciples. Otherwise at what point do you stop calling the "THEY" in the whole book of Acts refering to them.

I'm sorry if you cant accept the way i feel - but i feel that your explanations are very complicated and hard to understand and get your head around.

Personally, I find some stuff complicated, but much 'stands out like a dog's hind leg'. Here's an approach that could get you started. I've had to use it myself in different matters - not just Christian. 'Twist' your frame of reference to see things from the apostles-only pov. Once you've achieved that, leave the issue alone for a few days. Then come back, review the pros and cons for each pov, and see where the evidence points.

Akriboo Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #27
  • Rank:Not quite new
  • Score:770
  • Posts:37
  • From:Australia
  • Register:16/03/2008 7:03 AM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:18/03/2008 11:32 AMCopy HTML


 

TB, one thing I've come to appreciate from these posts is to look at scripture in a light that would be indicative to the purpose in which it was intended and thus written.


If you take a holistic view of the purpose and intent, a natural flow seems to emerge from the Gospels to Acts.


For example, if you read chapter 24 of Luke, one can't escape the glaring theme of Jesus (after His resurrection) wanting to communicate with His apostles to impart spiritual truths to them before He is received into heaven.


Yes, the women are mentioned, but they sought out the apostles, "and told these things unto the eleven..." 24:9, "It was...which told these things unto the apostles" 24:10


Verse 12, Peter arose and ran to the sepulchre, two of the apostles (one was Simon v34) went to Emmaus and on their journey, and Jesus appeared to them and expounded the scriptures. Later, Simon and another apostle/disciple went back to Jerusalem and found the eleven. (v33).


Holistically in its purpose and intention, it makes sense and seems the only interpretation that Jesus was focused on the apostles for a special ministry to come. From V36 to 53, Jesus was instructing His disciples about what was prophesied, what is to happen, and what they will do.


This ending flows onto Act and it seems more likely than not that Jesus was talking only to His apostles and not the multitude. Therefore at the day of Pentecost, only the apostles were indeed "...endued with power from on high" v49.


So you see TB the logical thought pattern from a holistic view is that the 120 were not included in the manifestation of the Holy Spirit at the day of Pentecost, it was limited only to the apostles and only they (the apostles) who spoke in tongues.


God bless

Akriboo

TBerry Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #28
  • Rank:New User
  • Score:610
  • Posts:26
  • From:Australia
  • Register:12/03/2008 10:03 PM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:18/03/2008 11:54 AMCopy HTML

Okay Moth i did as you suggested and began reading carefully through Acts 1 - please follow this one through - its quite easy.

Acts 1:8 NKJV
8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

Jesus speaking here, you say Ian, that Jesus is only speaking to the 12 apostles. No-one else. You've made that clear in your writings.
You will all agree that Acts 1:8 is a direct quote and reference to Lukes own gospel from Luke chapter 24. Please read the chapter and now tell me who Jesus was indeed speaking to.

Luke 24:9 NKJV
9 Then they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest.
Luke 24:33 NKJV
33 So they rose up that very hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven and those who were with them gathered together,
Luke 24:45-53 NKJV
45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.
46 Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 And you are witnesses of these things. 49 Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high.”
50 And He led them out as far as Bethany, and He lifted up His hands and blessed them. 51 Now it came to pass, while He blessed them, that He was parted from them and carried up into heaven. 52 And they worshiped Him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, 53 and were continually in the temple praising and blessing God. Amen.

So the clear context of Acts 1:8 is directed at both the eleven disciples and to all the rest / those who were with them. It is not a directive only to the 11 (later 12).

Following this thought through nicely is Acts 1:14-15 NKJV
14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.
15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples (altogether the number of names was about a hundred and twenty), and said, ...

Then Peter spoke to those present - the disciples, the women, Jesus' brothers, and those that had gladly joined in the open invitation prayer.

Now if you think I am taking scripture out of context consider this first. Later in Acts 11:16 while Paul is preaching to the Gentiles of all people, goes and uses that exact quote from Acts 1:5 to describe what was happening.
Acts 11:16 NKJV
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.’

If you all suppose that Acts chapter 1 and 2 is only refering to the disciples only as the sole subjects of the text, then why would the apostle Paul go and refute all that by using such scripture as an example of other new gentile believers receiving the Holy Spirit "as upon us at the beginning" (Acts 11:15-16). Are you indeed calling the apostle Paul into error also?
Akriboo Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #29
  • Rank:Not quite new
  • Score:770
  • Posts:37
  • From:Australia
  • Register:16/03/2008 7:03 AM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:18/03/2008 12:15 PMCopy HTML

 

Hi TBerry,


May I please ask you when you highlight the ‘you' in scripture are you inferring that it is the 120?


If so, then what was the purpose of Luke writing Acts?


Is not Acts called Acts of the Apostles?


Does not Luke say to Theophilus in verse 2 that through the Holy Ghost had given commandment unto the apostles whom He had chosen?


What were these commandments? Was it not in verse 4...therefore verse 2 refers to the apostles as mentioned in verse 4 by them


You see TBerry, to ensure a correct interpretation one needs to look at scripture in a holistic view rather than one verse here and another there to string a set of doctrine.


God bless

Akriboo

RF_on_the_edge Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #30
  • Rank:Regular Poster
  • Score:3180
  • Posts:156
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:12/03/2007 10:25 PM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:18/03/2008 12:26 PMCopy HTML

Correction: The speaker in Ac 11:15-16 was Peter, not Paul.
Akriboo Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #31
  • Rank:Not quite new
  • Score:770
  • Posts:37
  • From:Australia
  • Register:16/03/2008 7:03 AM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:18/03/2008 12:54 PMCopy HTML

 

TBerry,


Whom did Jesus upbraid for their hardness of heart in Luke 24:25? Was it not the apostles?


Did not the ladies come to the apostles and tell them what they saw and heard at the tomb? (Luke 24:10). But alas, the apostles did not believe them (v11) and thus Jesus had to upbraid them in v25.


So from v25 onwards to the end of the chapter refers only to the apostles since they were the ones who refused to believe. The women had already believed at the tomb and there was only one need for Simon to express to the rest of the apostles (eleven)...that what the ladies have said was true, Jesus is alive!!


Yes, offcourse there were others there, Luke quite distinctly tell us that there were other men which accompanied them from the beginning from the baptism of John to the ascension of Christ (Acts 1:21-22), but that was not the focus. The focus was the eleven who were gathered together amongst the others. The eleven are the apostles whom Christ gave the final instructions. The apostles are the chosen ones whom Christ appointed for His special ministry, not the multitude at that time.


You see Tberry, when Simon came back from Emmaus and came to the eleven to tell them that he had see, spoke and dined with Christ, Jesus appeared to them (the apostles) while Simon was still talking. (Luke 24:36)


Perhaps I am on the wrong track, but on a holistic view, to me, this makes more sense than the 120 all being apostles with a special commission...to me it just doesn't fit with Acts 1 and 2.


God bless

Akriboo

TBerry Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #32
  • Rank:New User
  • Score:610
  • Posts:26
  • From:Australia
  • Register:12/03/2008 10:03 PM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:18/03/2008 12:59 PMCopy HTML

 true it was Peter - woops

Akriboo i think you'll find my points holistic.
The 'you' or 'they' obviously holistically speaking refers to the disciples and others.  The real catch for you guys is as i said, why is Acts 1:5, a reference of jesus from the gospels, quoted later in Acts 11:16?

Peter is doing exactly what you are warning against.  Plus i cannot get past Acts 1:14 - it just says what it says. The subject of the chapter is obviously the disciples and others.  Luke 24:1-53 in particular note the wording of v9, 33.

Im not sure why you're all refuting clear scripture. Please read Luke 24 and Acts 1 together.  Written by the same writer (Luke) and covering recounting the same events.  A perfect crossover that so obviously and clearly states that Jesus speaks to not only the disciples but also to the others present on all occasions.

Your essays sound nice but please explain Acts 11:15-16.  Peter is clearly saying the gentiles are getting what we got in the beginning - the thing that you guys are persistently saying only happened to the 12.

Next you'll be telling me Acts 11:15-16 isn't in the original Greek manuscripts or something. Look im not here to ridicule you or make anyone feels inferior but please consider this and my previous post.
Akriboo Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #33
  • Rank:Not quite new
  • Score:770
  • Posts:37
  • From:Australia
  • Register:16/03/2008 7:03 AM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:18/03/2008 1:15 PMCopy HTML

 

TBerry,


Peter in Acts 11:14-16 is quite clear; he is referring to his experience and the experience of the other eleven apostles on the day of Pentecost as outlined in Acts 2:1-13. With special mention of what Jesus has said to him and the other eleven apostles in Acts 1:16.


You must remember that there was a time frame of ten years between Acts 1 and Acts 11, and that is why Peter said that the conversation of Cornelius reminded him of his experience ten years previously.


Reading the scripture in a holistic way clearly demonstrates that only the apostles had the Acts 2 experience...not the collective 120.


God bless in your journey

Akriboo

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #34
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:18/03/2008 9:36 PMCopy HTML

Good morning, TBerry.

This will, likely as not, be a rather long post. It needs to be in order to adequately address your concerns, and it seems clear that I will need to go over some material that I've already discussed in earlier posts, if for no other reason than to reinforce the points that I will make, again, in this response. However, I'd rather not have to be continually repeating myself, time-and-again, because you apparently don't wish to consider either the material or perspectives that I've provided to you.

But to begin with may I ask you a question? Do you personally believe that it is Scripture (the Bible) which remains the 'deposit' of faith, and therefore, is the normative authority on which Christians must base their beliefs? (I say 'normative' rather than 'utlimate', as Jesus Christ remains the ultimate authority for Christian believers) If you concede that Scripture (the Bible) does fulfil this position, then once the simple meaning of a particular passage is established, it automatically becomes binding upon all believers, does it not? And this would include you as well, would it not?

Let's begin, shall we?

Look guys rather than throwing "cats among the pigeons" etc - lets just stick to the original questions maybe. Im not indicating any forms of self-righteousness or condemnation on anyones part. Theres a lot of assumptions going on. I was just wondering if there are any simple answers, as apposed to the go read this long winded explanation type thing.

I'm firm on this one thing - Acts 1 and 2 describe experiences that happened to more than just the 12 disciples. Otherwise at what point do you stop calling the "THEY" in the whole book of Acts refering to them.

I'm sorry if you cant accept the way i feel - but i feel that your explanations are very complicated and hard to understand and get your head around. You all seem to feel frustrated that i dont want to support you.


To start, the answers are, indeed, simple. There is nothing complicated about the explanation that I've put forth and defended, here, concerning Pentecost and the 12 apostles. You see, the position that I espouse has been the historical teaching of the entire Christian Church for the majority of her history: both Eastern and Western. It's not, then, some 'new' form of 'special revelation' that I've conjured up.

Further, as I said earlier, my 'long-windedness' in carefully explaining matters to you has been, principally, for the sake of thoroughness; and for your benefit. I fully understood that you would, by virtue of your denominational 'upbringing', approach Scripture with a number of preceonceived assumptions that have been shaped by Revivalist teaching, which is shaped as it is by Revivalist experience. Consequently, it was necessary to take you by the hand, and lead you through the English text, in a lock-step fashion, pointing out the salient features along the way. And I tried, by-and-large, to stay with simply the English translation, again for your benefit.

I have mentioned to you, several times, the English grammatical rule known as the Rule of Concord. This has to do with etablishing the antecedant (or 'referent' if you prefer) to a pronoun as such appears in a clause, sentence or paragraph. The fact remains that I didn't invent this rule, I simply applied it to the English texts we have been addressing. Personally, I don't think such a basic feature of English grammar is "very complicated", or "hard to get your head around" at all. Primary school students are taught this at about grade six (or at last they should be), to better enable them to develop a reasonable standard of reading comprehension. And it is this grammatical rule, perhaps more than any other, which allows us to answer the question you posed above, concerning the use of the word 'they' in Acts. I imagine that some people may be becoming frustrated with your replies, because they simply can't fathom how it is that you don't understand this very normal, everyday, and common reading convention? I'm sure you have no trouble in following the plot of a newspaper article, or even a novel. But introduce Scripture, and it seems that Revivalists completely dismiss the normal 'rules' they intuitively follow with all other forms of writing. Again, this is simply a conditioned response, a little like your 'tongues', I suppose.

Okay Moth i did as you suggested and began reading carefully through Acts 1 - please follow this one through - its quite easy.

Acts 1:8 NKJV
8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

Jesus speaking here, you say Ian, that Jesus is only speaking to the 12 apostles. No-one else. You've made that clear in your writings.

You will all agree that Acts 1:8 is a direct quote and reference to Lukes own gospel from Luke chapter 24. Please read the chapter and now tell me who Jesus was indeed speaking to.

Okay, but let's at least try to be mindful of the all-important issue of immediate context, shall we? I'm confident that you've noticed for yourself, that the expressly stated subjects whom Jesus was addressing in these early verses of Acts chapter one, were none other than the eleven surviving apostles? After all, verse two makes this as plain as day. Now "the apostles" of that verse is the referent to which the subsequent personal pronoun "them", points in verses three (bis) and four (also bis). Here we encounter the Rule of Concord, yet again. But note well: in verse four we encounter the second person plural pronoun, "you", and for the very first time. It there occurs alongside the previously introduced pronoun, "them", and so "you" shares in common the same referent as does "them" ( which is, of course, "the apostles"). Verse five reads: "... for John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now." To whom does the "you" refer? Well,it can't be to John, obviously. Nor can it be Jesus. Grammatically, nevermind logically, it can only refer to the previously introduced subject of the discussion, which is "the apostles". Note further: there has been no mention whatsoever, of a larger group then the one which has functioned as the subject of the discussion from verse two to this point. No other disciples have been introduced or referred to up to this point. And importantly, there has been absolutely no mention of the '120' yet.


Let's now move backwards a little, to consider Luke 24.

In Luke 24 verse 13 to 32 we read of Jesus encountering two disciples on the road to Emmaus. Pace Akriboo, and for reasons that I won't go into here, I understand the two to be Jesus' uncle Cleopas and his wife (Jesus' aunt through marriage) Mary. After Christ's self-revelation to them, the two quickly returned to Jerusalem, to the place where they knew "the eleven" were lodging. In verse 33(b) we read: "And they found the eleven and those who were with them gathered together, (v.34) saying, 'the Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!'" The referent to the third person plural and subjective pronoun "they" remains the two disciples who had encountered Jesus on the road to Emmaus, and who had quickly returned to Jersusalem. Grammatically, "the eleven" functions as the direct object of the clause (hence the accusative case); the "them" in "those who were with them" functions as the indirect object (hence the dative case). This being so, we know that it was was the "them" (those who were with them) who exclaimed, "the Lord has risen indeed..." Akriboo's mistake, by the way, was to confuse who was talking about whom in the passage. But speaking as someone who is a careful and methodical reader, I personally find nothing particularly difficult about tracing the logical flow of the argument in the passage, thus far.

To move forwards ...

At this point of the narrative it's important to reflect that "the eleven" were specifically singled out as a group, and further to them were enjoined the un-numbered, "those who were with them". No doubt you would likely assume that this further number somehow refers to the '120'. However, there is nothing in the text itself that states this assumption as fact; in reality, there is much that infers a far, far smaller and more select number is in view! But more on this, later. For the time being simply note that (according to John 21:19) it was Sunday evening, consequently we're viewing a domestic scene and not a religious one.

With verse 36 Jesus enters the picture. Again we find the pronouns, "them", "they" and "you" used aplenty! Clearly, however, the context at this point relates that the entire number inclusively: "the eleven" plus the un-numbered "those who were with them".

When we arrive at verse 44, however, we find something of a shift in focus taking place. Jesus is now explaining the point and purpose of his Passion, and at verse 48 he refers to those whom he was addressing by the technical term, "witnesses". This factor, too, is crucial to a proper understanding of who it was that was being addressed! In the very next verse Christ alludes to what was to eventually follow at Pentecost. But now note verse 50! It is here that we read of Jesus leading "them", those whom he had previously called "witnesses" (the Rule of Concord in use, yet again), to Bethany. And from there he parted from them through his ascension!

Now turn your Bible over to Acts chapter one! Ask yourself the following questions (the answers appear in the text itself): to whom did Jesus give command by the Holy Spirit (v. 2)? To whom did he present himself alive by many proofs (v. 3)? Who did he order not to depart Jerusalem, but instead to wait for the promise of the Father (v. 4)? Who was it who queried the Lord concerning the restoration of the Kingdom of Israel (vv. 6 and 7)? To whom did Jesus promise the reception of power when the Holy Spirit was to overshadow them, and to whom did he commission to be his "witnesses" (v. 8)? Who was looking on when he ascended from their sight (vv. 9 and 10)? And finally, to whom did the angels address as "Men of Galilee" (v. 11)?

In verse 12 and 13 these very same men of Galilee returned to Jerusalem, and to the place that they were staying. And, let's not forget, these very same men of Galilee are named. The small number of companions who were staying with them were identified, too! Now, do you recall that Luke mentioned an un-numbered, "those who were with them", that we first encountered in Luke 24:33(b)? On a Sunday night. In a domestic setting. Has the 'penny dropped', yet?

So the clear context of Acts 1:8 is directed at both the eleven disciples and to all the rest / those who were with them. It is not a directive only to the 11 (later 12).

I think I've more than amply demonstrated that your assumption simply isn't correct. Again let me state: you've not grasped the significance of what actually appears in the text!

Following this thought through nicely is Acts 1:14-15 NKJV
14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.
15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples (altogether the number of names was about a hundred and twenty), and said, ...

Okay. At this point you'll have to read my Acts essay to properly comprehend how the expression, "in those days" functions to temporally dislocate what preceded, from what follows. Once you've read and digested what I've had to say, I'll be more than happy to 'argue the toss' with you. But for now, I'm sure that even you can readily identify that there is a break--a qualified period of discontinuity-- between verses 14 and 15. Further, I do go into detail regarding issues of location in my Acts essay, so there's nothing to be gained from rehearsing the matter again, here. Read first, then we'll discuss any points of contention that you may care to offer up.

Then Peter spoke to those present - the disciples, the women, Jesus' brothers, and those that had gladly joined in the open invitation prayer.

Interesting. Precisely where did you come up with the idea that there were people additional to the ones identified in the text itself?! You know, your, "...and those that gladly joined in the open invitation prayer." Clearly you must be reading a different Bible to me, as mine mentions nothing of 'extra' people, nor does it mention anything about an "open invitation for prayer". Are you reading into the text, things you hope to find, again?

Now if you think I am taking scripture out of context consider this first. Later in Acts 11:16 while Paul is preaching to the Gentiles of all people, goes and uses that exact quote from Acts 1:5 to describe what was happening.

Would you be surprised to learn that I also address Peter's speech in Acts 11 in my essay? Again I'll point you to it, but I'll summarise by letting you know that what Peter was using is known as the 'apostolic plural'. Read the essay, then raise any concerns that you may have with me.

If you all suppose that Acts chapter 1 and 2 is only refering to the disciples only as the sole subjects of the text, then why would the apostle Paul go and refute all that by using such scripture as an example of other new gentile believers receiving the Holy Spirit "as upon us at the beginning" (Acts 11:15-16). Are you indeed calling the apostle Paul into error also?

'Nope'.

The 'you' or 'they' obviously holistically speaking refers to the disciples and others. The real catch for you guys is as i said, why is Acts 1:5, a reference of jesus from the gospels, quoted later in Acts 11:16?

Actually, there is no 'catch' to my position at all. My position actually accords perfectly with the stated fact.

Peter is doing exactly what you are warning against. Plus i cannot get past Acts 1:14 - it just says what it says. The subject of the chapter is obviously the disciples and others. Luke 24:1-53 in particular note the wording of v9, 33.

I'd suggest that Acts 1:14 is perfectly clear: the surviving apostles were 'sharing quarters' with "the women", Jesus' mother Mary, and his brothers. There's no '120' in view, there.

Im not sure why you're all refuting clear scripture. Please read Luke 24 and Acts 1 together. Written by the same writer (Luke) and covering recounting the same events. A perfect crossover that so obviously and clearly states that Jesus speaks to not only the disciples but also to the others present on all occasions.

Speaking for myself, I'm not refuting "clear Scripture" at all. As I think I've amply pointed out, the issue is more the case that you've completely misunderstood what is being presented in "clear Scripture", because you need to find support for your un-biblical Revivalist beliefs in there, somewhere.

Your essays sound nice but please explain Acts 11:15-16. Peter is clearly saying the gentiles are getting what we got in the beginning - the thing that you guys are persistently saying only happened to the 12.

I think I already have. So please have a look at the relevant passage in my Acts essay. You can download it from this site.

Next you'll be telling me Acts 11:15-16 isn't in the original Greek manuscripts or something. Look im not here to ridicule you or make anyone feels inferior but please consider this and my previous post.


I'm not in the habit of wresting Scripture, TBerry. I take the Word of God very seriously, much more seriously than do you, I'd wager.

Can we please leave space for Ian to respond, as i think too many cooks spoil the broth. Thanks. Ian you must admit Acts 11:15-16 is a scriptural point that you've somehow overlooked.


Not in the slightest! I hope you'll spend some time digesting what I've written here; further, that you'll go back and re-read what I've said on the subject in my previous posts. Having done so, I prayerfully trust that you'll spend a little more time reflecting on the outcomes.

In a nutshell, TBerry, your views can't be supported, or defended, from what Scripture clearly presents. You are 'wresting' Scripture because you continue to insist on reading it through your experience, rather than the reverse.

God bless,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
TBerry Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #35
  • Rank:New User
  • Score:610
  • Posts:26
  • From:Australia
  • Register:12/03/2008 10:03 PM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:19/03/2008 5:48 AMCopy HTML

Ian, no-where in your essay do you approach the Acts 11:15-16 issue. You've somehow left it out.  You certainly have approached the Acts 10 area, but next you skip over to Acts 19 discourse.

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!)

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)
TBerry Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #36
  • Rank:New User
  • Score:610
  • Posts:26
  • From:Australia
  • Register:12/03/2008 10:03 PM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:19/03/2008 7:02 AMCopy HTML

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).

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!)

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)
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #37
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:19/03/2008 7:48 AMCopy HTML

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
Laughing

Thanks,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Akriboo Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #38
  • Rank:Not quite new
  • Score:770
  • Posts:37
  • From:Australia
  • Register:16/03/2008 7:03 AM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:19/03/2008 8:12 AMCopy HTML

 

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 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #39
  • Rank:Regular Poster
  • Score:3180
  • Posts:156
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:12/03/2007 10:25 PM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:19/03/2008 10:17 AMCopy HTML

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 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #40
  • Rank:New User
  • Score:610
  • Posts:26
  • From:Australia
  • Register:12/03/2008 10:03 PM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:19/03/2008 11:54 AMCopy HTML

 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 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #41
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:19/03/2008 12:01 PMCopy HTML

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!
[LINK SiteName=Mothrust: Movies and Modern Myth Target=_blank]http://aintchristian.blogspot.com.au/[/LINK] Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
TBerry Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #42
  • Rank:New User
  • Score:610
  • Posts:26
  • From:Australia
  • Register:12/03/2008 10:03 PM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:19/03/2008 1:18 PMCopy HTML

 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.
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #43
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:19/03/2008 2:45 PMCopy HTML

True but -
 
True but... true.

the apostle Paul spoke in tongues;

I personally don't believe he spoke in the random babble that many Christians call tongues. I believe he simply spoke in many dialects and encouraged the practice.

different to that of the disciples of the pentecost day.

Again, just personally, I don't believe the interpretation of scripture that leads you to believe whatever you believe about pentecost day tongues is what it was all about. I simply think that the disciples were preaching in different languages and that it was a suprise that they could. I don't believe it was the way that they spoke that made it seem they were drunk, but rather what they were talking about. Even if they did have an amazing power of converting all languages into understood text by different dialects, it wouldn't be something you'd blame on alcohol. This is just my opinion, and not one shared by others on the forum.

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.

Cynical? I'm sure to you, that's how I might be. I've no problem with anyone praying in tongues... if it feels good do it, I suppose. Interesting though... this great man that you base so much on, never gave any mention of speaking in tongues at his coversion. You'd think he might have, seeing how important you place this 'experience'.

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.

It's ok, I don't feel insufficient. I think the whole practice is complete nonsense. But your statement here smacks of contradiction that you may do well to think about. Seems the Holy Spirit experience isn't the same yesterday, today and forever... and according to you, nobody should expect the same experience even though you stated just previously that You too can have exactly what the disciples had.

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.

I don't have to bag it, no, but I can and will devalue it because I believe it to be a made-up human invention. I don't believe Paul ever sat down and prayed in nonsense talk. I believe Paul prayed with his understanding and the spirit's blessing at the same time. The understanding and the spirit are not separated; they are joined. When Paul prayed, he understood what he was saying.

You'll shake this off, but you can look it up. The ecstatic speech practice of the previous religion the Corinthians were involved with (Diana worship), was something they still practiced. These were, I believe, vain repetitions, and amongst the Gentiles, it was common. Such chanting predated Christianity. Vain repititions (gk. battalogeo? - nonsensical meaningless sounds, but I'm certainly no linquist here).

Jesus, (and ya gotta love the words in red) instructed his followers not to speakin in battabattabatta and rather 'pray like this.' and went on to model something with meaning. He was aware of the Gentile ecstatic speech rituals and modeled what his followers should pray for... and all the while, hardly mentioning with any explicity the 'incredible' magic language powers that you believe would come instead.
[LINK SiteName=Mothrust: Movies and Modern Myth Target=_blank]http://aintchristian.blogspot.com.au/[/LINK] Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
Akriboo Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #44
  • Rank:Not quite new
  • Score:770
  • Posts:37
  • From:Australia
  • Register:16/03/2008 7:03 AM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:19/03/2008 9:56 PMCopy HTML

 

TBerry,


Your post is indeed very interesting and makes one meditate more closely on all matters.


I am not too sure though why you would place so much emphasis on the experience that both the Apostles and Cornelius had (tongues)? I do understand your point...I presume that some in this forum believe that tongues had ceased with the apostles and by you highlighting Acts 11:15-16 and Cornelius' experience, then tongues is still open to all as a gift of the Spirit.


Reading of the scriptures definitely outlines that speaking in tongues as was in Pentecost and Cornelius scenario is a genuine experience and there must be many genuine tongues still used today.


This does highlight your position that your fellowship promotes ‘forced' tongues. Let me explain myself, a potential candidate for salvation is brought behind a curtain and two or three fellows lay hands on them and tell the candidate to say Halleluiah over and over and over until their tongue changes. Many times the candidate walks away without speaking in tongues as you would have it. At times they do according to your interpretation. Other times the process takes five minutes or more.


Other times during your session of testimonies, Saints get up the front and testify that when they received the Holy Spirit, their tongue began to ‘stammer'.


RBerry, you correctly mentioned that Peter stated that Cornelius' conversion was exactly the same as the day of Pentecost. Then how on earth are we to believe you when your own doctrine promotes otherwise?


Ask your members how may of them began to speak in tongues as exactly outlined in Acts 2 and 11?? You will find very few indeed.


Akriboo

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #45
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:19/03/2008 10:16 PMCopy HTML

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. Smile

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. Undecided

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? Innocent

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?! Yell 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. Wink

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' Undecided 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.
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
TBerry Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #46
  • Rank:New User
  • Score:610
  • Posts:26
  • From:Australia
  • Register:12/03/2008 10:03 PM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:20/03/2008 5:06 AMCopy HTML

 Well happy easter break everyone - im off to camp to pray in tongues and feel good, while ian stays at home banging his head against a brick wall. Cheers :)
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #47
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:20/03/2008 5:43 AMCopy HTML

Reply to TBerry (12/03/2008 16:40:44).
  Well happy easter break everyone - im off to camp to pray in tongues and feel good, while ian stays at home banging his head against a brick wall. Cheers :)


Well, it seems the brick wall Ian was banging his head against has gone off to camp though, doesn't it? I'm off to camp for the break as well, and not pray in babble and feel good.
[LINK SiteName=Mothrust: Movies and Modern Myth Target=_blank]http://aintchristian.blogspot.com.au/[/LINK] Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
Sea Urchin Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #48
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9110
  • Posts:436
  • From:Australia
  • Register:15/02/2007 7:34 AM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:20/03/2008 6:17 AMCopy HTML

Well happy easter break everyone - im off to camp to pray in tongues and feel good, while ian stays at home banging his head against a brick wall. Cheers :)
               ______________________________________________________________________

TBerry

I sincerely hope and pray that you do more than go "off to camp to pray in tongues and feel good" this Easter weekend! If you think that the purpose of tongues is to just 'feel good' you've REALLY missed the whole point.

I'd like to humbly offer a suggestion to you - considering that the purpose of Easter is not just so you 'can go to camp', why don't you try reflecting on what Easter is really all about.

Our precious Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ died an agonising death on the cross to take all of our sins and transgressions. (not so that you could go to camp and scoff at all the Christians who celebrate Easter)
He knew exactly what His Father was asking Him to do, but He did it willingly because He could see us - that's how much He loves each and every one of us. Rejoice greatly over His resurrection this weekend because that resurrection power is available to all who believe.

I know that RF do not 'believe in Easter' but you know what? Jesus DID die for us and He DID rise again that we may have eternal life. Reflect on that while you're "off to camp to pray in tongues and feel good"

God bless, Urch
Your unfailing love, O Lord, is as vast as the heavens; your faithfulness reaches beyond the clouds. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the ocean depths.
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #49
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:20/03/2008 6:54 AMCopy HTML

It seems that camping over Easter is the thing to do! Laughing My family goes camping this time every year with another family, to spend time together, and to reflect on Christ's Passion and Resurrection.

Mothster: I hope you and yours enjoy your time away relaxing and socialising.

Urch and other Christians: season's greetings this pascha.

TBerry: well, have fun speaking in 'tongues'.

'Out'.

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
RF_on_the_edge Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #50
  • Rank:Regular Poster
  • Score:3180
  • Posts:156
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:12/03/2007 10:25 PM

Re:2 Questions - Acts 2:8-12

Date Posted:25/03/2008 11:37 AMCopy HTML

Yo TBerry

I thought you might be interested in the following quote from the AMP, especially since the AMP used to be an RF/RCI favourite.

http://www.studybibleforum.com/htm_php.php3?do=jump_to_chapter&refstr=Acts+2%3A6&trans=AMP

Acts 2:6 And when this sound was heard, the multitude came together and they were astonished and bewildered, because each one heard them [the apostles] speaking in his own [particular] dialect.
RCI prophesies
Copyright © 2000-2019 Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.