Hi Ian,
Received said article, thankyou . I thought to put any questions or queries back to you as I read through, rather than wait to the end, and on this forum, so may save you time private emailing others that may have the same or similar question/s.  

query:  p12 your article; "and they were ALL filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues...."  The Reformation Study Bible p1560 in it's comments, states, the 120 who were present, inclusive of the experience.

question: Joel's prophecy "in the last days" Acts 2:v17. When he refers to 'the last days' is it the last days of the old covenant, and now fulfilled at pentecost, or is he talking about the Gospel age and end of world? 
brolga

query: p12 your article; "and they were ALL filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues...." The Reformation Study Bible p1560 in it's comments, states, the 120 who were present, inclusive of the experience. question: Joel's prophecy "in the last days" Acts 2:v17. When he refers to 'the last days' is it the last days of the old covenant, and now fulfilled at pentecost, or is he talking about the Gospel age and end of world? brolga

Good morning, Ralph.

Thanks for the feedback. WRT your query, the commentary in the RSB is precisley that, commentary. Such represents the views of the person/people who wrote that particular section ofthe study notes, and commentary of this sort normally isn't based on what the Hebrew of Greek text actually states, but the English translation that forms the body of the particular Study Bible. From time to time I'll read comments in the RSB, the NIVSB and the NJSB, and find myself saying, "...well, they 'goofed' up there!" [EMOTE]smiley-laughing.gif[/EMOTE]

And to answer your question, according to NT teaching, the "Last Days" began with the ministry of Jesus Christ.

I hope this helps,

Blessings,

Ian

Thanks Ian, One definitely has to have an overall understanding of the whole of scripture to have it fit in. Also having a  Websters dictionary near by helps understand what some words mean to [EMOTE]smiley-undecided.gif[/EMOTE]like me.

Page 25,26. What Simon saw?: Your clear explanation why it would NOT be the sign of tongues that he offered money for.

FWW A thought I had, in the light of Joels utterance that people (servants and handmaidens) would prophecy and so on, that is proclaim a new and wonderful way etc.,  With so many converting to Jesus, Simon could hop in on the 'band wagon', so to speak and profit from it. ([EMOTE]smiley-money-mouth.gif[/EMOTE]Nothing has changed in this day)

brolga

Ian,
From my point of view, I found the article quite understandable, but in some sections, to not have a basic understanding of the Greek and Hebrew language structure would be a little incomprehensible. A trait that Revivalists sadly are void of. On the other hand it is good that you have explained the meanings (in brackets)
It also has answered most, if not all, my questions regarding that section of scripture. I do not think it is too complex, and that coming from someone like myself (dumb) all should be able to understand the message.
You have certainly made your point, and I believe makes great ammuntion for the fight for truth against Revival false doctrine.
regards, brolga.
PS. I'm not nick-picking, found, I believe, just a couple of miss prints: vis;
page 28, "Cornelius immediately dispatches.....to seek 'our' ( out ?) Simon Peter"
page 29, ...."Cornelius' house. Peter placed his host's guests 'as' (at ?) ease by......"
page 23, ....ushering in the 'irrupting' Kingdom of God........ What is the meaning of irrupting?

All,

Thank you to the few who have offered comment to, and critique oof, the Acts essay. I am facing a little pressure to revise and release the article to a broader readership than simply the BETA group, so failing any further comments, I intend polishing the essay this weekend and commencing to distribute the final version from Monday.

There have been some substantial changes in written expression, and a little expansion in certain areas (both exegetical and theological).

I will be distributing the piece to a number of Revivalist pastors (excluding the CAI, as I doubt they would read it anyway).

Blessings,

Ian

Reply to Didaktikon (20/01/2008 2:51 AM). Righto, I intend to finalise the "release" copy of my essay on Acts this weekend. Anyone (and everyone) who wishes to receive a PDF copy will need to email me at the address below (this includes those who were "BETA" evaluators) Blessings, Ian

Ian. Thanks for sending me a copy of the finished article. It is brilliant!!! I'm passing it on to my friends now.

Jeff

Thanks, Jeff.

Ian

Ian, many thanks from me also 

Ralph.

Ian,

I have been having a regular half hour weekly session (bible study) with two Jehovah's Witness, just to see for myself their version of things. It hasn't taken much to see the scriptures are different to their beliefs. The discussions where going along fine, until I wanted them, to at least, have a browse at your article on Acts. The question was asked if we believed in the 'trinity', I answered yes, that is when the barriers went up. They said they wouldn't even bother looking as any that believes the trinity, is a false religion. They also claim that it is only them that are the only true church. (broken record) . They have challenged me that they will prove I am wrong. I have been searching the scriptures etc and am finding it a very complex issue as we know the word trinity is not in the bible, but there seems to be more texts, than not, that only make sense when you read them as God the Father, Son and HS.  Do you know of any reliable scource I can refer to on this matter and/or will I find it as part of my course later ? Thanks.

Ralph

 

Reply to brolga (20/01/2008 2:51 AM). Ian, I have been having a regular half hour weekly session (bible study) with two Jehovah's Witness, just to see for myself their version of things. It hasn't taken much to see the scriptures are different to their beliefs. The discussions where going along fine, until I wanted them, to at least, have a browse at your article on Acts. The question was asked if we believed in the 'trinity', I answered yes, that is when the barriers went up. They said they wouldn't even bother looking as any that believes the trinity, is a false religion. They also claim that it is only them that are the only true church. (broken record) . They have challenged me that they will prove I am wrong. I have been searching the scriptures etc and am finding it a very complex issue as we know the word trinity is not in the bible, but there seems to be more texts, than not, that only make sense when you read them as God the Father, Son and HS.  Do you know of any reliable scource I can refer to on this matter and/or will I find it as part of my course later ? Thanks. Ralph

Hi I find this website a good resource 
 

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS & RESEARCH MINISTRY	www.carm.org	HOME PAGE

<!--webbot bot="Include" i-checksum="4411" endspan -->

Brolga, JW's deny Christ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He is just one of the many prophets of the Bible (their own special Bible)to them.
According to JW's, He is NOT the way to salvation.
Why do you think they come to people's places to indoctrinate them very slowly almost in secret.
They choose to witness to the lonely and the vulnerable in our society.
There are always two of them, to watch each other's backs and to report to the heirachy about each other.
You will never change the way they think and they will never change the way you think.
Sorry, kneejerk reaction. Be careful!!

Cheers,
Glad 

Thanks for your inputs guys, I have taken note and put then in my "in basket" for perusal.
Glad, thanks for advise. I am way ahead of you on the tactics of JWs, many a time spent debating with them over the years. Not much different from Revivalists, they believe they have it all. My aim is not to change them but at least give ear to what they do believe from their viewpoint, though I do have the "subordinate member" thinking a lot, it is a part of my overall quest to seek out the truth and  eventually sum it all up and draw my own conclusion, if so be it.

Thanks again and keep the comments coming, I need all the help I can get.

Reply to is_aimoo_guest (20/01/2008 2:51 AM). If that "Trinity" from www.carm.org appeals to you, you should have stayed a Revivalist. It reminds me of the sort of stuff the Krishna Consciosness cult used to trot out.

Just had a quick browse. I am missing the point what you mean by "should have stayed a Revivalist" Is there something else you can show to enlighten me about the Trinity? 
I guess in a sense of the word, one will always be a Revivalist in some thought or deed. It is a trait of fallen man. What experience have you had with the Krishnas ? I know nothing at all about them. Thankyou

Brolga,

The Trinity article is strong on doctrine, strong on jargon. If it is so important to wrap up the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit if you prefer), into a doctrine that has all the zeal of "speaking in tongues to be saved", why is the word "Trinity" absent from the Bible? Why didn't Jesus or Peter or Paul preach it? They didn't any more than they preached British Israel.
 
My answer to anyone that asks if I believe in "THE TRINITY" is "why do you ask"? That is usually followed by a diatribe assuming I don't.
 
I guess I was fortunate enough for the Trinity to have never been thrust upon me as a "you better believe this" doctrine before I became a Revivalist. The sub-cult of Revivalism I joined, didn't (strangley enough I have since learned) push a Non-Trinity position. It wasn't till I was away from any influence that I started reading about the two insistent positions.
 
Back to my cult days. We used to do "street witness" and often ran into Hare Krishna people. Their Hindu based creed has a grab-bag of god-in-god beliefs that came to mind when I much later first read of the Trinity hoo-ha. I have a friend that says that Jesus is God and prays to Jesus. Didn't Jesus say to ask the of Father in His Name? My Catholic friends used to pray to Mary as the Mother of God. And the Saints. I thought the saints were saved people, like in Colossians 1:2. So is the Trinty in fact a Quadrunity or a whole pantheon for that matter, like the gods on Mount Olympus which the ancient Greeks worshipped?

I am just someone who reads the Bible, prays, enjoys fellowship and a whole lot of other Biblically based things. I don't believe in emphasis where I can see none. I always abhored British Israel, which again, strangley enough was not preached in the sub-sect I first joined. I did believe you had to speak in tongues to be saved. How stupid. Where does the Bible say that? You can sort of make the Bible say that if you do some cunning flim-flam.

God indeed is my Father, and Jesus was, and is, in the form of God (Philipiians 2:6) (See also Colossians 2:9). The Holy Spirit is indeed a "He" not an "it". I do not pray to Jesus or the Holy Spirit. I pray to God, in Jesus Name. I pray that the Holy Spirit will teach me (John 14:26). But to make a doctrine of "God in Three Persons" and call it "Trinity" is superflous at the least and I think dangerous, as it has become a hobby horse like "speaking in tongues to be saved".

Satan is subtle. He will try to con us with side issues wherever he can. We fled that sort of stuff in Revivalist cults, therefore, we of all people, should be vigilant not to replace one confused doctrine with another.

John

Reply to is_aimoo_guest (20/01/2008 2:51 AM). If that "Trinity" from www.carm.org appeals to you, you should have stayed a Revivalist. It reminds me of the sort of stuff the Krishna Consciosness cult used to trot out.

Ru a JW or something or maybe an Atheist perhaps??? Try reading it and no I'm not a bloody Revivalist!

Recommended reading for you brolga-  "30 Years A Watchtower Slave"  The Confessions of a Converted Jehovah's Witness by William J Schnell publisher Baker Books
It was available from Koorong bookstore.
Cheers,
Glad

There's that assumption again. JW or atheist perhaps. Neither, Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. But then again I assumed that you had come from a Revivalist background. Why else would you be here? Other than to mock or lie in wait to deceive, or perhaps just be curious as to why ex-Revivalists (of many shades) come here and spill their guts, so to speak. Why are you here?

Try reading it? I had read it. I didn't and don't disagree with any of the scriptures. I just don't like the packaging. Theological jargon is one-upmanship and if it weren't so dangerously self-righteous, and belittling, I would laugh it off as childish.

A doctor can say to an uneducated person "I intend to perform a total colectomy" to impress his education on the patient, or "I am going to remove your bowel". You can watch Peter Cundall on Gardening Australia and thoroughly enjoy the show or Don Burke and be bored if you haven't got your Latin dictionary at hand becuase he can't call a daisy a daisy, it has to be a "dellis hortenis".

John

I wish you guys would put a name or title to your Guest Avatars, it is so confusing who is responding to whom or what.

Glad, thankyou once again.
brolga

John, (I should have noticed your name below.)
Thankyou for views. What I am aiming to do is keep it to what the bible is actually telling us, or to be more precise, having the experience from, rather than fitting our own experiences into the Word. That's why I feel it is very important to try to have a correct understanding of the scriptures and to get the information one needs to see through false teachings and doctrine.
brolga


Guest,
(Ru a JW or something or maybe an Atheist perhaps??? Try reading it and no I'm not a bloody Revivalist!)

Are you asking me this? (still confused) if so, the answer is NO, just a poor soul who wants to find the truth.
I don't know of any one asking  if you were a Revivalist.

brolga

Thanks Brolga,
 
Hmmmm not fitting our own experiences into the word. There lies a trap we all can fall into, and indeed the correct understanding and a heart attuned to God's Word and His leading by the Holy Spirit would keep us on the straight and narrow way. It's getting and keeping the heart right that is important.

Knowing my propensity in the past to trust what pastors, elders, learned teachers told, advised, directed, only to find they were false pastors, elders, learned teachers has made me very wary, especially when it's self-righteously asserted, and with jargon and pomposity.

I have met few really good teachers in my life, but the ones that were good I can name and tell you what they taught me that stayed with me. Fairness and patience were common traits, followed by an enthusiasm not just to impart, but to give.

John

Ian, I have been having a regular half hour weekly session (bible study) with two Jehovah's Witness, just to see for myself their version of things. It hasn't taken much to see the scriptures are different to their beliefs. The discussions where going along fine, until I wanted them, to at least, have a browse at your article on Acts. The question was asked if we believed in the 'trinity', I answered yes, that is when the barriers went up. They said they wouldn't even bother looking as any that believes the trinity, is a false religion. They also claim that it is only them that are the only true church. (broken record) . They have challenged me that they will prove I am wrong. I have been searching the scriptures etc and am finding it a very complex issue as we know the word trinity is not in the bible, but there seems to be more texts, than not, that only make sense when you read them as God the Father, Son and HS.  Do you know of any reliable scource I can refer to on this matter and/or will I find it as part of my course later ? Thanks. Ralph

Good morning, Ralph.

Well, it looks like this thread now has less to do with my Acts essay than it does a nascent discussion on the Christian doctrine of the Trinity! [EMOTE]smiley-sealed.gif[/EMOTE]

Consequently, and for the sake of convenience, it's probably best if I summarise my thoughts at this point.

Point one. The Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians. They fundamentally deny the deity of the Saviour, consequently, they are beyond the pale of salvation.

Point two. If you plan on 'discipling' JW's, then best you plan to be in for the 'long-haul' [EMOTE]smiley-laughing.gif[/EMOTE] It takes me, on average, about two years to establish sufficient rapport with these roosters, to be able to get them to open up to alternate positions on a range of issues. And even then, I've only been successful in 'converting' five of them in almost 10 years of trying! They are very tough nuts to crack (far more so tha even the most strident Revivalist) [EMOTE]smiley-cry.gif[/EMOTE] 

Point three. The doctrine (more correctly dogma) of the Trinity is the cornerstone of Christian teaching: as Karl Bath once quipped, "Trinity is the name of the Christian God." And the fact that the Latin word 'trinity' nowhere appears in Scripture is completely irrelevant; what is relevant is that the word suitably encapsulates the biblical data on the tri-personal nature of God! It is, bye-and-large, acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity that defines one as orthodox. Heresy, theologically considered, is any teaching that deviates from the revealed (and accepted) teaching of the tri-personality of the Godhead. So if one teaches that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are less than co-equal, co-eternal, perichoretic and so forth, then one is a heretic [EMOTE]smiley-wink.gif[/EMOTE] 

You will cover the issue during a number of your theology modules at Tyndale: orthodox, heterodox and heretical understandings and/or positions. The subject is complex, with discussions of this sort not being helped by the simple fact that the majority of people who like to dabble in the subject have a much less than adequate understanding and grasp of the history, substance and tenor of the issue than is necessary. Far too many 'first-aiders' and far too few 'doctors', sadly [EMOTE]smiley-undecided.gif[/EMOTE] 

Blessings,

Ian

Hi Ian, thanks.

The only comment is, my motive is/was not to convert JWs, but to gain a broader view of the big picture of the reality as it is portrayed in scripture. In other words, to me it was always hearsay about JWs, I am finding out from the horses mouth so to speak. Like the bigitory attitude I used to have against Catholics and Orthodox that because of what was fed to me on face value by Revival. It wasn't until I saw for myself that it wasn't what was lied to me, it is much different.

Ralph. 
PS. If it takes that much effort by the 'best' to convert a JW, what hope would I have? (just kidding)

All,

I've had a few emails asking about the link between Mark 16 and my essay on Acts. Consequently, I'm making available an older article that I wrote on the former passage, to be read in conjunction with the latter. If anyone wants a copy, simply email me and ask for the Mark 16 paper [EMOTE]smiley-laughing.gif[/EMOTE]

Blessings,

Ian

I don't know where to pin this post but here will do...

120 vs Apostles.

Unfortunately in this argument, Ian is right... 

I suppose that is why this treasured piece of narrative collections is called "Praxis Apostolon "  and  not " Praxis 120 " . The apostles are definitly in the subject and I am only a baby greek student !!

So cheer up everyone, Greek really is a lot of fun..

Eric 

At last! Someone who understands! Tanhks for posting!

ldHNfB , [url=http://eflegpwkcamk.com/]eflegpwkcamk[/url], [link=http://mpfsoomjrdwa.com/]mpfsoomjrdwa[/link], http://pztnppjprudt.com/