Greetings Sea Urchin; In answer to your question….”When you say that the revival doctrine about tongues is correct - do you mean that 'you MUST speak in tongues to be saved' and that "speaking in tongues IS the evidence of salvation"?  Or do you mean that it is 'ok' to speak in tongues? Could you expound on your statement a little further please?”

I personally believe that “you MUST speak in tongues to be saved”. When I say this I must qualify this assertion by saying that tongues is simple the outward manifestation of the inner experience of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This is the same as being born of the Spirit and receiving the Spirit.

Greetings Brolga; In answer to your statement “It would be interesting to know just how you came to this decision.” I will give you my reasoning over the coming weeks if you like, however much of the argument appears to have been already covered in the various threads on this forum.

I think the best starting point would be to read the work entitled; Revivalist dogma and the book of Acts An exegetical and theological evaluation by Ian Thomason.

I would like to add that having read through this particular document there are some important consideration that require a well considered response.

These considerations are as follows:

a)      Most of those reading this document have little or no understanding of the rules that govern responsible handling of the primary documents, in this case the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. As such, when Ian draws a conclusion from his analysis the reader immediately assumes that the conclusion is a direct result of (in deed the only plausible response to) the proper evaluation of the text. This may or may not be the case.

Example: Over the centuries many Jewish scholars have cited their obvious superiority in understanding the Hebrew Old Testament compared to us Gentiles, to substantiate their claim that Jesus was NOT the Messiah. We as Christians would reject this assertion outright.

Their strategy is threefold:

1)      Draw their conclusion based on the premise that Jesus was NOT the Messiah

2)      Use their Superior grasp of Hebrew to substantiate said claim

3)      Rely on the intended audience’s inferior understanding of Hebrew to facilitate concurrence to the claim Jesus was NOT the Messiah.

Similarly the Greek Orthodox Church scholars have cited their obvious superiority in understanding the Greek New Testament compared to non Greeks to substantiate their claim that The Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox interpretation is floored.

b)      The ability (or rather lack thereof) of an unlearned audience to distinguish between; sound assumptions; and unsound assumptions based on the Greek scholarship alone.

Simply put; it is possible for Ian’s assumptions to be inaccurate, but his scholarship accurate. Scholarly superiority alone cannot substantiate a claim.  I have forwarded a copy of this work to a colleague of mine in the US for evaluation of the accuracy of Ian’s assumptions based on the Greek and Hebrew for a balanced unbiased viewpoint.

I have requested that in examining Ian’s work he look for the following:

1)      IF - Ian has drawn his conclusion based on the premise that the Revivalists Doctrine is Wrong with respect to tongues

2)      IF - Ian has use his Superior grasp of Greek to substantiate said claim

3)      IF - Ian has relied on the intended audience’s inferior understanding of Greek to facilitate concurrence to the claim.

I will reserve judgment until I have received a response to these and other questions I have sent.

May the truth have her perfect Will.

Blessings Demetrius

Hi Ian: Just responding to your post. I will cite your essay in RED font and your posts in BLUE font for the sake of clarity.

You said… “My scholarship is sound. My conclusions are also sound. However, your position on the subject simply cannot be supported or sustained by the Greek text, and is thoroughly tendentious.”  

Perhaps; though it could also be said that you were being a little tendentious when you said on page 7 of your essay…”The result is such that there remain no grounds provided within the text itself, for the widespread belief that the entire “one hundred and twenty” were in the habit of meeting in the “upper room”. Such may have been so, unlikely though it is, but there is no emphatic statement that such was so”

Such a statement in a court of law would be met with a prompt “Objection!” Calling for Speculation! This kind of spin on this text can be seen to put undue sway in the mind of the reader so as to persuade them (with information that is not in evidence) that 120 could not possibly be the number of whom received the holy Spirit in Acts 2:4 when that may have been the case. (I don’t want to pre-empt the analysis of your work by going too far into it now).

With respect to your statement “My scholarship is sound. My conclusions are also sound.

I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of your scholarship, I’m sure it’s fine. Its just that you appear in your writing to have a real chip on your shoulder with this Revival group, (not a criticism just an observation upon reading your many posts) even the most sincere, ardent academic can be swayed in their judgment when emotion plays too much a role.

You also said “Clearly you're unaware of the numerous factual and logical errors that you've made in your latest response, and I'd be more happy to point them out to you; but for the time being I'd like to see you explain how it can be that my grammatical analyses of the relevant Greek passages can be both "right" and "wrong" at the same time.

No Ian; you misunderstand. I am simply saying that while you may be grammatically correct, the conclusions you draw may just as well be floored. That’s all! That is why I gave the example of the Jewish scholars who grammatically are outstanding, however their conclusions are (as you would say) “tendentious”

Again I don’t want to pre-empt the assessment by breaking down your essay prematurely however one example stands out of you selectively referencing material to form a presupposition. This is evident when on pages 9-10 of your essay where you cite Philo Judaeus.

You stated…Philo Judaeus, a devout Jewish Elder living at Alexandria in North Africa, recounted the Jewish tradition that surrounded the giving of the Law in his treatise, De Decalogo (“On the Ten Commandments”). Written sometime around 25 AD, in it he had this to say:

This, then, might be sufficient discussion on these subjects; but it is necessary now to connect these previous things with that I am about to say, namely, that it was the Father of the universe who delivered these ten maxims, or oracles, or laws and enactments ... to the whole assembled nation of men and women all together. Did he do so, by uttering himself with some kind of voice? Of course not! Do not let such a thought to even enter your mind; for God is not like a man, he has no need of a mouth, and a tongue, and a windpipe, but it seems to me he did, at that time, perform a striking and evidently holy miracle, by commanding an invisible sound to be formed in the air, one more marvelous than all the musical instruments that ever existed ... but it was a rational voice both clear and distinct, which fashioned the air and stretched it out and changed it into a sort of flaming fire, and what sounded forth was so articulate a voice as breath when passing through a trumpet, that even those who were at a great distance appeared to hear it equally as well as those who were much nearer it ... but the power of God, breathing forth vigorously, aroused and caused a completely new kind of miraculous voice, and spreading its sound in every direction, made the end of it even more striking than the beginning

Whilst the above account is not contained within the biblical record, and as such is not binding upon the believer as is Scripture, it is noteworthy that we are immediately confronted with several striking parallels in the pre-Christian Jewish tradition to what we find recorded canonically in the second chapter of Acts!

I realize that Jewish tradition is highly regarded and probably none more than De Decalogo, but some 15 centuries had passed and the Jews had been all but destroyed several times.

Again such a statement in a court of law would be met with a prompt “Objection!” hearsay!

Even if we were to accept that the account is entirely accurate. You have selected this portion of the De Decalogo to draw a conclusion that is highly speculative.

To play “Devil’s Advocate” (for lack of a better word) I could draw a similar conclusion to say that 120 did indeed constitute those upon whom the Spirit filled in Acts 2:4.

Consider the following:

In 2^nd Chronicles chapters 5 through chapter 7 we read of the Dedication of the Temple. In the New Testament the Bible says we are the Temple….1Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

Seeing that the events of Acts 2 are similarly the New Testament equivalent of the Dedication of the New Testament Temple. We read further through the story and we see some striking parallels.

Acts 2:1  And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

Compare: 2Ch 5:13 “were as one, to make one sound”

Note: 2Chronicles 5:12…”with them a hundred and twenty priests sounding with trumpets.”

Acts 2:2  And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.

Compare: 2Ch 5:13  “then the house was filled with a cloud”

Acts 2:3  And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

Compare: 2Ch 7:1  “the fire came down from heaven”

Acts 2:4  And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Compare: 2Ch 7:6  “and the priests sounded trumpets before them”

Again Note: 2Chronicles 5:12…”with them a hundred and twenty priests sounding with trumpets.”

In summary you seem to spend a lot of time to prove that only the twelve were filled in verse 4 of Acts and though you present a reasonable argument it falls well short of conclusively proving the matter.

Further in the light of the length to which God went to ensure that; NOT 50, NOT 12, NOT 70 but 120 Priests sounded Silver Trumpets as well as a large amount of theological disagreement over  “who-was-talking-about-whom-and-when” in Acts 1 and 2. I choose to ere on the side of safety. We both know that Paul refers; (though negatively) to unknown tongues being like a Trumpet giving an uncertain sound. In Corinthians 14 (Not to read too much into that) but we must try to be balanced in our criticism of these Revivalists. Obviously they seem to have some very serious administrative issues in some regions of the country. But this dysfunction does not automatically equal error with respect to this aspect of their doctrine.

Having said all that I will continue to study your essay (hopefully it will improve at the back end.

Blessings

Demetrius

Good morning, Talmid.

Might I suggest you take up Ian's offer to point out your factual and logical errors? Post #10 really does make you look like you know of some useful concepts for evaluating proposals but don't truly understand them, certainly not well enough to be able to apply them. Indeed. To begin with, our friend clearly doesn't know the Greek Orthodox Church is the Eastern Orthodox Church. And the differences between Orthodox and non-Orthodox practices turn on liturgical points of difference, not grammatical ones supposedly derived from the Greek text. Similarly, his nonsense about "Jewish scholars" using a superior understanding of the Hebrew language to refute Christian claims with respect to the Messiah is similarly daft. Jewish disavowal of Jesus as the Christ is based on theological grounds, and not linguistic/textual ones.

In short, Demetrius has tipped his hand: he hasn't the first idea about the subject matter under discussion.

Blessings,

Ian

Good morning, Demetrius.

You said… “My scholarship is sound. My conclusions are also sound. However, your position on the subject simply cannot be supported or sustained by the Greek text, and is thoroughly tendentious.”  I did indeed!

Perhaps; though it could also be said that you were being a little tendentious when you said on page 7 of your essay…”The result is such that there remain no grounds provided within the text itself, for the widespread belief that the entire “one hundred and twenty” were in the habit of meeting in the “upper room”. Such may have been so, unlikely though it is, but there is no emphatic statement that such was so” Hardly. What I pointed out was that the text itself was completely silent on the matter: it simply doesn't state that the 120 were in the habit of meeting in the upper room. Consequently, I admitted to the possibility (at best, an argument from silence), but then set about explaining why it would be very unlikely. Had I been tendentious, as you've claimed, then I would have simply dismissed the possibility altogether without any amplifying commentary.

Such a statement in a court of law would be met with a prompt “Objection!” Calling for Speculation! This kind of spin on this text can be seen to put undue sway in the mind of the reader so as to persuade them (with information that is not in evidence) that 120 could not possibly be the number of whom received the holy Spirit in Acts 2:4 when that may have been the case. (I don’t want to pre-empt the analysis of your work by going too far into it now). What absolute rubbish; I've placed no "spin" on the text at all, to the contrary, I've enunciated what's actually there. You should go back and re-read what you've written, and think about how you came to such a daft conclusion (reflect on the fact that the subject under discussion was the possibility of the 120 staying in the upper room, and not the supposed possibility of the 120 manifesting the miracle of known languages. You have made a completely unjustified and unwarranted leap from the one to the other, and then without so much as a blink in between). To be brutally honest, I also wonder whether you know less about the practice of Court Law then you clearly do about theology and Greek exegesis.

I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of your scholarship, I’m sure it’s fine. Its just that you appear in your writing to have a real chip on your shoulder with this Revival group, (not a criticism just an observation upon reading your many posts) even the most sincere, ardent academic can be swayed in their judgment when emotion plays too much a role. Really? You claim to have no reason to doubt the accuracy of my scholarship, which is true enough, as there are no reasons for doing so; yet in spite of this candid admission you've seen fit to call it into question!? How intriguing. But to hone in on the main point: could you please explain for me how my paper could possibly be construed as being "emotional", given that it's a standard academic essay; one that's based solely on a close evaluation of the evidence, with appended explanations of the significance of the evidence? Emotional, indeed! Furthermore, why is it that you would seek to distance yourself from  "...this Revival group"? Are you now claiming not to being a Revivalist, yourself? How is that?

As for the "chip" on my shoulder, well, I suppose I'm altogether lacking in the capacity to appreciate heresy touted as if it were "gospel truth", and Scripture twisting as if it were biblical interpretation. Whilst you might have an appetite for such things, I simply can't, in all honesty, claim the same.

You also said “Clearly you're unaware of the numerous factual and logical errors that you've made in your latest response, and I'd be more happy to point them out to you; but for the time being I'd like to see you explain how it can be that my grammatical analyses of the relevant Greek passages can be both "right" and "wrong" at the same time. No Ian; you misunderstand. I am simply saying that while you may be grammatically correct, the conclusions you draw may just as well be floored. That’s all! That is why I gave the example of the Jewish scholars who grammatically are outstanding, however their conclusions are (as you would say) “tendentious”. I seriously doubt that I misunderstood you. First, if I'm "grammatically" correct, then I'm correct. The Bible doesn't consist of "codes" hidden under the words of the text, such that only the "special" people can understand them. God recorded his word to humans in human languages. Second, the word that you were after was "flawed". "Floored" is what I'm doing to your argument right now. Third, I'd suggest that you look up the meaning of the word "tendentious" in a dictionary, as I don't think you've grasped its significance given the way that you've attempted to use it (twice now). Finally, as for your supposed parallel with the "Jewish scholars", perhaps you should read my response to Talmid, to see how I addressed that particular piece of nonsense.

Again I don’t want to pre-empt the assessment by breaking down your essay prematurely however one example stands out of you selectively referencing material to form a presupposition. This is evident when on pages 9-10 of your essay where you cite Philo Judaeus.

You stated…Philo Judaeus, a devout Jewish Elder living at Alexandria in North Africa, recounted the Jewish tradition that surrounded the giving of the Law in his treatise, De Decalogo (“On the Ten Commandments”). Written sometime around 25 AD, in it he had this to say:  This, then, might be sufficient discussion on these subjects; but it is necessary now to connect these previous things with that I am about to say, namely, that it was the Father of the universe who delivered these ten maxims, or oracles, or laws and enactments ... to the whole assembled nation of men and women all together. Did he do so, by uttering himself with some kind of voice? Of course not! Do not let such a thought to even enter your mind; for God is not like a man, he has no need of a mouth, and a tongue, and a windpipe, but it seems to me he did, at that time, perform a striking and evidently holy miracle, by commanding an invisible sound to be formed in the air, one more marvelous than all the musical instruments that ever existed ... but it was a rational voice both clear and distinct, which fashioned the air and stretched it out and changed it into a sort of flaming fire, and what sounded forth was so articulate a voice as breath when passing through a trumpet, that even those who were at a great distance appeared to hear it equally as well as those who were much nearer it ... but the power of God, breathing forth vigorously, aroused and caused a completely new kind of miraculous voice, and spreading its sound in every direction, made the end of it even more striking than the beginning...Whilst the above account is not contained within the biblical record, and as such is not binding upon the believer as is Scripture, it is noteworthy that we are immediately confronted with several striking parallels in the pre-Christian Jewish tradition to what we find recorded canonically in the second chapter of Acts!

I realize that Jewish tradition is highly regarded and probably none more than De Decalogo, but some 15 centuries had passed and the Jews had been all but destroyed several times. Again such a statement in a court of law would be met with a prompt “Objection!” hearsay! Even if we were to accept that the account is entirely accurate. You have selected this portion of the De Decalogo to draw a conclusion that is highly speculative. *Sigh*. You've yet again completely missed the point. But why did you infer that Philo's De Decalogo stands among the most "highly regarded" pieces of Jewish tradition? Your assessment is based on what, exactly?

To play “Devil’s Advocate” (for lack of a better word) I could draw a similar conclusion to say that 120 did indeed constitute those upon whom the Spirit filled in Acts 2:4. Consider the following: In 2nd Chronicles chapters 5 through chapter 7 we read of the Dedication of the Temple. In the New Testament the Bible says we are the Temple….1Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? Seeing that the events of Acts 2 are similarly the New Testament equivalent of the Dedication of the New Testament Temple. We read further through the story and we see some striking parallels. Acts 2:1  And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. Compare: 2Ch 5:13 “were as one, to make one sound”. Note: 2Chronicles 5:12…”with them a hundred and twenty priests sounding with trumpets.” Acts 2:2  And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. Compare: 2Ch 5:13  “then the house was filled with a cloud” Acts 2:3  And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. Compare: 2Ch 7:1  “the fire came down from heaven”. Acts 2:4  And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. Compare: 2Ch 7:6  “and the priests sounded trumpets before them”. Again Note: 2Chronicles 5:12…”with them a hundred and twenty priests sounding with trumpets.” To begin with, I'm well aware of the information that you've presented. But you've failed, again, to note the particulars. First, in 1 Corinthians 3:16 Paul used a plural form that has been translated "you". He is pointing out a corporate fact, rather than an individual one. The "Revivalist" experience, as distinct from the "Pentecostal" event, is individual rather than corporate. In other words, the significance is reversed. Second, did you happen to notice that Luke nowhere, and at no point, mentions, quotes from or alludes to the account from 2 Chronicles in his Acts? Clearly he knew of it. Yet he specifically mentioned events that accorded exactly with Jewish tradition regarding what took place at the first Pentecost, and which we find conveniently recorded in Philo. Why is that, do you think? Third, the role played by the priests of 2 Chronicles fame is different in form, function and purpose to what occurred at Pentecost, and certainly with respect to the role played by the 120-odd Christian believers. In the Chronicler's account the priests were active participants. In the Acts account, all involved on that day were passive recipients. In other words, where's the "match"? What's the link other than the number "120"? Fourth, Pentecost was the feast that represented the confirmation of the Covenant through the giving of the Law (both at Sinai under Moses, and in AD 30 under Jesus). How does this feature "match", or "link" with the dedication of the Temple in Chronicles?

In summary you seem to spend a lot of time to prove that only the twelve were filled in verse 4 of Acts and though you present a reasonable argument it falls well short of conclusively proving the matter. "Falls well short", huh? Apparently not to those who teach Greek at the highest levels! I'm happy to wait until you introduce your "expert" before I trot out the Greek scholars of international repute whom I consulted when preparing my paper. But the primary point of the matter is this: I carefully and methodically built my case with respect to who it was that manifested the miraculous sign of known languages at Pentecost, and then strictly from what the passage states in the Greek. You, however, have altogether avoided engaging with this fact at each and every turn. The best that you can do is a particularly weak attempt at invoking some sort of "mystical" link between the Christian Pentecost, and the dedication of Solomon's Temple.

Further in the light of the length to which God went to ensure that; NOT 50, NOT 12, NOT 70 but 120 Priests sounded Silver Trumpets as well as a large amount of theological disagreement over  “who-was-talking-about-whom-and-when” in Acts 1 and 2. I choose to ere on the side of safety. We both know that Paul refers; (though negatively) to unknown tongues being like a Trumpet giving an uncertain sound. In Corinthians 14 (Not to read too much into that) but we must try to be balanced in our criticism of these Revivalists. Obviously they seem to have some very serious administrative issues in some regions of the country. But this dysfunction does not automatically equal error with respect to this aspect of their doctrine. And here we see you doing more of the same! The significance of there being 120 Christians at Pentecost had to do with the requirements under Jewish law for the establishment of a new community. Such required the appointment of a local Sanhedrin--which needed to number at least 12 members--whilst there was a requirement for a minimum of 120 "ordinary" members inclusive of women in the community itself. The 120 priests at the dedication of the Temple; however, had to do with the numerical requirement for the respective courses of officiating Levites under Jewish law. In other words, we are not discussing the same thing.

Demetrius, let me be plain. You are very clearly lacking in the necessary pieces of knowledge relating to Jewish customs and traditions that informs this entire subject. Whilst you've attempted to present yourself as being somewhat learned and dispassionate in this area, the veneer itself is wafer thin. You are neither informed nor objective. Given what you've written to date, you're clearly ignorant of the crucial facts, and you're very clearly a Revivalist to boot.

Having said all that I will continue to study your essay (hopefully it will improve at the back end.) I'm sure it does.

Blessings,

Ian

Good Afternoon Ian.

Perhaps; though it could also be said that you were being a little tendentious when you said on page 7 of your essay…”The result is such that there remain no grounds provided within the text itself, for the widespread belief that the entire “one hundred and twenty” were in the habit of meeting in the “upper room”. Such may have been so, unlikely though it is, but there is no emphatic statement that such was so”

Hardly. What I pointed out was that the text itself was completely silent on the matter: it simply doesn't state that the 120 were in the habit of meeting in the upper room. Consequently, I admitted to the possibility (at best, an argument from silence), but then set about explaining why it would be very unlikely. Had I been tendentious, as you've claimed, then I would have simply dismissed the possibility altogether without any amplifying commentary.

This is what I am getting at Ian. If in your own words “the text itself was completely silent on the matter” why include this if not to sway the reader in favour of your point of view.

Such a statement in a court of law would be met with a prompt “Objection!” Calling for Speculation! This kind of spin on this text can be seen to put undue sway in the mind of the reader so as to persuade them (with information that is not in evidence) that 120 could not possibly be the number of whom received the holy Spirit in Acts 2:4 when that may have been the case. (I don’t want to pre-empt the analysis of your work by going too far into it now).

What absolute rubbish; I've placed no "spin" on the text at all, to the contrary, I've enunciated what's actually there. You should go back and re-read what you've written, and think about how you came to such a daft conclusion (reflect on the fact that the subject under discussion was the possibility of the 120 staying in the upper room, and not the supposed possibility of the 120 manifesting the miracle of known languages. You have made a completely unjustified and unwarranted leap from the one to the other, and then without so much as a blink in between). To be brutally honest, I also wonder whether you know less about the practice of Court Law then you clearly do about theology and Greek exegesis!

I do not really understand why you are making unnecessary comments of the kind I have put in Bold above. It is as if you simply cannot cope with anybody not totally agreeing with you. To resort to mud slinging is not a good look.

BTW: Of course there is spin…Please! (Sigh)

I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of your scholarship, I’m sure it’s fine. Its just that you appear in your writing to have a real chip on your shoulder with this Revival group, (not a criticism just an observation upon reading your many posts) even the most sincere, ardent academic can be swayed in their judgment when emotion plays too much a role.

Really? You claim to have no reason to doubt the accuracy of my scholarship, which is true enough, as there are no reasons for doing so; yet in spite of this candid admission you've seen fit to call it into question!? How intriguing. But to hone in on the main point: could you please explain for me how my paper could possibly be construed as being "emotional", given that it's a standard academic essay; one that's based solely on a close evaluation of the evidence, with appended explanations of the significance of the evidence? Emotional, indeed! Furthermore, why is it that you would seek to distance yourself from  "...this Revival group"? Are you now claiming not to being a Revivalist, yourself? How is that?

No I am not “call it into question” your scholarship. I simply saying that your dislike for Revivalist MAY BE skewing your conclusions. Now before you respond with more mud slinging, Note I said MAY BE.

Further I notice that at every chance you reinforce your superiority (as highlighted above)

As for the "chip" on my shoulder, well, I suppose I'm altogether lacking in the capacity to appreciate heresy touted as if it were "gospel truth", and Scripture twisting as if it were biblical interpretation. (1)  Whilst you might have an appetite for such things, (2) I simply can't, in all honesty, claim the same.

Again (as highlighted above) you claim the higher ground (1) followed by some more good old fashioned mud slinging (2) above.

You also said “Clearly you're unaware of the numerous factual and logical errors that you've made in your latest response, and I'd be more happy to point them out to you; but for the time being I'd like to see you explain how it can be that my grammatical analyses of the relevant Greek passages can be both "right" and "wrong" at the same time.

No Ian; you misunderstand. I am simply saying that while you may be grammatically correct, the conclusions you draw may just as well be floored. That’s all! That is why I gave the example of the Jewish scholars who grammatically are outstanding, however their conclusions are (as you would say) “tendentious”.

I seriously doubt that I misunderstood you. First, if I'm "grammatically" correct, then I'm correct. (1) The Bible doesn't consist of "codes" hidden under the words of the text, such that only the "special" people can understand them. God recorded his word to humans in human languages. Second, the word that you were after was "flawed". "Floored" is what I'm doing to your argument right now. (1)  Third, I'd suggest that you look up the meaning of the word "tendentious" in a dictionary, as I don't think you've grasped its significance given the way that you've attempted to use it (twice now). Finally, as for your supposed parallel with the "Jewish scholars", perhaps you should read my response to Talmid, to see how I addressed that particular piece of nonsense. (2)

Again (as highlighted above) you claim the higher ground (1) followed by some more good old fashioned mud slinging (2) above.

Again I don’t want to pre-empt the assessment by breaking down your essay prematurely however one example stands out of you selectively referencing material to form a presupposition. This is evident when on pages 9-10 of your essay where you cite Philo Judaeus.

You stated…Philo Judaeus, a devout Jewish Elder living at Alexandria in North Africa, recounted the Jewish tradition that surrounded the giving of the Law in his treatise, De Decalogo (“On the Ten Commandments”). Written sometime around 25 AD, in it he had this to say:  This, then, might be sufficient discussion on these subjects; but it is necessary now to connect these previous things with that I am about to say, namely, that it was the Father of the universe who delivered these ten maxims, or oracles, or laws and enactments ... to the whole assembled nation of men and women all together. Did he do so, by uttering himself with some kind of voice? Of course not! Do not let such a thought to even enter your mind; for God is not like a man, he has no need of a mouth, and a tongue, and a windpipe, but it seems to me he did, at that time, perform a striking and evidently holy miracle, by commanding an invisible sound to be formed in the air, one more marvelous than all the musical instruments that ever existed ... but it was a rational voice both clear and distinct, which fashioned the air and stretched it out and changed it into a sort of flaming fire, and what sounded forth was so articulate a voice as breath when passing through a trumpet, that even those who were at a great distance appeared to hear it equally as well as those who were much nearer it ... but the power of God, breathing forth vigorously, aroused and caused a completely new kind of miraculous voice, and spreading its sound in every direction, made the end of it even more striking than the beginning...Whilst the above account is not contained within the biblical record, and as such is not binding upon the believer as is Scripture, it is noteworthy that we are immediately confronted with several striking parallels in the pre-Christian Jewish tradition to what we find recorded canonically in the second chapter of Acts!

I realize that Jewish tradition is highly regarded and probably none more than De Decalogo, but some 15 centuries had passed and the Jews had been all but destroyed several times. Again such a statement in a court of law would be met with a prompt “Objection!” hearsay! Even if we were to accept that the account is entirely accurate. You have selected this portion of the De Decalogo to draw a conclusion that is highly speculative.

*Sigh*. You've yet again completely missed the point. But why did you infer that Philo's De Decalogo stands among the most "highly regarded" pieces of Jewish tradition? Your assessment is based on what, exactly?

Your only comment on what I said was “You've yet again completely missed the point.”

OK!

To play “Devil’s Advocate” (for lack of a better word) I could draw a similar conclusion to say that 120 did indeed constitute those upon whom the Spirit filled in Acts 2:4. Consider the following: In 2nd Chronicles chapters 5 through chapter 7 we read of the Dedication of the Temple. In the New Testament the Bible says we are the Temple….1Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? Seeing that the events of Acts 2 are similarly the New Testament equivalent of the Dedication of the New Testament Temple. We read further through the story and we see some striking parallels. Acts 2:1  And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. Compare: 2Ch 5:13 “were as one, to make one sound”. Note: 2Chronicles 5:12…”with them a hundred and twenty priests sounding with trumpets.” Acts 2:2  And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. Compare: 2Ch 5:13  “then the house was filled with a cloud” Acts 2:3  And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. Compare: 2Ch 7:1  “the fire came down from heaven”. Acts 2:4  And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. Compare: 2Ch 7:6  “and the priests sounded trumpets before them”. Again Note: 2Chronicles 5:12…”with them a hundred and twenty priests sounding with trumpets.”

To begin with, I'm well aware of the information that you've presented. But you've failed, again, to note the particulars. First, in 1 Corinthians 3:16 Paul used a plural form that has been translated "you". He is pointing out a corporate fact, rather than an individual one. The "Revivalist" experience, as distinct from the "Pentecostal" event, is individual rather than corporate. In other words, the significance is reversed. Second, did you happen to notice that Luke nowhere, and at no point, mentions, quotes from or alludes to the account from 2 Chronicles in his Acts? Clearly he knew of it. Yet he specifically mentioned events that accorded exactly with Jewish tradition regarding what took place at the first Pentecost, and which we find conveniently recorded in Philo. Why is that, do you think? Third, the role played by the priests of 2 Chronicles fame is different in form, function and purpose to what occurred at Pentecost, and certainly with respect to the role played by the 120-odd Christian believers. In the Chronicler's account the priests were active participants. In the Acts account, all involved on that day were passive recipients. In other words, where's the "match"? What's the link other than the number "120"? Fourth, Pentecost was the feast that represented the confirmation of the Covenant through the giving of the Law (both at Sinai under Moses, and in AD 30 under Jesus). How does this feature "match", or "link" with the dedication of the Temple in Chronicles?

Perhaps then I should have quoted 1Corinthians 6:19 What? Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

Further, Luke doesn’t mention the dedication of the Temple; well that sure proves a lot???

In the dedication they were “active participants” and at Pentecost “passive recipients” again that sure proves a lot???

In summary you seem to spend a lot of time to prove that only the twelve were filled in verse 4 of Acts and though you present a reasonable argument it falls well short of conclusively proving the matter.

"Falls well short", huh? Apparently not to those who teach Greek at the highest levels! I'm happy to wait until you introduce your "expert" before I trot out the Greek scholars of international repute whom I consulted when preparing my paper. (1) But the primary point of the matter is this: I carefully and methodically built my case with respect to who it was that manifested the miraculous sign of known languages at Pentecost, and then strictly from what the passage states in the Greek. You, however, have altogether avoided engaging with this fact at each and every turn. The best that you can do is a particularly weak attempt at invoking some sort of "mystical" link between the Christian Pentecost, and the dedication of Solomon's Temple! (2)

Again (as highlighted above) you claim the higher ground (1) followed by some more good old fashioned mud slinging (2) above. I find if funny how you ridicule my drawing attention to the dedication and Pentecost by the comment “The best that you can do is a particularly weak attempt at invoking some sort of "mystical" link between the Christian Pentecost, and the dedication of Solomon's Temple!” When I did so only to question why you would do the same with Philo Judaeus and his in his treatise, De Decalogo. Well at least mine was from the Bible LOL.

Further in the light of the length to which God went to ensure that; NOT 50, NOT 12, NOT 70 but 120 Priests sounded Silver Trumpets as well as a large amount of theological disagreement over  “who-was-talking-about-whom-and-when” in Acts 1 and 2. I choose to ere on the side of safety. We both know that Paul refers; (though negatively) to unknown tongues being like a Trumpet giving an uncertain sound. In Corinthians 14 (Not to read too much into that) but we must try to be balanced in our criticism of these Revivalists. Obviously they seem to have some very serious administrative issues in some regions of the country. But this dysfunction does not automatically equal error with respect to this aspect of their doctrine.

And here we see you doing more of the same! The significance of there being 120 Christians at Pentecost had to do with the requirements under Jewish law for the establishment of a new community. Such required the appointment of a local Sanhedrin--which needed to number at least 12 members--whilst there was a requirement for a minimum of 120 "ordinary" members inclusive of women in the community itself. The 120 priests at the dedication of the Temple; however, had to do with the numerical requirement for the respective courses of officiating Levites under Jewish law. In other words, we are not discussing the same thing!

You see this is the thing; you say “the significance of there being 120 Christians at Pentecost had to do with the requirements under Jewish law for the establishment of a new community.” And this is true but what you do is draw the conclusion that because this is true. Any other conclusions cannot be drawn from the significance of there being 120. That is irrational and myopic.

Then if anyone dares to disagree with you, you reach for the verbal mud…WHY??

Are you incapable of simple, respectful dialogue? This is an important thing for you to consider Ian.

Demetrius, let me be plain. You are very clearly lacking in the necessary pieces of knowledge relating to Jewish customs and traditions that informs this entire subject. (2) Whilst you've attempted to present yourself as being somewhat learned and dispassionate in this area, the veneer itself is wafer thin. You are neither informed nor objective. Given what you've written to date, you're clearly ignorant of the crucial facts (2), and you're very clearly a Revivalist to boot.

Surprise surprise! Rather than discuss the subject matter in a respectful way. More of the same verbiage.  Is it really so important to you to appear soooo superior to everyone else who dares to read the Bible in a different way to you?

If the only people you can speak to normally are those who either agree with you fully or pay you some kind of homage then perhaps you are not so far removed from these Revivalists that you so condemn.

Having said all that I will continue to study your essay (hopefully it will improve at the back end.)

I'm sure it does.

We’ll see!

Note:

(1)   Indicates where you claim superiority – essentially bowing your own trumpet

(2)   Indicates where you disparage my comments – belittling my opinions

PS: When I say “tendentious” I mean having or showing a definite tendency, bias, or purpose against Revivalists

Blessings,

Demetrius

Demetrius,

To begin with, you've not proven your case. Far from it, what you've demonstrated to date is a thoroughly inadequate grasp of the crucial facts and points: historical, cultural, theological and linguistic. And, contrary to your previous assertions, my pointing out such inadequacies and blatant errors on your part isn't simply "mud-slinging". What it is, however, is the identifying of the manifest weaknesses in your arguments, and a treating of them with the contempt that they warrant. Both you and I know that you haven't the skills or the knowledge necessary to be making the assertions that you have, never mind doing something so "shocking" as backing them up with hard evidence.

So instead of stating that I'm simply seeking the "high-ground" (which I actually possess in this discussion, by the way), and labeling me a "name-caller"/"mud-slinger", why don't you reverse-track and actually attempt to engage with and address the various points of deficiency in your presentations to date, and which I've helpfully highlighted for your benefit in my responses to date?

Try demonstrating to that you do, in fact, have a clue. Until you do so, the average reader here will no doubt recognise your rhetoric for what it is: hollow rhetoric. And from my own perspective, if you wish for me to treat you with respect, then demonstrate that you're actually deserving of the same. Until then to me you're simply another Revivalist heretic, one intent on "blowing his own trumpet", but then without either the benefit of musical skill or a musical "ear". You should be happy that I didn't follow the apostle Paul's lead, and condemn you to hell.

So I'll close this rejoinder with a challenge: "put up or shut up". In other words, if you think I'm wrong in what I've stated in my Acts paper, then stop "shadow-boxing" around the periphery; step up and attempt to PROVE me wrong.

Good luck.

Ian

Just to re-cap.

In post #6: I said “I think that the Revival Churches have many many things wrong, but their doctrine about tongues is not one of them.
That's my opinion.

I was politely asked by Sea Urchin and Brolga to explain my belief that the tongues doctrine of the Revivalists was correct (in my opinion)

I decided to read the work of Ian Thomasson entitled Revivalist dogma and the book of Acts An exegetical and theological evaluation. As I am not a Greek or Hebrew Scholar I sent this document to a couple of friends for evaluation and said as much in Post # 10.

In Post # 10 I did express some concerns I had with respect to the apparent disparity of having someone who has a Masters degree in Theology expressing opinions that I was not qualified to challenge. Because I do not know the guy, this troubled me.

The reason is that he could easily say what he likes and no one could correct him. Are we to simply believe everything he says because he says so? Again I expressed this in post # 10 by citing the Jewish scholars.

The thing is that Ian makes many statements the HE says are correct (maybe they are) but I am not qualified to verify whether he is truthful or not. I am left just thinking of the words of Jesus “Mat 7:15  Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Mat 7:16  Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Mat 7:17  Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. Mat 7:18  A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Mat 7:19  Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Mat 7:20  Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Ian has from Post # 11 repeatedly and aggressively attacked my queries, statements and assertions as uneducated, stupid and altogether erroneous, baseless assumption. While at the same time assuring us that he is never wrong. In a nutshell he has ostensibly YELLED ME DOWN for daring not to agree.

I do not know Ian’s history with these Revivalists but it must have been a terrible one. The latent hostility he feels is palpable.

Ian, I really do feel for you my friend. (I will pray for you)

For now I will content myself to simply concede that you are far Toooo smart for me. I am a lowly, humble mortal. How dare I even have the thought that YOU may be mistaken.

I will return when I have feedback from abroad.

God Bless

Demetrius

Good morning, Demetrius.

Please, allow me to attempt a "re-cap" of my own.

You showed up here in your latest alias, stating that one must be able to speak in tongues in order to demonstrate that one is saved (in other words, you attempted to promote the standard Revivalist heresy). Statements of this sort, of course, pique my interest. You were so bold as to suggest my Acts paper was (a) potentially flawed in it's conclusions, in spite of the fact that by your admission, (b) my scholarship was likely sound. In other words although  you were unable to refute or contradict a single point I proved in my essay, you wanted to sow a little doubt about it anyway.

Building on a chain of thoroughly ignorant comments, you then sought to introduce a few particularly daft statements as if they supported your novel and naive contentions. To cap matters off you resorted to allegorising from 2 Chronicles in an effort to refute my conclusions about the Jewish tradition as recounted by Philo Judaeus. At no point did you actually engage with the central thesis of my paper, which is that the grammar and syntax of the Greek texts of Acts chapters 1, 2, 8 and 10 completely refutes the Revivalist position on the significance of unknown tongues.

Now you've now gone 'sooky' because I refuse to treat your arguments with the respect you believe you they deserves. To be clear, so far as I'm concerned you've established yourself to be naught but a heretic. My approach is flexible enough to cater for well-meaning but ignorant Revivalists, in the hopes of educating them and guiding them towards orthodoxy. However, I reserve scorn for those die-hard heretics who stubbornly refuse to consider they might be wrong, and so who refuse point-blank to submit to the teaching and the authority of Scripture over experience. Guess which group I believe you fall into?

You should understand by now that I intentionally wrote the Acts paper in such a way that my chain-of-evidence and conclusions could be verified by anyone who had interest enough to do so; something that I've encouraged from the outset. And as Talmid pointed out to you as well, a close and careful reading of the respective chapters from Acts in  any modern English translation also supports my central thesis. By all means do appeal to your unnamed overseas 'experts', and please quote freely of their opinions. However, do list their names and qualifications as well, for I shall be verifying your sources as any competent academic would.

My challenge to you is 'put up or shut up'. The choice between the two options, as always, remains yours.

Ian

Hi Demetrius

I must say I find your posts a tad disingenuous. Here's a sample of my reasoning.

1) When you stated your opinion, "blind Freddy" would have known you would get the responses you got.

2) You question the validity of Ian's work, without acknowledging that the vast majority of bible students and scholars who claim the title of Christian also say that the Revivalist take on tongues is wrong.

3) You question Ian's bias when the key issue is whether his conclusions are valid. To that end the only issues of relevance are (a) whether the evidence presented leads to the conclusions presented (b) whether all the relevant evidence is presented

4) You question your ability to evaluate a paper which you chose to interact with (and which was framed for those who wanted to - or claimed to be able to - interact with the material at the level presented). Yet, there are other papers which deal with the question at a level which the "average" reader *can* evaluate.

5) You say that Ian's only comment re your De Decalogo rejoinder was that you missed the point, yet he also specifically asked the basis for your claim that the document was highly regarded.

6) You question the veracity of the De Decalogo tradition, yet the issue is that the tradition existed and what it would have "said" to the Jews present at the Christian pentecost. (I've progressed a little since my post above as RFOTE.)

7) You accuse Ian of mischeviously taking the high ground yet say to him eg "Having said all that I will continue to study your essay (hopefully it will improve at the back end.)".

8) You accuse Ian of mischeviously slinging mud yet you say to him eg "For now I will content myself to simply concede that you are far Toooo smart for me. I am a lowly, humble mortal. How dare I even have the thought that YOU may be mistaken.". 

9) You accuse Ian of being ignorant and myopic (another instance of your own "mud slinging") in his response to your thoughts that the 2 Chronicles events were relevant to Acts 2 yet choose to not ask Ian  (another instance of you taking the high ground) about the point he makes regarding the contrast between active participants and passive recipients when you miss it. FWIW missing the point is a sample of your own ignorance.

All that said, I still hope you (and other readers) will be open to what the Spirit is saying through the scriptures.

Good morning, Mr Barton.

I'm finding it difficult to credit much of what you say, given your multiplied aliases, repeated untruths (e.g. to being an 'ex'-Revivalist, and to having studied Greek, etc), and wholesale avoiding of my invitations to engage directly with my work. Consequently, I believe your credibility is suspect.

However, I did appreciate your comment about 'getting the better of me' in a recent discussion. Please, when have you ever done so? Anyone can review your previous efforts here, so long as they can keep your multiplied identities in their proper sequences ;)

To close, this latest forum of yours is an absolute 'hoot':  http://thehereticianthomasson.aimoo.com/

I'm not too sure what to think of this weird fixation of yours.

Ian

I will answer your questions in point form so as to make it really simple. I will even type really slowly for your bennifit.

1) Multiple Aliases: This would not be necessary if I did not get banned every second post.

2) Former Revivalist: I have left the Revivalist Churches a couple of times, therefore at the time I was ex-Revivalist. (As I am Today!!!)

3) Greek Studies: I studies Greek at the University of New England. To help me I was Tudored by a Koine Greek Teacher/Baptist Minister. 1992/3

4) Why I left: That's my business and not helpful to anyone here. I will say this it was not over doctrine! 

5) Getting on top of you: What I said was "Anyone who begins to really get on top of Ian and co will be banned before being allowed to fully make their arguments thus creating an imbalance in the theatre of the debate".

6) The heretic Ian Thomasson Forum: That forum is not yet ready, give me a month or so and your arguments will be shown to be as baseless as they are. So we'll put that in the "Coming Soon" Basket.


Anyhow This will probably be deleted any way! BTW many of my previous post have been deleted already from this forum. Whats that about Uncoolman????

If Ian is going to steer people to refer to previous debates then this is again imbalanced due to tampering on the part of Uncoolman.

I think the honest onlookers can see through this deception.

Blessings

Luke 735

Tony,

I will answer your questions in point form so as to make it really simple. I will even type really slowly for your bennifit. Cool. And I'll read your reply with a dictionary at my elbow (also for my benefit).

1) Multiple Aliases: This would not be necessary if I did not get banned every second post. It also wouldn't be necessary if you were honest!

2) Former Revivalist: I have left the Revivalist Churches a couple of times, therefore at the time I was ex-Revivalist. (As I am Today!!!) Well, I suppose at least you're consistent in being inconsistent!

3) Greek Studies: I studies Greek at the University of New England. To help me I was Tudored by a Koine Greek Teacher/Baptist Minister. 1992/3. Bollocks.

4) Why I left: That's my business and not helpful to anyone here. I will say this it was not over doctrine! Actually, it's everyone's business! You want to set yourself up as a spiritual authority, then you need to be completely transparent and accountable with respect to your "in again, out again" approach to Revivalism.

5) Getting on top of you: What I said was "Anyone who begins to really get on top of Ian and co will be banned before being allowed to fully make their arguments thus creating an imbalance in the theatre of the debate". If you can't make and establish a point in less than 30 posts of 6,000 words each, then it's highly doubtful there is a point!

6) The heretic Ian Thomasson Forum: That forum is not yet ready, give me a month or so and your arguments will be shown to be as baseless as they are. So we'll put that in the "Coming Soon" Basket. I can hardley wait ;)

Anyhow This will probably be deleted any way! BTW many of my previous post have been deleted already from this forum. Whats that about Uncoolman???? It probably it relates to: (1) a lack of honesty on your part. (2) Probity with respect to moderation on Unkoolman's part. (3) Your general and specific approach to matters. (4) And a lack of band-with to accommodate your over-lengthy diatribes, etc. But you can't really rail against Unkoolman given the way you "run" your multiplied forae, can you?

I think the honest onlookers can see through this deception. Yes. I'm certain they can.

Ian