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.

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.

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'.

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

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

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

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,

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Ive made it more than obvious that there were others in reference - i havent even been harping on the 120. The point is, the way peter uses Acts 1 quotes later on to the broader community - the whomsoever implies that we can likewise do the same.

Actually, unless you first understand the context that underpinned Peter's comments, then you're not in any position to be making assumptions concerningits application, or its supposed continuing relevance.

Say to anyone in any context now the gospel is open to all - gentile, jew, bond, free, multigenerational.

Agreed. Completely. But this isn't a discussion about the gospel, which is, of course, timeless. No, we've been discussing what happened to the apostles at Pentecost, and just as important, why.

You too can have exactly what the disciples had.

Really? That would be the old, "...every promise in the Book is mine, every chapter, every verse, very liiiiine..." sort of 'folk' theology, eh? The fact is that not every promise in Scripture is actually universal. And as I've pointed out (about a million times already), the promise concerning the specific empowering at Pentecost was specifically made by Jesus Christ, specifically to his apostles. Now for whatever reason, you've gone out of your way to avoid, like the plague, engaging with what I have very clearly proven to be the case, and from the English text that's available to all! Instead of actually engaging with what I've written, and attempting to refute the same, you've simply persisted in repeating your own views, over and over, as if doing so proves your point. Really quite silly, if you think about it.

Its not too much to ask of God - its been blown right open (even if it was initially only for the disciples - the fact is the latter rain is on and aint nobody gonna stop it with mere words).

Right.

And that if it was good for Peter to use this stuff out of context to the point of Luke including it in his recount of Acts, then obviously its a fine example for us to follow.

Two things: (1) Peter didn't use "this stuff" out of context at all; and even if he had, (2) Peter was an apostle, one who was specifically empowered by Christ, and specifically led by the Holy Spirit. No person living today can claim the privileges to 'infallibility' the apostles exercised.

Let us open up the pentecost experience to all and sundry now.

Sure, but it still wouldn't help you or the various Revivalist sects, as your 'experience' isn't the Pentecostal one! Unless, of course, your 'experience' happened strictly in a group context, one that incorporated the sound of a violently blowing wind, and a theophany of parting flame, and the distribution of authentic languages that were understood by 'unbelievers' who were present. You see, if your experience doesn't replicate the full range of manifestations that are described in Acts 2, then it simply isn't Pentecostal! Capiche?

I do not believe the Lord wants us to preach a message that somehow closes it all off with the disciples. Beyond the fact they (and others) were the subjects of Jesus conversations - its all in the Word now.

Have you not read a single word that I have written in my previous posts?! What you may, or may not, care to believe is irrelevant! What is relevant, however, is the very clear record that was left to us.

You say why, i simply say why not? Lets go for it - if its good enough for the gentiles even to grasp, then we should all be going with it too.

Amazing!

The apostle Paul spoke in tongues; different to that of the disciples of the pentecost day.

Indeed he did! Paul's was the simple gift of tongues, and not the manifestation of miraculously spoken foreign langauges that we read of at Pentecost. Here's the rub: they are not the same!

However he didnt become cinical about it like you.

Really? Have you not read 1 Corinthians 12 through 14?!

He was happy to pray in tongues at a personal level despite the apparent difference to that of those disciples at pentecost.

'Apparent' difference, huh? Try this one -- different in: (1) form, (2) function, (3) purpose, (4) practice, and (5) relevance.

Its ok moth, you dont need to feel insufficient just because of the way we speak in tongues is somewhat different to the first outpouring.

Bloke, the way that you speak in 'tongues' has absolutely nothing in common with what occurred at Pentecost. If you want to find biblical warrant for your 'experience', then you need to look to the situation encountered by Paul at Corinth, not Jerusalem. And the simple of gift of tongues, the type that Paul writes about in his letter, is not presented as the 'sign' of having 'received' the Holy Spirit! So if you accept this, then you've no grounds whatsover for linking what you do, to the phenomena of Pentecost, or (for that matter) to the promise of Acts 2:38 that your group hinges everything on.

You dont have to bag it. I mean isnt this your whole point! - that the disciples had something only they were given. The rest of us just speak in plain old tongues as per the apostle Paul. But its there and still available. Be happy with what the Lord has given you - but we dont have to compare with the disciples or devalue the tongues we've been given hey.

There you go! A tacit admission that what you have isn't what the apostles experienced at Pentecost! So if what you have is the simple gift of tongues, and according to Paul, the "least of all gifts", then you've no grounds for linking your experience to the events of Pentecost, have you?

Try spending a little time thinking long and hard on the ramifications of this.

Blessings,

Ian

P.S. I've politely asked you, several times now, to engage with the points that I've raised that disprove your position. To respond to them. To attempt to refute them. But in spite of this, you've not done so, at any point! Consequently, as with my previous interractions with 'MM', I'm rapidly tiring of such 'one-sided engagement' So in closing, engage or diminish: I have better things to do with my time then 'bash' my head against a brick wall in the vain hope that you'll start engaging with me. So please, have a 'crack' at addressing the many, many holes that I've pointed out in your argument.