Is The Gift of Tongues For Today?

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Touchy, touchy...

It just seems a little loaded (and suspicious) of any scholar to suggest the same group, in the same scene, just a few paragraphs later, the same room and scene are now a different cast because the text indicates Matthias was now "numbered" among the disciples.

Touchy, whatever.

So state your reasons for your opinion rather than your suspicions.

Acts 1:14 says they met continually. We can conclude from this that there wasn't one meeting, there were many.

Acts 1:15 says that Peter stood up and spoke on a day there were 120 present. We can conclude from this that 120 people in attendance were exclusive to that day.

There is clearly a space of time that takes place between 1:26 and 2:1 and chapter division or no chapter division, there is nothing to indicate that those same 120 people were present.

In Acts 2, Peter stood up with the eleven, not the 119. There is no evidence vague or otherwise, that indicates that 120 people were present in Acts 2.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

Touchy, whatever.

Awww... come on

So state your reasons for your opinion rather than your suspicions.

Acts 1:14 says they met continually. We can conclude from this that there wasn't one meeting, there were many.

How can we conclude that? During this time, when about 120 believers[d] were together in one place, Peter stood up and addressed them.

Acts 1:15 says that Peter stood up and spoke on a day there were 120 present. We can conclude from this that 120 people in attendance were exclusive to that day.

True... and in the same narrative scene as the rest...

There is clearly a space of time that takes place between 1:26 and 2:1 and chapter division or no chapter division, there is nothing to indicate that those same 120 people were present.

And Acts 2 begins with: On the day of Pentecost[a] all the believers were meeting together in one place.

In Acts 2, Peter stood up with the eleven, not the 119. There is no evidence vague or otherwise, that indicates that 120 people were present in Acts 2.

This doesn't mean Peter, and all present stood. It means the Apostles stood. This was their hour, their moment. Peter spoke, but they stood. Peter stood up with the 11 -- very distinctive here.

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Awww... come on

How can we conclude that? During this time, when about 120 believers[d] were together in one place, Peter stood up and addressed them.

True... and in the same narrative scene as the rest...

And Acts 2 begins with: On the day of Pentecost[a] all the believers were meeting together in one place.

This doesn't mean Peter, and all present stood. It means the Apostles stood. This was their hour, their moment. Peter spoke, but they stood. Peter stood up with the 11 -- very distinctive here.

You still have not one shred of evidence for 120 people being involved in the Acts 2 experience. Nothing. I honestly don't know how many people were involved in the Acts 2 events, but there isn't any indicator whatsoever that there were 120 and it's impossible from the information provided to draw an absolute conclusion.

Really, I don't give a hoot how many there were and it makes zero difference and has nothing to do with nothing. But I hate being called "Silly."

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

You still have not one shred of evidence for 120 people being involved in the Acts 2 experience. Nothing. I honestly don't know how many people were involved in the Acts 2 events, but there isn't any indicator whatsoever that there were 120 and it's impossible from the information provided to draw an absolute conclusion.

Really, I don't give a hoot how many there were and it makes zero difference and has nothing to do with nothing. But I hate being called "Silly."

No evidence? 120 wasn't the number of "believers" that gathered, that Luke specifically numbered? And the "believers" that gathered on Pentecost is a different group now?? The only evidence tilted against this fact is because Peter stood with the 11? Really?

Doesn't seem there's anything to prove, unless one is trying to prove there wasn't 120 in the Upper Room.

No evidence? Not a shred?

Re the silly thing... gee whiz... first, I didn't call YOU silly personally, second, it's just words and my initial reaction to something that seems trite and trivial.
Quote:
It's quite silly to suggest the "numbering of the 12" means suddenly the 120 disappeared.

Nothing deep and I would hope you wouldn't take it that. I'd actually be shocked if you were still upset from that post. Really?

[jfrog]

The only argument I'm seeing for the 120 is that "they must have been there because a few days before Pentecost Luke numbered 120 that witnessed the event of choosing Judas's replacement"

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by Socialite

No evidence? 120 wasn't the number of "believers" that gathered, that Luke specifically numbered? And the "believers" that gathered on Pentecost is a different group now?? The only evidence tilted against this fact is because Peter stood with the 11? Really?

Doesn't seem there's anything to prove, unless one is trying to prove there wasn't 120 in the Upper Room.

No evidence? Not a shred?

Re the silly thing... gee whiz... first, I didn't call YOU silly personally, second, it's just words and my initial reaction to something that seems trite and trivial.
Quote:
It's quite silly to suggest the "numbering of the 12" means suddenly the 120 disappeared.

Nothing deep and I would hope you wouldn't take it that. I'd actually be shocked if you were still upset from that post. Really?

Yes, I'm furious. Flaming. Fried. Shaked, baked, fried, and dried.

Nope, zero evidence. Just because there were 120 in one of the meetings, doesn't mean there were 120 on the meeting that took place on the Day of Pentecost. The two events were completely disconnected.

Acts 2 is a totally different thought and a completely different day than the previous chapter. The disciples numbered were about 120 to elect Matthias as the replacement disciple for Judas. And it's not just a coincidence that the number required to assemble a Jewish council is 120.

Bottom line is this...

I don't have a clue how many were present in the upper room on the Day of Pentecost. Neither do you. But at least I'll admit it.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by jfrog

The only argument I'm seeing for the 120 is that "they must have been there because a few days before Pentecost Luke numbered 120 that witnessed the event of choosing Judas's replacement"

They were there for more than witnessing the disciple swap. They were there praying.

And it was never just the Apostles:

They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.

Immediately following this story with the 120 present, we get "When Pentecost came they were all together." One would think the believers that were risking their reputation hanging out with Jesus followers would not have had a heart crisis to depart. It was common for them to stay in Jerusalem during Pentecost anyway... Luke telling us who all is present here doesn't seem coincidence. And being "all together in one place" leads us to see this as more than the 12. It'd be all who had been gathering, all who heard Peter preach from the Psalms.

Another instance where they spoke in tongues after receiving the Spirit...
While talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people.

While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues[b] and praising God.

I really see the evidence stacked her, and the writing of Luke to strongly suggest we should expect the Day of Pentecost to have the same cast, or a similarly large group of believers.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

Yes, I'm furious. Flaming. Fried. Shaked, baked, fried, and dried.

Nope, zero evidence. Just because there were 120 in one of the meetings, doesn't mean there were 120 on the meeting that took place on the Day of Pentecost. The two events were completely disconnected.

Acts 2 is a totally different thought and a completely different day than the previous chapter. The disciples numbered were about 120 to elect Matthias as the replacement disciple for Judas. And it's not just a coincidence that the number required to assemble a Jewish council is 120.

Bottom line is this...

I don't have a clue how many were present in the upper room on the Day of Pentecost. Neither do you. But at least I'll admit it.

NO evidence? That's silly (jk)

Of course there's evidence. This gathering together for Pentecost festival is common. Assuming that the 120 believers of Jesus (including woman, mother of Jesus and Jesus' brothers v14) would depart requires a little more stretching than it seems you care to admit. We say Pentecost was a "separate event" but it wasn't really. Pentecost isn't a one-day deal, it's a 50-day festival.

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by Socialite

NO evidence? That's silly (jk)

Of course there's evidence. This gathering together for Pentecost festival is common. Assuming that the 120 believers of Jesus (including woman, mother of Jesus and Jesus' brothers v14) would depart requires a little more stretching than it seems you care to admit. We say Pentecost was a "separate event" but it wasn't really. Pentecost isn't a one-day deal, it's a 50-day festival.

ZERO evidence.


There's about as much evidence for 120 being in the upper room on the Day of Pentecost as there is for 5,000 people sitting beside the fire when Peter denied Christ just because there were 5,000 when 5 loaves and 2 fishes were divided to feed the crowd.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

ZERO evidence.


There's about as much evidence for 120 being in the upper room on the Day of Pentecost as there is for 5,000 people sitting beside the fire when Peter denied Christ just because there were 5,000 when 5 loaves and 2 fishes were divided to feed the crowd.

You can make it 50 times font if you'd like. You're still wrong

And your comparison to Peter denying Jesus is... SILLY!