You can make it 50 times font if you'd like. You're still wrong
And your comparison to Peter denying Jesus is... SILLY!
One of the greatest tools in bible analysis, study, and exegesis, is the ability to say, "I'm not sure, the answer isn't clear", a concept you have obviously not yet grasped.
There's only one number that I'm relatively sure were NOT gathered on the Day of Pentecost....120. The chances of the same number of people gathering twice in completely different gatherings on completely different days are just about nil. I've been pastoring for 12 years and we've never had two straight Sundays with the same number.
One of the greatest tools in bible analysis, study, and exegesis, is the ability to say, "I'm not sure, the answer isn't clear", a concept you have obviously not yet grasped.
There's only one number that I'm relatively sure were NOT gathered on the Day of Pentecost....120. The chances of the same number of people gathering twice in completely different gatherings on completely different days are just about nil. I've been pastoring for 12 years and we've never had two straight Sundays with the same number.
Riiiiiight, as you say "there's not even a shred of evidence"
I think it's actually quite clear. Is it explicit? No... but close.
Comparing your congregation's attendance to that of how people celebrated a Jewish festival isn't very "exegetical" now is it!
Riiiiiight, as you say "there's not even a shred of evidence"
I think it's actually quite clear. Is it explicit? No... but close.
Comparing your congregation's attendance to that of how people celebrated a Jewish festival isn't very "exegetical" now is it!
Saying that it's "Quite clear" there were 120 in the upper room is not only exegetically irresponsible, it's an indicator that you are so entrenched in your opinion that you're no longer able to consider anything realistic. You're starting to use the methodology of the 3-steppers.
Saying that it's "Quite clear" there were 120 in the upper room is not only exegetically irresponsible, it's an indicator that you are so entrenched in your opinion that you're no longer able to consider anything realistic. You're starting to use the methodology of the 3-steppers.
Irresponsible? Exegetes sometimes form conclusions, believe it or not!
FF Bruce, one of those exegetes who penned a wonderful exegetical commentary on Acts, is pretty confident in that fact as well. Saying something seems quite clear doesn't discount their exegesis. Camping in the shadows of 1% probablities isn't very exegetical. It's possible only 5 of the disciples were there, the rest on a bathroom break. We assume Luke's numbering of the believers that were gathering during Pentecost is intentional. We assume, because he didn't state otherwise, that this same group continued to meet "in those days."
Because they are numbered. Remove the chapter divisions, and Luke still intentionally numbered them. Most were relatives of the disciples, and women. They were there with them. The same house. This wasn't a church building, this was a place many of them were staying during the Festival of Pentecost. That seems pretty clear that Luke's numbering is both explicit, and that we don't have any reason to believe some took their ball and went home early.
Because they are numbered. Remove the chapter divisions, and Luke still intentionally numbered them. Most were relatives of the disciples, and women. They were there with them. The same house. This wasn't a church building, this was a place many of them were staying during the Festival of Pentecost. That seems pretty clear that Luke's numbering is both explicit, and that we don't have any reason to believe some took their ball and went home early.
ROFL! You think the chapter division led me to this question?
For a side note: the house they were in for the apostle choosing meeting in Acts 1 was only referenced as being the "abode" of about 11 men... I wonder who those men were
__________________
You better watch out before I blitzkrieg your thread cause I'm the Thread Nazi now!
so we get to the hear of Mr. Smiths argument. if only 12 were filled speaking in tongues, we can then discount the experience as relating to them alone and not for us today.
Mr. Smith you are on an Apostolic forum for what reason?
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
so we get to the hear of Mr. Smiths argument. if only 12 were filled speaking in tongues, we can then discount the experience as relating to them alone and not for us today.
Mr. Smith you are on an Apostolic forum for what reason?
Actually IF it could be shown conclusively that only the apostles were there on the day of pentecost then it would be kind of difficult to argue that the experience they received was for every believer.
But that can't be shown conclusively... so no worries.
__________________
You better watch out before I blitzkrieg your thread cause I'm the Thread Nazi now!
Linear Mode
