Apostolic Friends Forum
Tab Menu 1
Go Back   Apostolic Friends Forum > The Sanctuary > Deep Waters
Facebook

Notices

Deep Waters 'Deep Calleth Unto Deep ' -The place to go for Ministry discussions. Please keep it civil. Remember to discuss the issues, not each other.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old 05-22-2007, 03:04 PM
Praxeas's Avatar
Praxeas Praxeas is offline
Go Dodgers!


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 45,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder View Post
I don’t agree with Praxeas' claim, for how can the words; ‘and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles.’ really be referring to the 120 or to the 3,120 disciples as you’ve claimed when the text uses the word ‘apostles.’ Did the number of Apostles number 120 or 3,120 or just 12 on the day of Pentecost?
Robert is continuing is Modus Operandi of lying about what others said. I NEVER said the many signs and wonders in that verse refers to the 120 or the 3.120. THAT is YOUR final warning. For now on you BETTER stop lying about what others have actually said or start reading a LOT more carefully. I won't allow your foolishness here.

We really don't need you.

Quote:
Secondly, yes, it does say that only 12 did the signs and wonders. By the way, if you quote the Bible please give the version from which your quoting.
No it really does NOT say "only". You are adding that word to the text. It really does NOT use the word "only". Good grief.All it says is many signs and wonders were done by the Apostles. This verse refers specifically to the Apostles but does NOT use the word "only"

Quote:
Thirdly, yes Acts 2:43 happens after the 3,000 have been saved (in verse 41), but that’s my point, if everyone who was saved spoke in tongues, then the 3,000 converts would have spoken in tongues and so Acts 2:43 wouldn’t mention ‘apostles’ but a instead a number of 3,120 or 3,500; ‘And many wonders and signs were done by the 3,120.’ Because according to you, everyone who was saved spoke in tongues.
If I said "many bombs were dropped over Great Britian" does that mean that the only nation to ever be bombed was Great Britian? Please answer that question

Further more if we used your logic then NO other miracles or signs occurred EVER to anyone or by anyone other than the Apostles Before that verse and after that verse, because that is how you are reading it. Yet you will admit others spoke in tongues after this event, so you are being inconsistent.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 05-22-2007, 03:06 PM
Praxeas's Avatar
Praxeas Praxeas is offline
Go Dodgers!


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 45,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder View Post
Any history book on the temple or map of the temple in the back of a Bible will tell you that men and women were kept separated within the temple precinct, so that by avoiding looking at each other they wouldn’t be tempted to at each other sexually. So the purpose of strict separation was to enable men and women to focus upon God in their prayers and not to be distracted by the other sex. This is so basic that I’m almost ashamed to have to tell you this, fancy not knowing this!
Again I ask, prove it. Second of all, so what? Even if they were separated that does not mean they weren't ALL there together as the text actually says.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 05-22-2007, 04:46 PM
Neck's Avatar
Neck Neck is offline
"It's Never Too Late"


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder View Post
“Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine. But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.” (Acts 2:13-15, KJV).


At this passage the same company of men are referred to separately, in three ways, within each of these three verses. At verse 13, they are referred to as ‘these men,’ then at verse 14, the same group of men are referred to as ‘Peter … with the eleven,’ and finally at verse 15, ‘these are not drunken,’ again refers to this same group of men. Now, whilst this might seem blindingly obvious to most people, I’ll point this out at the outset because some have attempted to argue that verse 14 bears absolutely no relationship whatsoever to verses 13 and 15, which they’ll claim refers to the 120 disciples, whilst the context at verse 14 shifts to the 12 apostles. So they’ll conclude that because every Christian, all 120 souls spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost, therefore all Christians should also speak in tongues today.

Firstly, the total number of Christians before Pentecost numbered a minimum of 500 persons, please see 1st Corinthians 15:6, which expressly states that some 500 faithful persons saw the risen Christ on a mountainside. So if a total of only 120 spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost, as many Pentecostals will claim, then their theology must imply two classes of Christians, right from the day of Pentecost.

Secondly, Acts 1:15 which mentions the 120 bears no relationship to Acts 2:13-15 being separated by both a period of several days as well as by linguistic breaks within the text itself. For instance, the text changes its context from the 120 and shifts to the 11 apostles at Acts 1:21-23, where the triple use of the pronoun ‘us,’ at verses 21-22 and ‘they proposed’ at verse 23, refers only to the 11 apostles who then drew lots to chose Matthias as Judas’ replacement. The 120 disciples didn’t draw lots, the 11 apostles did. So my point is that because only the 11 apostles drew lots, therefore the context from this passage until Acts 2:13-15 remains that of the 12 apostles, which is exactly what we read at Acts 1:26: ‘Matthias, and he was numbered with the 11 apostles.’ So the word ‘they’ at Acts 2:1, directly refers back to the previous verse (Acts 1:26), in which the context are 12 apostles and not the 120 of Acts 1:15.

Thirdly, those who spoke in tongues at Acts 2:4 were Galileans, whilst not all of the company of the 120, which numbered both men and women would have been Galilean. This is confirmed at Acts 2:7: ‘are not these who speak Galileans.’ Three times at Acts 2:14, 22 and 29 Peter addresses the crowd referring to them as men. The word which he uses for men (anar), numbered 435 in Strong’s concordance which only ever refers to the male sex, being used 215 times in the Greek New Testament, of which the King James version translates this word as man 156 times, husband 50 times and sir 6 times. The events of the day of Pentecost took place at the Jerusalem temple, where people were congregated, to worship God, where they were separated according to gender into different courtyards. This is yet another reason why ‘anar’ couldn’t have been used to refer to both men and also to women at Acts 2. So the use of ‘anar’ at Acts 2:5 implies a situation of males speaking in languages to other men.
Fourthly, The tongues of fire which rested upon the twelve apostles’ heads (Acts 2:3) represented the 12 Levitical offerings of seven lambs, a bull, two rams, in the burnt offering, as well as the two lambs of the peace offering which were sacrificed at the feast of weeks (Pentecost), exactly fifty days after the feast of Passover (Leviticus 23:16). This is why we read that these twelve named animals (or offerings) were to be burnt with fire: ‘even an offering made by fire, of sweet savour unto the LORD’ (Leviticus 23:18-19). So the tongues of fire which rested upon each of the twelve apostle’s heads at Acts 2:3, had a definite purpose, in that they echoed this Old Testament oblation by fire of twelve offerings, representing the twelve tribes of Israel to God, at the feast of weeks (Pentecost) which was fifty days after the Passover.

Fifthly, the references to ‘new wine’ at verse 13 and ‘not drunk’ at verse 15, refers to the same company of people. Peter explains who these people were in verse 14: ‘Peter standing up with the eleven,’ so the context is the 12 apostles! This context doesn’t change from the 120 in verse 13, back to the 12 at verse 14 and then back to the 120 again at verse 15! As those accused of drunkenness by the scoffers, were those same 12 men of Acts 2:13 who’d stood up to directly face their accusers. However, if 120 men and women (and not 12 men) had spoken in tongues, then Acts 2:14 would have read: ‘But Peter standing up with the hundred and nineteen.’

Sixthly, Acts 2:43 referring to the tongues as signs and wonders limits the use of this gift on that day specifically to just the 12 apostles: ‘many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.’ So this word Apostles implies 12 men and not 120 disciples.

Finally in summary, please take careful note that I’m most certainly NOT claiming that only 12 men ever spoke in tongues. That would be a ludicrous claim, for after the day of Pentecost many other people also spoke in tongues (languages) other than the twelve apostles. However, if I can prove that just 12 men spoke on the day of Pentecost, then I've consequently proven that the gift of tongues wasn't ever given to the entire Church and so it can’t be claimed to be a gift for the entire Church today. Tongues were instead originally given specifically to the 12 apostles, but after Pentecost, they could and they certainly did pass it, as well as many other miraculous gifts, onto other Christians, by the laying on of their (the apostles) hands, to signify their unique apostolic authority within the Church (Acts 8:17, 19:6). On other occasions, God used tongues to signify to the apostles that certain people who had just come to faith were genuinely saved. People such as the first gentile converts who evidenced tongues, but without any hands ever being laid upon them (Acts 10:46).

Now if I'm wrong, and tongues were indeed given to the entire Christian Church at Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost, then Acts 2:43 would read: 'And many wonders and signs were done by the 3,500.' For if every Christian should have the gift, then the 500 converts before this day (1st Corinthians 15:6), together with the 3,000 converts (Acts 2:41), would have together both spoken in tongues and so Acts 2:43 confirming this would state that either ‘all Christians’ or ‘3,500 spoke in tongues.’ However by limiting the gift of tongues on that day to just 12 men: 'many wonders and signs were done by the APOSTLES,' Luke is stating that only 12 out of the 3,500 spoke in tongues on that particular day. So it was given to them alone, as God used this gift at Pentecost to confirm direct revelation, via the apostolic office, to unbelieving Jews.
Was OJ really innocent? Your statements sound as convincing as "if it does not fit you must aquit". Johnny lives again...
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 05-22-2007, 08:38 PM
PaPaDon
Guest


 
Posts: n/a
Tongues as evidence of HG Baptism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder View Post
Firstly Doc, thank you for your detailed reply (post 63), I do appreciate your keeping your promise to me. Secondly, nevertheless, it’s poor hermeneutics to focus almost entirely upon the Old Testament, to the near exclusion of the New Testament. In Biblical hermeneutics we should instead use the NT to interpret the OT and never vice versa. Thirdly, I’ve seen absolutely no rebuttal to any of my major points, so please reply to the use of the word ‘apostles’ at Acts 2:43, ‘Peter and the 11’ rather than ‘Peter with the 119’ at Acts 2:14 and the Greek ‘ma pantes’ at 1st Corinthians 12:29-30 as well as the thief on the cross. Fourthly, you’ve dismissed 1st Corinthians 15:6 rather than disproved it. My point here was that because 500 people witnessed the resurrected Christ, these 500 people were saved, for how can this epistle be speaking of 500 people who witnessed Christ’s resurrection and yet remained lost and unbelievers in the resurrection. At the start of 1st Corinthians 15:2-4, we’re told that the resurrection is the single central most factor in believing the gospel, so in context verse 6 is telling us that these 500 who witnessed the greatest event in history are followers of Christ (saved). Finally, your lengthy post ducks every one of my key points. Debate involves facing your opponents best arguments, not ducking them and introducing more of your own, so please do try to engage with my arguments. Thanks Doc.
I have NOT sought to destroy the very foundation upon which the One True Church of the Living God has been established, as you seem to have done by your acceptance of the Trinitarian doctrine and a denial of the Oneness of God. Quite frankly, I see absolutely NO advantage, either for me or you, in entering into any type of discussion with you concerning any of the elementary principles upon which the eternal kingdom of God has been built, and which enables the One True Church to maintain its existence upon the earth until the coming of the Lord.

In my learned opinion it is clear to me that you have willfully chosen to destroy the only thing that could save you, and by your own words are now so close to committing the unpardonable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, that I want NO part of any discussion or debate with you as a participant.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 05-24-2007, 04:20 AM
Iron_Bladder
Guest


 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Praxeas View Post
Robert is continuing is Modus Operandi of lying about what others said. I NEVER said the many signs and wonders in that verse refers to the 120 or the 3.120. THAT is YOUR final warning. .


Then what does the word 'APOSTLES' at ACts 2:43 refer to if it doesn't refer to either the 120 or to the 3,000 converts, could it refer to the 12 apostles as I'm claiming? if you say yes, then that proves that the tongues wern't spoken by 3,120 but by 12 on that day. Next please consider the words 'peter plus the eleven,' do these words refer to 12 or to 120? If only 12 then can't you see my point Praxeas; that they stood up to face their accusers, people do tend to stand up when accused so that they can face the charges, and 12 men stood up becasue only 12 men had spoken in tongues.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 05-24-2007, 04:51 AM
Iron_Bladder
Guest


 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Praxeas View Post
Again I ask, prove it. Second of all, so what? Even if they were separated that does not mean they weren't ALL there together as the text actually says.



The text states that they WERE ALL TOGETHER, so I accept that, however as men and women couldn't have been all together int he temple as it was against Jewish law (which was punishible by death in the case of temple infractions), being 'all together in one place' must refer to the 12 apostles being in the same place within the temple complex. Also your contradicting yoruself, you said:

'Even if they were separated that does not mean they weren't ALL there together'

My reply: If they were separated then they could not have been 'all together' as they text states, for these statements are direct opposites. Your either 'all together' with others, or your separated from others, but both statements cannot be true at the very same time Praxeas. ooops.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 05-24-2007, 09:42 PM
Praxeas's Avatar
Praxeas Praxeas is offline
Go Dodgers!


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 45,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder View Post
The text states that they WERE ALL TOGETHER, so I accept that, however as men and women couldn't have been all together int he temple as it was against Jewish law (which was punishible by death in the case of temple infractions), being 'all together in one place' must refer to the 12 apostles being in the same place within the temple complex.
First of all on the Day of Pentecost we just know they were in an upper chamber, it does not say Temple. Second of all when they WERE in the temple they WERE in the same place.

Quote:
Also your contradicting yoruself, you said:

'Even if they were separated that does not mean they weren't ALL there together'
They were together IN the temple but separated by a barrier, that is what you said.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 05-25-2007, 04:57 AM
Iron_Bladder
Guest


 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Praxeas View Post
First of all on the Day of Pentecost we just know they were in an upper chamber, it does not say Temple. Second of all when they WERE in the temple they WERE in the same place.



They were together IN the temple but separated by a barrier, that is what you said.



I need to stop rushing my posts, but I only have 4 mins left to reply to this post and my PC time is then up. The jewish temple had various courts, one for men one for women and another for gentiles, it was a criminal offence punishable by death for people go into the wrong area and men and women were strictly segregated. I believe that the temple had walls or barriers to separate each group of people. Acts 2 was announced in the temple, for there is no otehr place in Jerusalem where thousands of people would be gathered. It's obvious that to announce Christ as messiah, peter would have preached the first sermon from somewhere within the Temple precinct.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 05-25-2007, 01:29 PM
Praxeas's Avatar
Praxeas Praxeas is offline
Go Dodgers!


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 45,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder View Post
I need to stop rushing my posts, but I only have 4 mins left to reply to this post and my PC time is then up. The jewish temple had various courts, one for men one for women and another for gentiles, it was a criminal offence punishable by death for people go into the wrong area and men and women were strictly segregated. I believe that the temple had walls or barriers to separate each group of people. Acts 2 was announced in the temple, for there is no otehr place in Jerusalem where thousands of people would be gathered. It's obvious that to announce Christ as messiah, peter would have preached the first sermon from somewhere within the Temple precinct.
There is no proof it was in the temple. It says they were in an upper room. This was a place where they lived. It was a very large upper room
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 05-26-2007, 12:23 AM
Arphaxad's Avatar
Arphaxad Arphaxad is offline
Genesis 11:10


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,385
Who says the 120 were the only believers? The Bible says that many believed on Jesus after the miracles He did. The 120 were in the same building at the same time. theres around 200 or so in the church I am a member of, are we the only ones who believe and speak in tongues? Just because some were not there does not mean that 120 were the total number, I'm sure many that were not in Jerusalem had the same experience later on. duh.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bro Solomon from Ethiopia spoke at our church tonight ILuvFPC Fellowship Hall 32 11-21-2010 03:53 PM
Why do I have to speak in tongues? Kutless Deep Waters 138 12-13-2009 07:18 PM
Can satan understand Speaking in Tongues? Esther Deep Waters 17 02-17-2007 06:10 PM
The Importance Of The Day Of Pentecost. Scott Hutchinson Deep Waters 10 02-17-2007 01:09 AM

 
User Infomation
Your Avatar

Latest Threads

Help Support AFF!

Advertisement




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.