Please do not label me a heretic....

[ChTatum]

Before I go any further, please understand this is for the sake of discussion, and I am not endorsing this as doctrine.

In studying yesterday, I came across a train of thought that stated the 120 probably were not in the upper room when the Holy Ghost fell.

Acts 1:13 "And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and judas the brother of James".

Acts 2:1 states:
"And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place."
No real mention of them still being in the upper room.

Luke 24:52-53
"And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy: and were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.

The writer postulated that they were probably in the temple when the Holy Ghost fell, due to Luke's writing.

Whadda you think?


(I couldn't get any responses in the deep water thread, so I thought I might try trolling in the shallow area...LOL!)

[Ron]

I am at work so I will check when I get home.
Interesting question though.

[ChTatum]

Well, hurry, man! This is important!

[SDG]

Well, hurry, man! This is important!

I will examine it also ... very interesting.

[mizpeh]

Before I go any further, please understand this is for the sake of discussion, and I am not endorsing this as doctrine.

In studying yesterday, I came across a train of thought that stated the 120 probably were not in the upper room when the Holy Ghost fell.

Acts 1:13 "And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and judas the brother of James".

Acts 2:1 states:
"And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place."
No real mention of them still being in the upper room.

Luke 24:52-53
"And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy: and were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.

The writer postulated that they were probably in the temple when the Holy Ghost fell, due to Luke's writing.

Whadda you think?


(I couldn't get any responses in the deep water thread, so I thought I might try trolling in the shallow area...LOL!)

I've seen this question discussed at length on CARM. That person used the last verse of Acts 1, and the first verse of Acts 2 to prove the 12 apostles in Acts 1: 26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. are the "they" in Acts 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

Praxeas gave the most thorough answer in refuting this theory. There are some grammarians that are very rigid and will allow no other antecedent.

[Digging4Truth]

Interesting find brother... this is entirely possible.

Jesus stayed with the apostles for up to 40 days after he rose again. This would leave at least 7 days between the ascension and the day of pentecost.

Acts 1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
Acts 1:12 Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.
Acts 1:13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room,

So the day they were in the upper room was probably at least 6 days before the day of Pentecost.

They were probably gathered together in several places in this span of time that could have been nearly a week.

Very interesting indeed brother.

[Nahum]

Heretic.

[Digging4Truth]

I've seen this question discussed at length on CARM. That person used the last verse of Acts 1, and the first verse of Acts 2 to prove the 12 apostles in Acts 1: 26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. are the "they" in Acts 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

Praxeas gave the most thorough answer in refuting this theory. There are some grammarians that are very rigid and will allow no other antecedent.

This would seem to work more to establish the "who" rather than the "where"

[ChTatum]

I've seen this question discussed at length on CARM. That person used the last verse of Acts 1, and the first verse of Acts 2 to prove the 12 apostles in Acts 1: 26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. are the "they" in Acts 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

Praxeas gave the most thorough answer in refuting this theory. There are some grammarians that are very rigid and will allow no other antecedent.

By all means, please elaborate on the refutation.

[mizpeh]

Here is the initial post of a thread by Praxeas on CARM: http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showpost.php?p=613508&postcount=1

Who was There on the Day of Pentecost

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following shows that it was 120 disciples on the day of Pentecost, including women

120 people initially received the Spirit and spoke in tongues. This number included women

1)Evidence for the 120

The bible tells us 120 continued TOGETHER in prayer and supplication in the upper room....

Act 1:13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.
Act 1:14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
Act 1:15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)

POINT: Notice the number, about 120 could be more, could be less, but close enough to that number.
POINT: “and said” This shows that the following words by Peter were said WHILE standing up in the midst of 120 or so disciples, not 11 Apostles.
POINT: Notice they CONTINUED in ONE ACCORD in prayer
Read the continuing verses and there is absolutly NO indication of a dispersal. There is no switch in subject, which are the 120 Disciples continuing together.


2)Acts 1:16-22 Shows what Peter said while standing in the midst of 120 disciples. His speech was about the 11

Apostles and the need to replace one, this is proven by the triple use of the pronoun “us”. So the audience was the 120 (included the 11), the subject was the 11 and the need to replace Judas.
Acts 1:23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

POINT: this shows two additional MEN, who were NOT Apostles that must have been in that group of 120 in order to be CHOSEN to replace Judas. This is additional evidence that there were more than the 11 and that the Apostles were NOT the only ones that were there but were the subject being discussed.
POINT: Since the subject of discussion was the 11 there is no way of knowing whether it was only the 11 who chose these men or the collective who chose these men.

3) Acts 1:26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

POINT: The context shows Peter was speaking to a collective group of disciples numbering at least 120, including women. The context shows the subject of the speech was the 11 Apostles and who should replace Judas. The context shows finally how they chose to replace him. Therefore verse 26 shows us NOT who was present only, but the result of Peter's speech and their actions.
POINT: Only a careless reading of this verse would lead one to conclude this was the number of all present. Notice it does not say “the number of men present was 11” but rather the author is telling us who the new Apostle was and that he was added to the remaining number of Apostles. The grammar here in no way tells us the number of who was present only but the result of the vote to replace Judas!

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

POINT: Notice the word THEY. If you read back through Acts chapter 1 you will see THEY can only refer to the collection of Disciples numbering 120.
POINT: Notice next the same context as in chapter 1, they were in ONE ACCORD. Those gathered with Peter and the Apostles were also in ONE ACCORD.
POINT: There is no indication the 11 separated from the rest of the collective. There is no grammatical break indicating anything changed. Men later added the chapters and verses, so a new chapter does not mean anything changed.
POINT: The chronologically, from the meeting with Peter and the 120 the next thing to happen is the outpouring of the Spirit. There is NO OTHER event stated in between so grammatically “they” MUST refer to the antecedent group present in one accord.
POINT: There is NO given number of days between the meeting of 120 to decide on a new Apostle and the events of Pentecost. Nor would it matter. There is no stated rule that says the more days that there are the more disciples would not be present later on. That is fanciful thinking on someone’s part.
POINT: Luke tells the story where Jesus told the 11 and an unspecified number of disciples to go to Jerusalem and wait for the Holy Spirit.

Luke continues Acts from what he wrote in Luke

Luk 24:33 And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them,

POINT: Acts is a continuation of Luke, the accounts are parallel. Notice the 11 AND them WITH them?? Notice also they were ALL already in Jerusalem together? The number of disciples in Acts tells us the number in Luke

Luke 24:36-51 shows Jesus appearing, teaching the 11 plus the disciples with them about himself, instructed them to go to Jerusalem and preach repentance and remission of sins and promised them He would send the Holy Spirit ON THEM (not just some of them)

Luk 24:47 and repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
Luk 24:48 You are witnesses of these things.
Luk 24:49 And look, I am sending you what my Father promised. But stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high."

THEN we have this startling account by Luke concerning those disciples, (which were the 11 plus those with them) who had been led out to Bethany by Jesus and returned to Jerusalem

[Digging4Truth]

Just as I had mentioned... this discussion you have posted is on the "who" and not the "where"

[Ron]

For The Record-"I Was Not There!":tiphat

[ChTatum]

mizpeh,
The refutation does seem centered on the "who" rather than the "where".

I have always heard it preached they came down from the upper room, appearing to be in a drunken state and speaking in tongues understood by those gathered. It makes for great preaching, but is not explicitly stated in scripture. Now, I am not sure it matters, but just came across this train of thought yesterday and wanted to know what others thought.

[Digging4Truth]

For The Record-"I Was Not There!":tiphat

But those who were there did leave a record. :)

[Johnny]

If you look at acts 2: verses 1 and 2, they were still in the house. Not the Temple. It filled all the house where they were sitting.

[Digging4Truth]

If you look at acts 2: verses 1 and 2, they were still in the house. Not the Temple. It filled all the house where they were sitting.

Indeed... it filled all "the house where they were sitting"

The question is.... is this the same house they were sitting in nearly a week earlier? (If indeed the upper room was in a house at all)

[berkeley]

oi\ko�



1. a house
1. an inhabited house, home
2. any building whatever
1. of a palace
2. the house of God, the tabernacle
3. any dwelling place
1. of the human body as the abode of demons that possess it
2. of tents, and huts, and later, of the nests, stalls, lairs, of animals
3. the place where one has fixed his residence, one's settled abode, domicile
2. the inmates of a house, all the persons forming one family, a household
1. the family of God, of the Christian Church, of the church of the Old and New Testaments
3. stock, family, descendants of one

[Digging4Truth]

oi\ko�

It's not to specific is it.

[berkeley]

It's not to specific is it.
nope..

[OneAccord]

I read somewhere that the "upper room" was the same place where the Lord broke bread with His disciples before He was crucified. Don't know if that is true or not, or where I read it, but it is plausible. They were, I believe, strangers in the city and it would seem possible that, once the house was secured for the Last Supper, they remained there in Jerusalem for the trial, death, burial, and resuurection of the Lord. Afterwards, He advised them to remain in Jerusalem for the Promise of the Holy Spirit. It would seem, with many people visiting Jerusalem for the the Passover and Pentecost observances, that housing would be hard to find. So, they could have stayed in Jerusalem to await the Promise of the Holy Ghost. It wasn't until AFTER the Holy Ghost was given that we find them visiting the temple.

[Eliseus]

The simplest explanation (vis a vis Occam's Razor) is they were in the house where the last supper took place.

There is no mention of them being in any other house during their stay in Jerusalem.

They entered Jerusalem originally with Jesus - where some had gone before and found lodging for them to eat the Last Supper.

It is plausible this was a house belonging to an (unnamed) disciple.

This disciple would undoubtedly have been among those who were to "tarry at Jerusalem".

Ergo, they tarried at Jerusalem - in this person's house as a place of temporary residence.

[Hoovie]

Not sure why but I thought and heard it preached the "house" was adjacent to the temple.

[Digging4Truth]

The simplest explanation (vis a vis Occam's Razor) is they were in the house where the last supper took place.

There is no mention of them being in any other house during their stay in Jerusalem.

They entered Jerusalem originally with Jesus - where some had gone before and found lodging for them to eat the Last Supper.

It is plausible this was a house belonging to an (unnamed) disciple.

This disciple would undoubtedly have been among those who were to "tarry at Jerusalem".

Ergo, they tarried at Jerusalem - in this person's house as a place of temporary residence.

I think that the very best anyone could hope for as far as knowing where they were on the day of pentecost is that it is a possibility that it was the same place they were in a week earlier.

The Holy Ghost wasn't going to fall at a particular address. They only had to tarry at Jerusalem. They very well could have waited the whole week in one house... they very well could have been at different peoples houses at different times during that week.

No one knows.

It appears that the most one can say is that it is possible that they were in the same house they were in when they first returned to Jerusalem. But when the Holy Ghost fell.... even if they were in the same house... they may not have been in the upper room of the house anyway.

We haven't near enough evidence to say that the Holy Ghost was poured out in the same house much less the upper room of the same house.

We just cannot honestly know.


Leaving it there shouldn't be problematic.

[Eliseus]

"Let us speak where the Bible speaks, and be silent where the Bible is silent."

:)

[Digging4Truth]

"Let us speak where the Bible speaks, and be silent where the Bible is silent."

:)

I'm pretty sure that's what I just said. :)

[ChTatum]

I read somewhere that the "upper room" was the same place where the Lord broke bread with His disciples before He was crucified. Don't know if that is true or not, or where I read it, but it is plausible. They were, I believe, strangers in the city and it would seem possible that, once the house was secured for the Last Supper, they remained there in Jerusalem for the trial, death, burial, and resuurection of the Lord. Afterwards, He advised them to remain in Jerusalem for the Promise of the Holy Spirit. It would seem, with many people visiting Jerusalem for the the Passover and Pentecost observances, that housing would be hard to find. So, they could have stayed in Jerusalem to await the Promise of the Holy Ghost. It wasn't until AFTER the Holy Ghost was given that we find them visiting the temple.

Uh, no.

Luke 24:52-53
"And they worshipped him, amd returned to Jerusalem with great joy: and were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.

[ChTatum]

While this may never be resolved, I have appreciated all the input.