Acts 2: Then and Now
 

The first scripture verse I was taught in Sunday School as a child was Acts 2:38, and I'm sure it is still the first verse most children of the faith are taught to memorize.

Acts chapter two seems to be the main reference for all things "Holy Ghost" related. When someone asks about tongues or the infilling of the Spirit, we always point them to Acts chapter two - the birth of Pentecostalism. Even Peter, in Acts chapter 11, refered back to the first Holy Ghost experience when defending the Gentiles receiving of the gift. Acts chapter two is the foundation of the Apostolic/Pentecostal faith. And I believe it is also the foundation upon which every other recorded Holy Ghost out-pouring or reference in the Bible stands.

However, everytime I read this passage, or any other similar passage, I always encounter conflicts between what I've been taught is Holy Ghost, and what is recorded in the Word. I'd like to discuss some of these inconsistencies. They may seem small and insignificant, but I'd like to cover them nonetheless, just to be thorough.


1. These are not drunken, as ye suppose - the signs of the out-pouring

I've always been fed that Peter's words meant "These men and women are not drunk in the way you think they are. That somehow what Peter is saying is "These men and women ARE drunk, but not like you think they are. They are drunk on the Spirit!"

This is an error. When the onlookers heard the disciples speaking in tongues, they were amazed, confused (1 Cor. 14:2), doubtful, and some mocked - calling them drunken.

Look at Peter's words:

"...for these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day..."

Notice the how the "as ye suppose" is offset by commas. I believe this means, "You suppose these are drunken, but they aren't. It's only the third hour of the day!"

I must disagree with every preacher/evangelist who ever said, "Peter didn't deny they were drunk! He knew they were drunk!" I believe Peter was saying just the opposite.

If I'm right, and this is what Peter was saying, then it leaves a whole lot of explaining for those who embrace our more...modern...signs of the out pouring as "drunkeness," because now they have no firm ground to stand on when trying to explain:

Slain in the Spirit
Slurred Speach
Moaning/Wailing
Sobbing/Screaming and tears
Reeling, running and jumping


I believe I am right, by Peter's next words...Read on in Acts 2


Peter informs them that what is going on (which is, by the way, ONLY speaking in tongues) is the fulfilled prophecy of the out-pouring of God's Spirit. He then lists what the effects of the out-pouring will be:

prophecy
visions
dreams


Why are none of our modern signs recorded in this list? And why are they nowhere to be found in Acts 4, 8, 10, or 19 either when the Holy Ghost was again poured out?

I'm not seeking to rid the church of all emotion. LOL!!!!! Just pondering this.



2. We do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

Everytime someone recieves the "Holy Ghost" nowadays, they speak in a "heavenly language," just like in Acts 2, right?

Wrong.

In Acts chapter 2 the tongues were not a "heavenly" language. They were earthly languages. We can argue all day about this, but the Word is very clear. What those onlookers heard were the tongues of earth. The substance of those words was heavenly (praise to God) but the words themselves were undeniably earthly.

So, who invented the idea that the intial evidence of recieving the Holy Ghost is speaking in a "heavenly" language?



That's all I can think of right now. Maybe more later.


God Bless!

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

1. Peter denied they were drunk on wine, but something made the crowd think they were drunk on wine. I agree with you that it was the tongues. Also, I have never seen any drunk person act anything like those who say they are drunk in the Spirit do, therefore those who claim to be drunk on the Spirit will never be mistaken for being drunk on wine and therefore we can say for certain that even if the 120 were drunk on the Spirit that they did not act like those of today who claim to be drunk on the Spirit.

1b. For Joel's prophecy to have been fulfilled it is reasonable to believe that prophecy did in fact take place on the day of Pentecost and in the other accounts. One can either assume such prophecy took place through the tongues or that such prophecy accompanied the tongues in some way. I lean toward the opinion that prophecy took place in addition to the tongues in each of these accounts. In Acts 2 they spoke the wonderful works of God (in tongues), in Acts 10 they spoke in tongues and magnified God, in Acts 19 they spoke in tongues and prophesied. I believe that speaking the wonderful works of God, magnifying God, and prophesying all refer to the same thing. What I am saying is that the kind of prophecy that fulfilled the prophecy of Joel is the kind of prophecy that refers to speaking the wonderful works of God and magnifying God. (Just my opinion.)

2. Personally I don't know of anyone that could know whether the tongue s that pentecostals speak are actual earthly languages or not. I lean toward not, but I can't say that for certain.

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

There have been reports of people understanding what a person was saying while speaking with tongues because that person who heard it was familiar with the language spoken by the speaker with tongues.

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

The onlookers accused the 120 of being drunk on wine. Peter said they weren't.

Today, we have a new type of drunkeness, with new effects...of which are NOT recorded in Acts...which place happens to be what the Pentecostals claim as proof of their actions.

When a noob is found in a service and witnesses someone "slain" in the Spirit, he/she asks why. The spirituals tell him that it's just like in Acts 2. When he reads it, he finds that this "slaying" is not even mentioned in Acts 2, or anywhere else in the Bible (I'm referring to reeling backwards or slashing about on the floor uncontrollably or just out cold). Nor is the running, jumping, whooping, wailing, moaning and sobbing...or the $10 ointment cloths either I might add.

I'm not saying that these things are not of God (I have my doubts), however, they are NOT recorded in any of the out-pourings in Acts.

So what's the deal?

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

:popcorn2

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

Joelhardy

Good points many don't want to hear these things. It defeats thier long built up doctrines, based on the traditions of man and not the word of God.

I just want to add a couple of points that occoured to me while reading this post. It has been my understanding that the tongues we speak under the anointing are none other than an earthly language, just one we don't speak. Suffice it to say I don't put as much emphisis on tongues any more.

As for the rest of the emotionalism, there is a place for it. But I have come to find a far deeper relationship with God without the shouting, jumping, running the aisles, etc. Yesterday I spent an hour sharing the love of God with another discouraged christian. The week before I spent an hour encouraging a former Catholic that had lost thier way. When asked do I miss the emotionalism? I get more fulfillment when I share with others the wonderful works of God.

IMHO we have lost the whole bottom line. We are wrapped up in proseliting others to our own denomination and traditions we have forgotten we are to be reconciling the world back to God. Its not all about salvation and staying saved, It is about a personal relationship with God right now.

We are wasting good years we could be in a special relationship with God that we can only enjoy in this life.

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

Yep! It seems like our learning is left up to us individually. Cuz I wasn't taught this stuff at an early age. I was just taught to be a good kid and "yeild to the Spirit" duing church services...and when I hadn't had an emotional moment in a while, publicly that is, it was time for a visit to a good ol' fashioned alter.

I don't mean to downplay emotions in church, but it seems like everyone nowadays comes FOR the emotional times. One lady jirates, screams, and stomps at least once in every service...I'm not kidding! Every service!

See, that may be of God, but I found no record of someone jirating and screaming when the presence of God came over them in Acts. Yeah, David danced, but he's the only one anyone ever refers back too. None of that took place in Acts...at least it's not recorded.

I'm not against dancing...not at all...its an expression of joy...but dont call it "dancing in the Spirit"...or make people believe that this is what happens when the Holy Ghost falls...because it's not recorded as happening even once in any of the Holy Ghost accounts in Acts.

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

True tithing is actually soul winning and giving that soul back to God.
Types and shadows, the feast of the first fruits.

Mark 4:28 For the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself; first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear.
29 But when the fruit is brought forth, immediately he putteth in the sickle, because the harvest is come.
30 And he said, Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it?

Proverbs 3:9 Honour the LORD with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase:

James 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.


John 4:35 Say not ye, There are yet four months, and then cometh harvest? behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest.

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

God gives the increase:

1 Corinthians 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.

It's all about preaching, teaching, and soul winning.

2 Corinthians 9:9 (As it is written, He hath dispersed abroad; he hath given to the poor: his righteousness remaineth for ever.
10 Now he that ministereth seed to the sower both minister bread for your food, and multiply your seed sown, and increase the fruits of your righteousness)

Just another day in the Kingdom..

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

If this is the reason for coming to church, you leave just the same as you came. There is no progression in faith or milk to meat maturity.

That being said, emotionalism or "feeling" is certainly apart of a response. We can mock it or make light of it, however, a fleshly response to His spirit is not abnormal. We can categorize such as outlandish or "there is nothing spiritual about that!"

You mentioned David and I think its important to point out that the Bible never says that David danced "in the spirit." It says he danced before the Lord. What was this dancing? Again, I say it is a fleshly (emotional) response to a spiritual occurrence. In fact, in Psalms 149 and 150 tells us "praise his name in the dance" and "Praise him with the timbrel and dance."

I am not sure you can correlate the new birth experience, the display of tongues and the absence of the mention of dancing to say that we should not because it is not mention side by side with it. If you really think about it, repentance is a fleshly response to a spiritual dealing with our heart and soul. It takes an active response (either physically coming to an altar or making a choice in our minds) to repent.

Needless to say, I do believe there are actions of the flesh that are used in praise and worship. Do I believe a man can exercise his praise through running the aisles? Sure. Do I believe it is done "in the spirit?" No. "Do I believe it can be done in spirit-mindedness? Absolutely!

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

Peter only said they were not drunk on wine. In fact he went on to say that whatever they were doing that was causing those onlookers to think they were drunk was the Spirits doing. So the question is what were they doing that caused those onlookers to think they were drunk? Well, the bible tells us what caused the onlookers to think they were drunk. The reason was that they were all speaking in different languages at the same time (that is something I could imagine a group of drunk people doing). So my conclusion is that there is no bible for the modern day practice of being drunk/slain in the spirit.

What should we make of it? I believe that whether God is doing it or not that being slain/drunk in the spirit and other such things can be viewed as a person expressing their faith. So, I don't think the practice can simply be condemned because it is not found in the bible. I don't think the practice should really be encouraged either, even though it can be viewed as an expression of a persons faith. I think the practice should be tolerated. I think that its an okay way for some people to express their faith that way. I don't think it would be a good thing if every Christian started expressing their faith that way. Also, I think that those who do not express their faith that way should not look down on those that do.

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

You all should know my thoughts on all this......lol...but just incase you don't I have yet to see someone filled with the holyghost as they were in the bible....

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

As I stated in response to a similar post of yours on another thread,...

People receive the Holy Ghost at my church almost every sunday, as they were filled in the bible. You can come see it and hear it happen any ole time.

No one screams, spits, pushes, pulls, slaps under the chin, or instructs them to repeat words over and over and over. Neither does it take hours or days or weeks or months for someone to receive the Holy Ghost. Average time of receipt at my church is 10 minutes, and often less than this. God gets all the credit and all the glory! He is the one that gives the gift.

As for the topic of this thread...
Among Christians, anything that is HUMANLY impossible can very easily be referred to as HEAVENLY. So when people talk about a "heavenly language", it means that it is something that comes from heaven, in other words, something from God. This is an accurate description of "speaking in tongues as the Spirit gives utterance."

The bible says every good and perfect GIFT comes from above. What does "above" mean? Something from heaven, something from God.

As for no reference in Acts using the words "heavenly language"...
Just because its not recorded in Acts in black and white doesn't make it wrong. You want to split hairs over terminology? If so, there are alot of examples of terms we use that are no where to be found in scripture.

There are also alot of practices, things we Christians do, that are no where to be found in scriptures. That doesn't necessarily make it wrong, its simply different.

If we are going to be so hung up on having precise, specific, scriptural examples for everything we say and do then we best get back to going house to house for fellowship and the word and get back to having all things common! To name just a couple of examples of things most Christians DON'T practice.

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

:thumbsup For some reason I doubt that is how it happens at most churches...

When people refer to heavenly languages they ARE NOT referring to earthly languages that God gives a person to speak. When people refer to heavenly languages they do so in contrast to earthly languages. What they ALWAYS mean is that the language being spoken is not an earthly language like spanish, arabic, hebrew, portugeese, chineese, any of the african languages, native american or any other such languages.

The people really hung up on precise, specific, scriptural examples for everything is the "No Tongues = No Holy Ghost" crowd. In fact, its quite interesting that you will argue that christians don't have to do things exactly as the bible gives example and then claim that "No Tongues = No Holy Ghost" (which is a doctrine completely based on 3-4 examples).

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

[You all should know my thoughts on all this......lol...but just incase you don't I have yet to see someone filled with the holyghost as they were in the bible

are you really old enought to know hopw they got it bible days as in to relate it to now? :blah

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

mr joe .. you are truely deceiveing your own self . you even admit you have to conjure up a different idea to make your idea work ...

peter stated they are not drunk as ye suppose ,seeing it is but the third hour of the day .. never did he deny they were drunk or acted that way NOWHERE. they were drunk in the spirit ..

i am so glad our church is a lively church that gets emotional ,,,i would go to sleep in your church probably if they are dead as a doorknob.

no church on fire for god is dead ,no praise and worship.



as for the comment one guy made about a lady screaming every service ..did it occur to you she might very well have something worth screaming over. maybe you should hang around her some and let it rub off a bit !

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

This has been a good thread...have enjoyed the posts.

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

Maybe some people but not ALL. I agree with LadyRev. When I hear tongues called heavenly languages, I think it is because the utterance is given by God and not because it is a language God and the angels speak in heaven. Frog, you can't speak for All people, you can only speak to what you know unless you are an authority on the subject and have spoken to everyone who refers to tongues as a heavenly language and they have All specifically told you that the heavenly language is "heavenly" not because it comes from God but because it is a language spoken in heaven and not a known language spoken on earth by men. LadyRev explained to you why she thinks tongues is referred to as heavenly languages and you are saying she is wrong. Her opinion can't be wrong since it is her opinion. Some folks might agree with what you say and teach what you say, but imho, they are SOME and not ALL. Some folks call tongues a heavenly language for the exact reason that LadyRev gave. I don't see how you can say she is wrong unless you have heard EVERYONE who has ever called tongues a heavenly language give the same reason you gave.

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

Hey guys,

Need to apologize to ya! Didn't mean to cause a ruckus. Just trying to get some opinions of why and how these things came into the church.

However, I have to stand firm on my own opinions. I'm not deceiving myself. Peter did in fact deny they were drunk. The problem with that passage is this: the way it's written makes it subject to being twisted to mean anything. And my argument is solid because in the half dozen out-pouring recordings there is not a single mention of any of our "drunken activities." I understand what was said about not following scripture to a T, but dont you think that with a half dozen recordings that at least once in there the jirating and screaming would have been mentioned?

It isn't.

And I totally agree with the "all things in common" comment. Seems like no one ever reaches that part when billowing about the great and wonderful Holy Ghost of Acts chapter 2...lol...always seem to leave that part out...

What happens after a Holy Ghost service nowadays? Anyone who can afford it meets up for a fine meal and fellowship at McDs or whatever. Ha ha!

As far as a lively church and falling asleep amidst a bunch of dead-heads, that's the flesh talking. We think if the music is not loud and fast, and the people are not jirating acroos the floor, that God's Spirit is not there. Bummer. That sure isnt what's recorded in Acts.

By the way, does anyone know what the angel did after he rolled away the stone from Jesus tomb? That dead-head sat on it!! The presence of God was all around and that dead-head hopped up on top of that stone and sat on it!!! (Matt 28:2). Now if he can't dance and shout down here in the presence of God...how's he gona dance in heaven???

Hey, thanks for bringing up Holy Laughter too. Forgot about that one! LOL!

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

[JoeHardy07]Hey guys,

Need to apologize to ya! Didn't mean to cause a ruckus. Just trying to get some opinions of why and how these things came into the church.

However, I have to stand firm on my own opinions. I'm not deceiving myself. Peter did in fact deny they were drunk. The problem with that passage is this: the way it's written makes it subject to being twisted to mean anything. And my argument is solid because in the half dozen out-pouring recordings there is not a single mention of any of our "drunken activities." I understand what was said about not following scripture to a T, but dont you think that with a half dozen recordings that at least once in there the jirating and screaming would have been mentioned?

ABSOLUTELY WE DISAGREE...PETER NEVER DENIED THEY WERE DRUNK .. post it scripture and verse.. does a person have to shout and dance around nope,, but it sure feels good. and he said glorify god in your body and your spirit .. this body is all we got to praise him with. if you choose not too then fine ...but why dog out others that do like it .. you have your opinion no matter how far in left field i believe it is ,,and your enitiled to it. but why drag others down or put what they do down...?? i feel it is to make you feel better about not haveing real holy ghost fire . or a burning desire to worship. i am not saying you dont love god i am sure you do ...you simply have a calmer approach and dont like the wilder churches .. thats fine .. there a pentecostal ,smart bible readers class church just for you somewhere.. however you might not want to come to decherd tenn. its gonna get loud and its gonna get wild to some degree anyhow lol.

It isn't.

And I totally agree with the "all things in common" comment. Seems like no one ever reaches that part when billowing about the great and wonderful Holy Ghost of Acts chapter 2...lol...always seem to leave that part out...

What happens after a Holy Ghost service nowadays? Anyone who can afford it meets up for a fine meal and fellowship at McDs or whatever. Ha ha!ANYTHING WRONG WITH THIS?

As far as a lively church and falling asleep amidst a bunch of dead-heads, that's the flesh talking. We think if the music is not loud and fast, and the people are not jirating acroos the floor, that God's Spirit is not there. Bummer. That sure isnt what's recorded in Acts.flesh talking? NO EXPERIENCE been there done that ...i like crying services where conviction is all over folks and slow songs is that bad too? i like teaching service where we do just sit and learn . i like it all bro. you cant just do one thing and have a well balanced meal.

By the way, does anyone know what the angel did after he rolled away the stone from Jesus tomb? That dead-head sat on it!! The presence of God was all around and that dead-head hopped up on top of that stone and sat on it!!! (Matt 28:2). Now if he can't dance and shout down here in the presence of God...how's he gona dance in heaven??? he might have sat down because he was tired from shouting....:bliss:bliss

Hey, thanks for bringing up Holy Laughter too. Forgot about that one! LOL![/QUOTE]
:spit now go drink fronm the well., that never shall run dry one more time!

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

Wasn't trying to dog anyone about their ideas of self expression. Just seen too many dogged for NOT being ecstatic. Wondering why...when it's not even mentioned in reference to any of the Holy Ghost encounters in Acts.

I don't question what IS written. I question what is NOT written; what has been inserted between the lines...or otherwise invented over time.

We know Peter denied drunkeness, because it's plainly written.

We know the tongues were earthly, because it's plainly written.

We don't if they were dancing, shouting, laughing, and reeling; because it is NOT written...at all...not even vaguely mentioned...

The angel was probably tired from pushing the stone out of the way, but we don't know, because it's not stated. So, I couldn't teach it for truth.

Peter said they were not drunk - Pentecostals say they were.

Acts states the tongues were earthly - Pentecostals say they were the language of heaven, unknown to any man on earth.

Acts states that the disciples were seated - Pentecostals say stand and shout the Holy Ghost down.

Acts states the Holy Ghost came suddenly - Pentecostal services gradually build to a climax.

Joel states the signs of the out-pouring are visions, dreams and prophecy - Pentecostals say the signs of the out-pouring are heavenly languages (la la la le le le...himo t' kabe nay-shu tee hah), being slain in the spirit, holy laughter, sobbing, wailing moaning, running jumping, and shaking noobs into tongues.


I win.

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

:popcorn2

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

Samuel 1:12 As she kept on praying to the LORD, Eli observed her mouth. 13 Hannah was praying in her heart, and her lips were moving but her voice was not heard. Eli thought she was drunk 14 and said to her, "How long will you keep on getting drunk? Get rid of your wine."

15 "Not so, my lord," Hannah replied, "I am a woman who is deeply troubled. I have not been drinking wine or beer; I was pouring out my soul to the LORD. 16 Do not take your servant for a wicked woman; I have been praying here out of my great anguish and grief."


Hannah was also accused of being drunk. Was she acting like she was drunk like some assume they must have been acting in Acts 2? NO. She was ONLY accused of being drunk because her lips were moving and her voice was not heard. Similiarly, in Acts 2, they VERY likely were NOT stumbling around annebriated, but just speaking in a manner that was unheard of(yet comprehended languages), and therefore folks thought they might be tippin the bottle, just like Eli thought Hannah had been doing.

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

when ya get done with your popcorn, get in here and get yer hands dirty!:grampa

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

The drunkenness was accused in Acts 2 by the onlookers since they saw the people speaking in tongues. Nothing else.

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

Good posts! Exactly what I'm trying to argue.

But why were all of these things made up, and when did we start teaching them as doctrine and "truth?"

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

People do not follow context, I think. They see the word DRUNK, and do not stop to notice WHY the onlookers mentioned the thought, and simply throw into the fray what THEY think DRUNK people do. There's so many instances like that where the same thing is done that it scares me for some people.

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

It all boils down to spiritual immaturity, even on the Pastors part..

1 Corinthians 14:23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

People really should pray in tongues at home in private for the sake of the unlearned and for the sake of the unbeliever.

26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

The problem is many go to church to edify themselves instead of seeking to edify others. Part of the blame is on the ministry for allowing everyone to be so co-dependent on them, the other part of the blame is on the members themselves for staying in the infant stage..

32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

People should exhibit authority and control over themselves and their spirits because God is not the author of confusion..

38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

Or if people wanna be carnal while "Acting Spiritual" then let them be such.

40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

It's time to grow up and think of others that are without...


:2cents

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

yall just sit around being smart when your not even on the right page lol..

i';; keep haveing a good time..

and you still have not posted the scripture that said they were not drunk......
he said just not drunk as ye suppose..

miriam danced before the lord with her tamberine ..david danced when the ark was coming back . as histort states there are somethings were not mentioned as they were just considered known facts.

apostlics shout ,,maybe not every service ,but they do it , always have .....

what the holy ghost came down and they kept sitting there acting smart?? not lol. they acted drunk ..it feels good ,, and i feel.you just need to get it and you will know .

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

The context says the TONGUES were the reason people said they were drunk. Nothing else. If we want to talk about the same page, get into Acts 2, that same chapter in all our bibles, and see how TONGUES was the entire point. Not dancing, nor wavering and falling down. TONGUES.

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

I've never considered anyone drunk who's spoken in foreign languages. For instance, hearing someone speak French doesn't make me question their sobriety.

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

You'd think so if your mother started speaking french...fluently...and you knew for sure that she never took a french lesson in her life...your thinking in an Apostolic frame of mind. These men were foreign unbelievers listening to ignorant folks speaking all the languages of the world...fluently...an they didn't know this was the work of the Holy Ghost...so what was the only plausible explaination..drunkeness.

PasorRick - "For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day."

"as ye suppose" is off set by commas. This is important. Look at these two sentences.

A. These men are not drunk, like you think.

B. These men are not drunk like you think.


Notice the comma in A. Gives it a whole different meaning than B.


A. You think these men are drunk. They are not.

B. These men are drunk, but not the way you think.


Sentence A is Peter's words exactly. Not sentence B.

That's pretty clear to me. And like I've said before, my point is only solidified by the ABSENCE of all our modern day ideas about the signs of the Spirit.

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

That is why the people said the men were drunk with NEW WINE. Something different.

“To escape the absurdity of acknowledging their own ignorance, they adopted the theory that strong drink can teach languages” (Dr. McLelland)

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

give me any spirit filled church that shouts and worships god anyday .. we had 3 miralces tonight ,,,god is moveing mighty .. show me a church that has the true manifested power of god moveing and changeing lives ,and you will show me and worshipping praiseing church everytime.

ive been to those that ,think they know how to dot every i AND CROSS every T
correctly all the time ..not that thats a bad thing its not ....actulally a good thing ..
but they get so caught up in that ,they forget a move of god .......so when their folks get down and need a a boost guess where they show up? thats right our place ,, then they go back refreshed ....

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

You are evading the point.

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

Cut the crazy shouting and loud music, and what have you got? Quite. Faith alone that God will do something. Acts 4 - God shook the building, not the people.

Why do "they" come to your services? Because you have fast music pumped worship and "Holy Ghost" fire (uncontrolled emotions). They could go to a rock concert and get pumped, yo...which is basically what a "good" Pentecostal service is...they just keep their clothes on and have covering towels for the women with splayed legs who are thrown? across the floor by God's Spirit...?

Again...not recorded in Acts. I'm not trying to be smart...any child could read Acts and find reason for question...

And I didnt forget the slow moving services either...the slow emotional music serves for tear jerking...again, it happens at rock concerts...it's an art...

And don't even get me started on the silence broken by a sister screaming forth tongues followed by a brother's interpretation with the booming voice (of God) pleading with prodigals to return...Never. Happened. Once. In the Bible.

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

My use of the word "always" probably made what I said not literally true. I'll give you that. But let me explain myself because I believe the spirit behind my words was true.

LadyRev originally said this:

The topic of the thread was this:

After reading the original thread and then LadyRev's statement, especially the part where she accused the author of wanting to split hairs over terminology, it became apparent to me that she didn't seem to know how the author was using the term heavenly languages because he clearly wasn't splitting hairs over referring to tongues as heavenly languages. So, I tried to explain to her how the author meant the term and how I believed most everyone else she runs into will mean it. Of course, using the word "always" probably made what I said not literally true, but it still helped emphasize the importance of being aware that there was a different definition of heavenly language than hers that she would fairly often run into.

EDIT: I have actually never heard the term "heavenly language" used in any other way than as I defined it.

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

[QUOTE=JoeHardy07;]Cut the crazy shouting and loud music, and what have you got? Quite. Faith alone that God will do something. Acts 4 - God shook the building, not the people.

Why do "they" come to your services? Because you have fast music pumped worship and "Holy Ghost" fire (uncontrolled emotions). They could go to a rock concert and get pumped, yo...which is basically what a "good" Pentecostal service is...they just keep their clothes on and have covering towels for the women with splayed legs who are thrown? across the floor by God's Spirit...?

Again...not recorded in Acts. I'm not trying to be smart...any child could read Acts and find reason for question...

And I didnt forget the slow moving services either...the slow emotional music serves for tear jerking...again, it happens at rock concerts...it's an art...

And don't even get me started on the silence broken by a sister screaming forth tongues followed by a brother's interpretation with the booming voice (of God) pleading with prodigals to return...Never. Happened. Once. In the Bible.[/ I FEEL VERY SORRY ,,for you . i pray whaver has warped your thinking god can repair it . i am done with this thread. i hope i never get as smart as you ..

Re: Acts 2: Then and Now
 

LOL!