Only 12 spoke in tongues at Pentecost
 

“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.

BTW folks, Robert here has every one of these anti Oneness Pentecostal Polemics saved on a computer and he just reposts them from forum to forum. Only occasionally he makes minor changes to them.

He did this at NFCF too and was banned after he continued to spam us and yet would not answer questions himself, would deny you ever answered his questions, would consistantly twist your answers, would deny you believe what you say you believe so he can attack you on a different angle and would ignore you posts and counter threads while demanding you answer him.

You will find he is quite unreasonable most of the time
Oh and I have refuted this argument of his, if we can call it that. dozens of times. In fact I have refuted every one of hsi arguments. The only problem is unlike him I do no save my counter replies to his long long long verbose anti-oneness threads so it gets rediculous for him to post these long long posts and demand you respond to every point while he ignores yours

Firstly, I only ever post my own posts and I never copy and paste other people's work. Secondly, I make frequent changes as I learn more, for instance the Psalm 2:7 post has just been revised today after a persons comments to me in this chat room. Thirdly, you do the same yourself, although i admit that about 2/3 of my posts are actually repostings. Fourthly, why don't you attempt to refute my arguments, why not prove my premis wrong rather than resort to attacks upon me personally. Fifthly, this post wasn't a copy and paste!!!

So are we allowing anti-apostolic rhetoric to be promoted here now?

No one has reported any posts until now.

Not that you are accusing me, but I want to publicly state that I haven't reported any of his posts, but merely asked a question that I thought should have been asked by now.

Wow, you are defensive today!

Is it the Full Moon?!?

I simply stated there have been no reported posts. I entered it to discussion among the Admin.

This is just my opinion......

We've had everything discussed on these forums from soup to nuts including whether or not there's a God. When someone like Iron Bladder comes along, it just gives people opportunity to once again state TRUTH.

People argue and fuss about all kinds of stupid stuff day after day on these forums. Why not those who are capable unsheathe their swords and cleanly and capably cut off the giant's head so to speak. :)

Do we ban people just because they present an argument we disagree with?

There are BETTER reasons to ban people imo.

Open discussion is one thing, posting reams of opposing views is mere spam.

The question is if he is here for discussion or dissention.

We are very mellow here on the ban thing anyway.

I read that as those representing the group that had congregated.

Ban the spam! :heeheehee

Some of these people sure get around. I've read his stuff on other forums years ago. It's always the same old same old. :rolleyes:

Peter didn't explain anything. It wasn't Peter who wrote the book of Acts.

And at least 16 different dialects were mentioned as having been spoken on the day of Pentecost. Unless the 12 disciples were switching off on which particular languages they were speaking, there would have had to have been more than 12 speaking those languages.

Says who? Did Galilee not have 120 people in it or something, or are you just assuming that you couldn't get 120 people from the same town in one place at one time?

That's a point I've never heard mentioned before. :)

You said:

in response to my post.

I was just clarifying that I wasn't the one who reported it, that's all. It appeared that you were saying that.

I didn't think I was sounding defensive, but was just clarifying what you DIDN'T say......LOL!

There is a difference in discussion and promotion of doctrine.

For instance, we can discuss homosexuality in the church, but it's not appropriate for someone to come here and promote their homosexual Apostolic church and call it 'discussion'.

Only 12 spoke in tongues at Pentecost
 

I have a feeling PaPaDon could dialogue along these lines!

Blessings,

Falla39

Firstly, I never said you copied someone elses.
Secondly I said you save your posts that you posted on another board and then you copy and paste YOUR OWN LONG LONG LONG LONG post on many other boards. So while you demand someone that has never saw your post before to reply to your long long long posts, all YOU had to do was copy and paste it from forum to forum.

He posted it on NFCF too

It was 120 that spoke in tongues and I had this saved too!
 

I think that I'm after intelligent criticism of my thoughts and insights. If you can prove me wrong, then hey, I'll admit to error and change. I've admitted today that my posting on malachi 3:6 in another thread was wrong, and I've changed this post, though for some strange reason, I can't find this revised post on my memory stick, so I'll have to check my PC at home for it.

Heavenly One, why don't you show me form the Bible where my comments in post one that only 12 people spok ein tongues is wrong - if of course you can.

thank you

:)

Well I do admit to being a Trinitarian and i do admit as a former Oneness Pentecostal myself, to strongly opposing many points of Oneness doctrine, that's why I'm here to discuss Oneness and Trinitarian theology. I don't want to get drawn into Praxeas' personal comments and insults.

Thank you felicity, I'm grateful for your kind comments. I therefore as a Trinitarian rest my case that on the day of pentecost only 12 men spoke in tongues. After that day many others also did, men and women, but that isn't relevant to my premise outlined in post one.

I'm sorry passing on, would you please explain yoru comment as I don't understand it. The verse which you referred to I understand as referring to the 12 apostles.

thanks

robert :)

Hello Bishopnl, I think that we've crossed lines, possibly you havn't understood my points in post one. So to reply to your first comment, they wen't speaking 16 dialects but approximately 12 languages and 4 dialects of sopme of those languages.

Secondly, the standard pentecostal position on the 120 is that they comprised the entire Christian Church at the time of Acts 1, this then expanded to 3,120 at Acts 2. My point in rebuttal is that as not every Christian was a Galilean, therefore the number 120 could not have comprised the entire Christian Church, and I'm right as they at that time numberd 500 people (1st Corinthians 15:5-8) at the minimum from all over the land including non-Galileans.

Then I thirdly made the point that according to Acts 2:7 all of the tongues speakers were Galileans, therefore logically as the Church included non-Galileans, and yet Oneness Pentecsotals also claim that 120 spoke in tongues at Pentecost, this number being the entire Church, you have a contradiction from a Oneness perspective.

This was why i raised this question in post one.

Rob

Well I'm a Trinitarian, are you saying that I'm a non-Christian and unsaved becasue of that? Or do you accept me as brother in Christ despite my Trinitarianism? If the former is your reply, then isn't that cultic; calling Trinitarians non-Christians? If the latter then what's yoru problem with Biblical discussion, don't you see that you can learn as you engage with other?

Hello Falla,

Do you have any comments to make about the content of my arguments or my use of scripture? if you do I'd appreciate your comments please.

Well if that's wrong, why then do you also do exactly the same thing yourself as I do and occasionally post your own posts too? Most of my replies are my own work as in the case of the approximate 12-15 posts which I've posted today, but I admit that if I start a post then just over half are posts which I've thought about for years and stored on my pc.

Hi IB:

I am one who will tell you that I wouldn't want to be in your shoes believing that the Lord Jesus Christ is not THE One God of the Bible. If you choose to take that chance, there's not much anyone can do but God Himself.



I doubt you'd change, IB, but here goes:

The proof that the 120 (understanding that this is not an exact number) spoke with tongues begins BEFORE the event, not after as you seem to try to prove:

Acts 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,)
16 Men and brethren...

Peter addressed the 120 as "Men and brethren". When you finish the chapter, you'll find that Peter never stops and addresses the 11 directly. That means that all of the "they's" in the remaining portion of that chapter must then refer to the 120. In fact, "they" even "prayed...and gave forth their lots" (v.26)

Knowing that Luke didn't stop and change subjects just because someone inserted another chapter here, we see this same "they" in Acts 2:1:

And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.


Having established that the "they" of Acts 2:1 does identify the 120, let's insert what that pronoun identifies:

1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they (the 120) were all with one accord in one place.
2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they (the 120) were sitting.
3 And there appeared unto them (the 120) cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them (the 120) .
4 And they (the 120) were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them (the 120) utterance.

For the record, I don't know of any trinitarian Pentecostals besides Iron Bladder that believes only 12 spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost.

I'm not sure where you are getting the 4 dialects and 12 languages thing. Do you have source information for that? I'm not saying you're wrong, only that I'd like to know where you got that information from.

The 16 different cultures/countries mentioned:

Parthi
Media or Madai
Elam
Mesopatamia
Judea
Cappadocia
Pontus
Asia
Phrygia
Pamphylia
Egypt
Parts of Libya (near Cyrene)
Rome

Its true that some of those places probably spoke Persian, just different dialects. But every language mentioned is either a language or a distinct dialect of a language such as Persian or Greek (which are not listed). If, in fact, you are going to say that places like Pontus, Cappadocia, Phrygia and Pamphylia are just different dialects of Asian, commentators (such as Albert Barnes) say that the Asia referenced by the onlookers was most likely another part of Asia farther west than these.

I don't have time to address any more right at the moment. Maybe later.

I don't. I have one post saved that is a reply this topic you started here. And in reply to your doing it, I did it. Otherwise you won't see me going from board to board and just reposting stuff I have saved from posting years ago.

BTW you gonna reply or not?

He isn't Pentecostal and he avoided my refutation of his argument.

Bump For Ib
 

Please refute this Robert

As a Trinitarian I believe that Jesus Christ the Son of God is Yahweh God incarnate in the flesh. It is Oneness folk who deny that the Son possesses (as the SON) divine attributes such as eternity, immutibility, creatorship, omnipresence etc.

So Ogia how would you explain the double use of the pronoun “us” at Acts 1:22?: "Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be a ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection." (Acts 1:22, KJV). Because this pronoun ‘us’ which is here used twice cannot possibly refer to the 120 disciples who’re mentioned seven verses earlier (Acts 1:15), because ‘us’ implies specifically the 11 apostles who were choosing another man (Acts 1:21) to join the office of the 12 apostles, and yet the company of 120 comprised both men and also women. The specific use of the word ‘men’ in the plural at Acts 1:21, negates the possibility that women were active in replacing Judas.

This is why at Acts 1:20 (KJV) we read; “For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.” The NIV here reads; ‘May another take his place of leadership.’ Now this emphasis upon leadership must imply the leadership of the 12 apostles within the Church, and it’s a fatuous argument to reason as you have Ogia that every one of the 120 men and women were also leaders in the Church together with the 12 apostles, for the 120 wern't leaders; some were women who wern't allowed to hold leadership in the Church.

So Judas’ replacement was here being chosen at Acts 1:20-26 by 11 men and not by 120 men and women. The chosen person was expecting to join the 11 apostles and not to become one of 120 leaders in the Church! And because no women ever had a place of leadership in the Church, men were here choosing another man to replace Judas.

I don't see what a "double use" of the pronoun changes? Peter NEVER stops addressing the 120 once he begins speaking in v15. Unless you can show this, then the "they" all the way through Acts 2:4 refers to the 120.


I'm not sure what you're point is? No, I'm not saying that all 120 were in leadership, but does that preclude them from "praying...and casting lots"? Plus, even if the women didn't vote, the men certainly numbered more than 11.


Again, even if it were only men "voting", there were still more than 11.

Praxeas said: Please refute this Robert



If you split it up into single point posts then I will. However is this a saved post which you've reposted from your hard drive, or did you write this post afresh? I ask this because your post is extremely confusing and it's not clear if your quoting from my origional post (which has been revised many times since you first saw it and possibly saved it), secondly, your posting is over long and it's not clear even to me if yoru quoting from my post in portions or if all of your post is yoru own work in it's entirety.

I'll look forward to replying, but please make your post shorter into say 5 or 6 posts and clear.

That's a bit rich considering your initial post.

Where are you getting this information on "the standard pentecostal position?" I doubt any Apostolic would deny that more than 120 had believed on the resurrection of Christ. It was 120 who returned to Jerusalem to await the promise of the father.

I'm sorry, I still don't follow. You are saying that it is impossible for 120 Galileans to be in one place at the same time? Out of all the people that had witnessed Christ's resurrection, are you saying that 120 of those could NOT have been Galileans, or what?

Praxeas said: 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!



My reply: OK here goes, at Acts 1:22?: "Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be a ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection." (Acts 1:22, KJV). we find that this pronoun ‘us’ which is here used twice cannot possibly refer to the 120 disciples who’re mentioned seven verses earlier (Acts 1:15), because ‘us’ implies specifically the 11 apostles who were choosing another man (Acts 1:21) to join the office of the 12 apostles, and yet the company of 120 comprised both men and also women. The specific use of the word ‘men’ in the plural at Acts 1:21, negates the possibility that women were active in replacing Judas.

This is why at Acts 1:20 (KJV) we read; “For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.” The NIV here reads; ‘May another take his place of leadership.’ Now this emphasis upon leadership must imply the leadership of the 12 apostles within the Church, and it’s a fatuous argument to reason that every one of the 120 men and women were also leaders in the Church together with the 12 apostles. So Judas’ replacement was here being chosen at Acts 1:20-26 by 11 men and not by 120 men and women. The chosen person was expecting to join the 11 apostles and not to become one of 120 leaders in the Church! And because no women ever had a place of leadership in the Church, men were here choosing another man to replace Judas.