The 3000 in acts 2...
 

Can anyone show me where they received the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues?

You can't because the bible never even says they received the Holy Ghost. However the bible does promise through Peter that they will receive the Holy Ghost.

In fact the bible promises the Holy Ghost to everyone god will call call provided they repent and are baptized.

So to disprove the initial evidence doctrine all I need to find is one person now dead that repented and was baptized and never received the Holy Ghost wih the evidence of speaking in tongues. Because if god promised them the Holy Ghost for doing those things then we can all surely believe that they got it even if tongues were not involved.

So who here is willing to admit they believe that everyone who never spoke in tongues either never repented or never was baptized? Can I get just one to admit they believe this? Please! Please! Anyone?

Re: The 3000 in acts 2...
 

Good luck with that.

:nod

Re: The 3000 in acts 2...
 

No

Re: The 3000 in acts 2...
 

2. Argument from Silence / Argument from Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)

DEFINITION: Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. (This is a special case of a false dilemma, since it assumes that all propositions must either be known to be true or known to be false.) As Davis writes, "Lack of proof is not proof."

EXAMPLE: "You cannot prove that Kirk is the smartest captain ever. We don't have all the IQ scores of every Starfleet Captain."
PROOF: Identify the proposition in question. Argue that it may be true even though we don't know whether it is or isn't

Re: The 3000 in acts 2...
 

Excellent! Thanks.

:highfive

Re: The 3000 in acts 2...
 

So you don't believe there is one baptist or catholic that repented and was baptized and died without speaking in tongues?

Re: The 3000 in acts 2...
 

There could be, but I just don't think you going to get them to testify.
:heeheehee

Re: The 3000 in acts 2...
 

Except that wasnt my argument. It was simply an introduction to a different thought... Maybe read more than the first paragraph?

Re: The 3000 in acts 2...
 

Lol! :)

Re: The 3000 in acts 2...
 

I think that IS your argument. I was reading, actually, the LAST thing you said

Your argument is paraphrased "Acts 2 does not SAY the 3000 were baptized with the Spirit and spoke in tongues, so they didn't"

That is an argument from silence