The 3000 in acts 2...

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Lol the burden of proof... So because I made the thread I have the burden of proof? I think there was a claim made long before I made this thread by oneneSs apostolics that tongues are the initial evidence of being baptized with the spirit. It is those people that actually have the burden of proof since they made the first claim. It's definitely not me for claiming that their claim isn't proven by the bible.

Your thread. Your assertions. When you make an assertion it's your burden to prove. Once someone tests it and you try to shift the focus away from your statements onto someone else...that is a logical fallacy

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Or it could be that they did receive the spirit and that the bible didnt mention tongues for them because they never spoke with tongues.

So why don't you prove my position wrong? I'm tired of being asked for an unobtainable level of proof an I think you need to understand what trying to provide the same standard of proof is like when discussing this.

Please cite the passage that any of them actually received the Holy Ghost.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Your thread. Your assertions. When you make an assertion it's your burden to prove. Once someone tests it and you try to shift the focus away from your statements onto someone else...that is a logical fallacy

Not when my claim is a response to a claim made by others. Tongues are the initial evidence of the Holy Ghost can you prove that? Ill accept a simple yes or no.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Please cite the passage that any of them actually received the Holy Ghost.

I can't. But u can't show that they didn't.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Not when my claim is a response to a claim made by others. Tongues are the initial evidence of the Holy Ghost can you prove that? Ill accept a simple yes or no.

So far all I have seen are YOUR claims. Your claims that "all I have to do to disprove tongues is evidence us..." that is YOUR claim. that is your opening argument.

Once again your asking me something is a switching of the burden of proof.

Further it assumes I made such an assertion. That is another logical fallacy. You are trying to manufacture an assertion on my part to change the burden of proof

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

So far all I have seen are YOUR claims. Your claims that "all I have to do to disprove tongues is evidence us..." that is YOUR claim. that is your opening argument.

Once again your asking me something is a switching of the burden of proof.

Further it assumes I made such an assertion. That is another logical fallacy. You are trying to manufacture an assertion on my part to change the burden of proof

Because you claimed the burden of proof is mine you made an assertion. Because you made an assertion you have te burden of proof to defend and prove it. Because you made the assertion that I have the burden of proof you shifted the burden of proof to your new claim. Until that claim is either proven or dropped by you then you have a burden I proof on that claim. I'm sorry but you brought up te assertion that I had the burden of proof so that you wouldn't have to defend initial evidence. Now in order to continue in that discussion we have to first get your burden if proof claim resolved.

So i ask you again. Prove that I have the burden of proof. Prove your assertion.