It has to do with intellectual honesty. Looking at a void in history and insisting that something did exist during that time is worse than seeing the void and admitting that indicators are that it didn't.
I see what you're saying. However, to do so insists that we have to put blinders on and insist that our interpretation is correct and then profess something there is absolutely no evidence for.
And to me, that kind of blind adherence to dogma is scary. Because if you are in error, you'd never want to know or be open to correction. My position is, if the proclamation is true, evidence will be found. And it looks like I've found something that points that direction. What I find sad is... you guys... the guys who hold this position... couldn't provide such information. In your blind adherence to dogma... you couldn't provide an answer. You couldn't back it up. You couldn't stand and deliver. But me, one who was critical of your position, searched and perhaps even confirmed your beliefs. In your "Bible only" approach, you'd have had a soul hanging in the balance and no answer to back up your interpretation. For a truth as important as this... I'd have imagined you would have already been rock solid in providing the information necessary to back up what you were merely assuming. That leaves me shaking my head.
I believe the Bible too. But I also believe that if a given interpretation is true, especially one as important as this, it is demonstrable in history. To close one's eyes and refuse to even study it out is preposterous. It fails to deliver a reason for the hope that we hold. It fails to validate our faith and convictions historically.
In short, interpretations of the Bible are a dime a dozen. Don't believe me? Consider that there are nearly 40,000 denominations of Christianity. So, in my opinion, your interpretation without anything to back it up becomes no more authoritative than that of any other. But, if what I found is indeed true... we can say with solid assurance that
Acts 2:38 has always been believed by antitrinitarians historically down through the ages, without a single "gap" of history wherein man wasn't provided a witness to the truth.
And... by the looks of it... much of traditional Christian history and doctrine is a "response" to this truth. In essence, if what is written here is true... there would be no such Christian history, charges of heresy, persecutions, or denunciations without the Apostolic truth down through the ages.
From my perspective, I'd like to say... Shame on you for not being able to provide an adequate defense of the
Acts 2:38 message with at least some shred of information which I've posted above. And this is coming from one who has a rather vehement critic of your position. I had to do your homework for you and seek to correct myself, with an open mind assuming that I could be in error. Why you, a solid defender of such a position couldn't provide the information is beyond me.
*smh*
Threaded Mode
