The 3000 in acts 2...

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Lol!

Would an autobiography done a few years prior to death suffice?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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

I have made that argument before so I don't hold it against you too much. But this time i never said nor implied that the 3000 were any sort of proof. They were a talking point. The point and question and proposed proof was that you all believe some people repented and were baptized without ever speaking in tongues and even died in that state.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I have made that argument before so I don't hold it against you too much. But this time i never said nor implied that the 3000 were any sort of proof. They were a talking point. The point and question and proposed proof was that you all believe some people repented and were baptized without ever speaking in tongues and even died in that state.

Who all believes someone repented and was baptized without ever speaking in tongues?

So you aren't saying those 3000 did NOT speak in tongues?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Who all believes someone repented and was baptized without ever speaking in tongues?

So you aren't saying those 3000 did NOT speak in tongues?

I only said the bible doesn't say they did. It doesn't say they didn't either. I said you all believe that as in all those that believe tongues is the initial evidence.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by jfrog

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.

Uh..ok. So where do you find such a one who you know for a fact repented, was baptized in Jesus name but never spoke in tongues?

BTW those that believe in tongues DON'T teach what you just said..that IF someone repents and is baptized they will Have the Spirit and Speak in tongues but rather it's a promise to those that have repented and been baptized, a promise they can obtain for themselves

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Uh..ok. So where do you find such a one who you know for a fact repented, was baptized in Jesus name but never spoke in tongues?

BTW those that believe in tongues DON'T teach what you just said..that IF someone repents and is baptized they will Have the Spirit and Speak in tongues but rather it's a promise to those that have repented and been baptized, a promise they can obtain for themselves

1. You had to bring knowing into this. I can't in fact know whether anyone really repented. People lie and there is no test to tell whether someone truly repented or not. In fact there's very little I can actually know... However I believe we can trust most people when I comes to these matters. For example I trust you when u claim to be truly repented that you are. Could I be wrong well sure. But I don't know why you would actively distrust someone who claims to be truly repentant though... Oh never mind I do know why... Because it goes against what you believe the bible teaches and surely your interpretation can't be wrong...

2. Initial evidence doctrine teaches that everyone who repents and is baptized will receive the Holy Ghost and that they will speak in tongues upon receiving it.

It's funny that pentecostals believe that only other penyecostals ever actually repent because obviously the only reason someone that is baptized wouldn't receive the Holy Ghost and speak in tongues before death is if they weren't truly repentant. That's the only explanation they can offer and it's funny that it means only Pentecostals ever truly repent...

[Originalist]

jfrog thinks Peter was lying when he told the 3000......

"And YOU shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto YOU..."

Ah, but there is no record that they actually DID receive it!! So maybe Peter was lying!!

If it was promised to the 3000, why can't we just believe that God kept his promise?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Originalist

jfrog thinks Peter was lying when he told the 3000......

"And YOU shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto YOU..."

Ah, but there is no record that they actually DID receive it!! So maybe Peter was lying!!

If it was promised to the 3000, why can't we just believe that God kept his promise?

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.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by jfrog

1. You had to bring knowing into this. I can't in fact know whether anyone really repented. People lie and there is no test to tell whether someone truly repented or not. In fact there's very little I can actually know... However I believe we can trust most people when I comes to these matters. For example I trust you when u claim to be truly repented that you are. Could I be wrong well sure. But I don't know why you would actively distrust someone who claims to be truly repentant though... Oh never mind I do know why... Because it goes against what you believe the bible teaches and surely your interpretation can't be wrong...

Then what is the point in this topic? BTW you just committed another logical fallacy, shifting the burden of proof or trying to put this on me when it's your argument not mine, you should be in defense of.

2. Initial evidence doctrine teaches that everyone who repents and is baptized will receive the Holy Ghost and that they will speak in tongues upon receiving it.

No. It teaches anyone who repents and is baptized will receive the Spirit and tongues IF THEY WANT IT AND SEEK IT.

In other words those that hold to this doctrine of initial evidence do not believe you receive the Spirit and tongues the moment you repent and are baptized. In fact they don't even stress the absolute necessity of being baptized first.

It's funny that pentecostals believe that only other penyecostals ever actually repent because obviously the only reason someone that is baptized wouldn't receive the Holy Ghost and speak in tongues before death is if they weren't truly repentant. That's the only explanation they can offer and it's funny that it means only Pentecostals ever truly repent...

Strawman argument.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Then what is the point in this topic? BTW you just committed another logical fallacy, shifting the burden of proof or trying to put this on me when it's your argument not mine, you should be in defense of.


No. It teaches anyone who repents and is baptized will receive the Spirit and tongues IF THEY WANT IT AND SEEK IT.

In other words those that hold to this doctrine of initial evidence do not believe you receive the Spirit and tongues the moment you repent and are baptized. In fact they don't even stress the absolute necessity of being baptized first.


Strawman argument.

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.