Believers of Acts 2:38 down through history?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

smh

Why are you shaking your head?

If I had an "agenda" I certainly wouldn't post something that entertained that I could be mistaken or anything that would contradict my view.

If all one wants is the truth... would they not entertain that they could be wrong? Would they not continue to dig until they found verification of their beliefs or until they had examined the data and found that their beliefs were historically untenable?

I imagined that you would look more deeply into this with me, assisting me, and perhaps helping me come to understand your side.

But by just shaking your head... it appears we know who has the agenda vs. who is seriously trying to find the truth.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Why are you shaking your head?

I'm shaking my head because I find it difficult to believe a Oneness A/P really believes there was an 1,800 year gap where "God failed, hell prevailed," simply because they can't find it written in historical documents.

The evidence is in the promise of 2:39. The evidence is there being millions of oneness, new birth believers throughout modern history.

I don't need historical records to prove that the biblical plan of salvation never changed from Acts thru today.

I believe the Bible. I have faith in the Bible as the Word of God.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

I'm shaking my head because I find it difficult to believe a Oneness A/P really believes there was an 1,800 year gap where "God failed, hell prevailed," simply because they can't find it written in historical documents.

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.

The evidence is in the promise of 2:39. The evidence is there being millions of oneness, new birth believers throughout modern history.

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.

I don't need historical records to prove that the biblical plan of salvation never changed from Acts thru today.

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. I have faith in the Bible as the Word of God.

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*

[Aquila]

I'm also finding scattered references of Medieval Arians who baptized in Jesus name and provided shelter to other antitrinitarian Monarchian (Oneness) groups. They proliferated the Gothic Bible, a translation that was considered to challenge various Trinitarian notions of the Latin Bibles of their time. Not to mention early Celtic missionaries who appear to have practiced baptism in the name of Jesus prior to the arrival of the Catholics. It appears that they took the Acts 2:38 message to Languedoc, Flanders, Frisia and Saxony.

I'm going to have to do a lot of cross referencing to verify because these little snippets of information are peppered throughout various historical works. But it leaves the door wide open to reveal quite a witness to the truth down through history.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm also finding scattered references of Medieval Arians who baptized in Jesus name and provided shelter to other antitrinitarian Monarchian (Oneness) groups. They proliferated the Gothic Bible, a translation that was considered to challenge various Trinitarian notions of the Latin Bibles of their time. Not to mention early Celtic missionaries who appear to have practiced baptism in the name of Jesus prior to the arrival of the Catholics. It appears that they took the Acts 2:38 message to Languedoc, Flanders, Frisia and Saxony.

I'm going to have to do a lot of cross referencing to verify because these little snippets of information are peppered throughout various historical works. But it leaves the door wide open to reveal quite a witness to the truth down through history.

you said you wanted to write a book.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

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.

If the wind blows, but the weather channel doesn't mention it, did it really happen?

Originally Posted by Aquila

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.

What are you talking about? I won't speak for EB, but personally it wasn't that I couldn't back it up; it's that I don't rely on historical records to affirm my faith is right. I don't need historical record to prove that the Gospel preached in Acts lasted thru today. My faith is in the Bible as God's Word, not what some man wrote in a historical record.

Do you believe in Creation or evolution? Because scientists would claim their "facts" prove evolution and that the Bible is the only source which Creationists point to as proof of Creationism. So it must be hard for you to believe in Creation since there is little else than the Bible which proves it.

Originally Posted by Aquila

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.

My faith isn't validated by man's historical record. What part of this do you not understand? Faith is faith. It is not something which is dependent on historical record or man's say so. Faith is in God alone and trusting His Word is true. It's "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Originally Posted by Aquila

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.

I'm happy you were able to find something on the internet to help you believe that the Bible is true.

Originally Posted by Aquila

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.

Again, it's not that I "couldn't," rather that I don't feel the need to defend Acts 2:38 to someone who claims to be a Oneness A/P!

Good God in Zion! (as EB would say)

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

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*

Well, I see you got a breather, and now we can start where we left off.

Why aren't you Eastern Orthodox?

If History can negate anything found in the text of scripture. Then you have two choices, one Eastern Orthodoxy, or (where it looks like you are headed) Atheism.

Oh, one more, Hinduism.

Its history is documented, pretty well I might add.

Throw a little funeral pyor ash into your hair and beard. Wrap yourself naked in a blanket sitting by a fire, and beg for food. Bro, we got HISTORY for you!

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Well, I see you got a breather, and now we can start where we left off.

Why aren't you Eastern Orthodox?

If History can negate anything found in the text of scripture. Then you have two choices, one Eastern Orthodoxy, or (where it looks like you are headed) Atheism.

Oh, one more, Hinduism.

Its history is documented, pretty well I might add.

Throw a little funeral pyor ash into your hair and beard. Wrap yourself naked in a blanket sitting by a fire, and beg for food. Bro, we got HISTORY for you!

You still don't get it.

You're so narrow minded you don't care about how anyone else thinks, feels, or desires that claims be validated.

Everyone has an interpretation of the Bible. And the more crazy the claim, the more we should desire to see it backed up. Because without anything to back it up, your interpretation is just a pathetic as anyone else's.

When someone tells me that it doesn't matter if no one believed in Acts 2:38 down through the ages, because the Bible held the truth all along, it allows for a gap of history in which no soul was saved. It allows for the Gospel to have been a whopping failure for nearly 2,000 years. I can't embrace that kind of thinking. Right or wrong, I can't do it. I can't see the Gospel being that pathetic of a failure. I think it even insults the nature of God. With some evidence that this message was indeed present throughout the ages, I can actually take a deep breath and relax.

I told you, I'm a big softy. I'm not as hard as you are. But I will say this. You had me considering how anemically pathetic this interpretation was and how incapable it was to endure and be a light to men for nearly 2,000 years. Not because I "needed" history to validate it. But because I needed to know it wasn't such an abysmal failure. Because if God proved incapable of providing the light of truth for men throughout all those centuries... He is certainly incapable of saving you or me.

Try to accept that not everyone thinks like you. Some of us have rather rigorous processes of examination that we must go through to feel at peace with an idea.

I look at it this way... if no one else believed the way you interpret the text until the 20th century... it's a private interpretation. Something fringe and cultic to be rejected.

[RachelRose]

Great study.

I have always had UPCI preachers just brush off my questions about the gap by saying; "sure Miss, there always was Jesus Name people, we just never saw them."

Dang, so during the Dark Ages when the catholic church was shredding people for owning even one Bible verse the good guys were just hiding out? It seems wrong.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

You still don't get it.

No Chris, its you who doesn't get it. Validation through evidence outside of the Bible? My old man the Atheist extraordinaire. Would get a gleam in his eye, with eyebrow raised high when individuals spoke like you. What would follow would be series of questions which were lined up to lead you to admitting that what you believed in was as false as a rubber chicken.

Why? Because the Bible being the anchor, the shield, the sword, the armor, was now being laid aside.To leave you wide open to answer questions where Google couldn't save you. My lands, Christianity stands and falls on the Bible, and looking through history as a life line? Well, sunny Jim, time to pucker up and kiss some icons and bishop rings! Oooh, but even more historical data, are those barefoot gurus, wrapped in blankets, bow down and kiss the dirty wrinkled feet of the guru. History is rife with the historic evidence of the Hindu cast system. Pastoral authority? My my, a Swami, a Guru, are sometimes called Maharaji or Babji, meaning father, or king. In sanskrit far more ancient and documented than Christianity the Guru holds authority over his devotees far beyond that of Christian priests or pastors. The Guru (depending upon his asceticism) is higher than god. No, Chris, the Bible is primary source evidence that's how historians work, also detective work. The Bible documents are the first witness, you have to destroy them in order to come up with another source of reference being "history?"

Originally Posted by Aquila

You're so narrow minded you don't care about how anyone else thinks, feels, or desires that claims be validated.

If I had a dollar for everytime pyschological projection is used by a poster I would be wealthy. Chris, it is you who is narrow minded, you want us to believe that Medieval mud farmers had salvation from their beliefs in some combination of Druid Mythology mingled with Roman Catholicism? Madame Blavatsky would be proud of you. These Medieval serfs and illiterate monks all going to heaven because they accepted Christ as their personal savior? Because that's what this brouhaha really all comes down to? Correct? No one needs a BIBLE? Why did Jesus even send out ministry? Why did Paul write instructional epistles if this all was supposedly swallowed up with the sands of time? The Bible is the anvil, and you my boy is just another hammer, waiting to be worn away in your unbelief.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Everyone has an interpretation of the Bible. And the more crazy the claim, the more we should desire to see it backed up. Because without anything to back it up, your interpretation is just a pathetic as anyone else's.

Yet, we don't go to history books, we go to the Bible. REFORMISTS went to the Bible, to find out that the Western and Eastern Roman Churches were pagan inspired. That the papacy and patriarches absorbed rituals, and pagan myth into their form of Christianity. The Bible, Chris, we go to the Rock, not to the sand.

Originally Posted by Aquila

When someone tells me that it doesn't matter if no one believed in Acts 2:38 down through the ages, because the Bible held the truth all along, it allows for a gap of history in which no soul was saved. It allows for the Gospel to have been a whopping failure for nearly 2,000 years. I can't embrace that kind of thinking. Right or wrong, I can't do it. I can't see the Gospel being that pathetic of a failure. I think it even insults the nature of God. With some evidence that this message was indeed present throughout the ages, I can actually take a deep breath and relax.

Chris, this is more of your emotional pleading, which becomes so dramatic that you hope we take notice. But, forget it, the Bible is the foundation the words which gives us instruction. If William Tyndale, or John Wycliffe would read our postings back and forth. They would rebuke you, not me. Because while you want us to sit naked in ashes waiting for some archeological find, they understood the Bible to be the only key to lead all men to salvation. Even if they didn't find it themselves. At least they tried, instead of giving everyone around them some teary eyed soppy wet drama.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I told you, I'm a big softy. I'm not as hard as you are. But I will say this. You had me considering how anemically pathetic this interpretation was and how incapable it was to endure and be a light to men for nearly 2,000 years. Not because I "needed" history to validate it. But because I needed to know it wasn't such an abysmal failure. Because if God proved incapable of providing the light of truth for men throughout all those centuries... He is certainly incapable of saving you or me.

Well, my boy, God isn't a softy, and therefore this is the reason you deem Him unrighteous.. Is a man more righteous than God? Well, Chris, you sure seem to build a case that if God doesn't excuse a group in Borneo for not being baptized He is unrighteous, and unmerciful. Joseph Smith needed to figure out how to work the American Indians into salvation, and he did by putting them into His book as Lamanites. Yet, Bahai Faith and Sri Rama Krishna taught that all rivers of religion lead to salvation and everlasting bliss. Your problem now becomes more than seeking historical evidence. You are now Bibleless, and now must deal with how does God save those who have no opportunity to hear the Gospel? People are born everyday, die everyday, in areas where the Bible may even be available but unable to be referenced. Saudi Arabia, Yemen, parts of Pakistan, and India. Not to mention other locations of the far east. Your doctrine of sincerely believe and go to heaven is a question begging doctrine.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Try to accept that not everyone thinks like you. Some of us have rather rigorous processes of examination that we must go through to feel at peace with an idea.

Chris, but you have no process of examination, other than your emotional pleadings. Bro, again, why aren't you an Eastern Orthodox? Why aren't you a Hindu? Don't ever talk to Rabbi Tovia Singer, because you will end up losing. But, I don't believe you even have a side, or any skin in this game. Ndavid noticed it well, and I have believed this for a while. You just like to rip wings off the ecclesiastical flies in the room. Burning the Apostolic Pentecostal ants under your magnifying glass. One minute you agree with us, and then shapeshift into the devil's advocate to watch how the kiddies play. I feel for you bro, but as time goes on, we shall see. I hope you make it.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I look at it this way... if no one else believed the way you interpret the text until the 20th century... it's a private interpretation. Something fringe and cultic to be rejected.

Bro, then you are in a bigger pickle, because you go all the way back to the Bible and tell us that some portions of time it was GONE. Dude, you are the one who needs to prove his case. Because Christian history as it has been recorded doesn't have your doctrine anywhere. Would you like me to quote Eastern and Western Roman church fathers, papacy, and clerics? They believed there was NO SALVATION outside of the Roman Church. You are alone my boy, no Bible, no historical evidence, just your emotional pleas.