Question for Apostolics

[Luke]

Originally Posted by MarieA27

You have to re-word that, as I don't want to answer without fully understanding your question.

Can a person who has lived since Jesus came to earth and died and rose again make it to heaven without haveing heard of Jesus?

If so then please explain how?

[navygoat1998]

Originally Posted by houston

you are assuming that they did speak in tongues. arguments from silence get you nothing.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by navygoat1998

Ok mister goat,

it does not say that they spoke in tongues
it does not say that they did not spoke in tongues.

So it is an argument from silence, but gathering all the external evidence, which one is most probably true?

[navygoat1998]

Originally Posted by houston

implicit that lack of tongues is due to false repentance

So they don't have these????

[houston]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

it does not say that they did not spoke in tongues.

what?

[houston]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Ok mister goat, it does not say that they spoke in tongues it does not say that they did not spoke in tongues. So it is an argument from silence, but gathering all the external evidence, which one is most probably true?

opinion matters not. please stick with the text.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by houston

implicit that lack of tongues is due to false repentance

Bingo! If god promised them the Holy Ghost for truly repenting and being baptized and if tongues always accompanies the Holy Ghost the first time then either those who repented and are now dead either didnt truly repent. or else the premise that tongues always accompany the holy ghost is wrong and so god gave them the Holy Ghost without tonguest. Since Renee said they truly repented and never spoke in tongues then the only logical conclusion is that god kept his promise and must have given them the Holy Ghost without tongues.

Surely u can understand what I'm getting at miss b.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

You are just assuming that they did not speak in tongues.
arguments from silence get you nothing.

So now the people who say they repented but never spoke in tongues are all liars and they must have spoken in tongues?

[houston]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Bingo! If god promised them the Holy Ghost for truly repenting and being baptized and if tongues always accompanies the Holy Ghost the first time then either those who repented and are now dead either didnt truly repent. or else the premise that tongues always accompany the holy ghost is wrong and so god gave them the Holy Ghost without tonguest. Since Renee said they truly repented and never spoke in tongues then the only logical conclusion is that god kept his promise and must have given them the Holy Ghost without tongues. Surely u can understand what I'm getting at miss b.

of course she can. she is one of the brighter ones around here. if she doesn't she is playing dumb, and that would be a first.

now, how is renee going to respond?

hahaha

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

You are just assuming that they did not speak in tongues.
arguments from silence get you nothing.

Btw on a side note, while silence is not absute proof, silence can serve as evidence