New Guy

Lexington, KY

#263 Feb 12, 2013
nobody wrote:
<quoted text>Can you say with absolute certainty what language the Galileans spoke?
The apostles spoke the languages of the nations from where the people at Pentecost came from.
The word apostle is a noun. The grammar rules, along with the verse saying these men were drunk with new wine, shows it was the apostles speaking in tongues that day. There were women present in the upper room ten days earlier. The 120 were not baptized in the Spirit, the 12 were.
nobody

Morehead, KY

#264 Feb 12, 2013
New Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
The apostles spoke the languages of the nations from where the people at Pentecost came from.
The word apostle is a noun. The grammar rules, along with the verse saying these men were drunk with new wine, shows it was the apostles speaking in tongues that day. There were women present in the upper room ten days earlier. The 120 were not baptized in the Spirit, the 12 were.
You say that, but where can you show the 120 or at least part of them were not Galileans? Who is to say the seventy was not there and some of them received the Holy Ghost? You may not have understood the question but I have my doubts. The language of the nations spoken by the apostles miraculously are listed. My question was about the native language the Galileans spoke everyday that caused the response of the Jews in Acts 2:7.

Since: Jan 10

Royse City

#265 Feb 12, 2013
Olethros wrote:
<quoted text>Nobody cares about your link. Nobody is going to listen to you.
You wish.

;)
New Guy

Lexington, KY

#266 Feb 12, 2013
nobody wrote:
<quoted text>You say that, but where can you show the 120 or at least part of them were not Galileans? Who is to say the seventy was not there and some of them received the Holy Ghost? You may not have understood the question but I have my doubts. The language of the nations spoken by the apostles miraculously are listed. My question was about the native language the Galileans spoke everyday that caused the response of the Jews in Acts 2:7.
The 120 are not in play here, nor as the 70. The seventy are not mentioned in this text at all. The 120 were mentioned 10 days earlier. Read your Bible nobody. Acts 2:43 says that many signs and wonders were being done by the apostles. No one besides an apostle does any miracles or signs until chapter 6, after they lay hands on the seven. The apostles are the ones baptized in the Spirit.

What caused the crowd to wonder was the fact a bunch of hillbillies from Galilee were speaking in the languages of those far off places. They heard the apostles in their own tongues, from where they were born. The native languages of Galilee would have been Aramaic and Hebrew. They could speak Greek, and would have known Latin probably. The native language did not cause the response- them speaking in foreign languages did.
Walkinginlove

Danville, VA

#267 Feb 12, 2013
New Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Never said only the apostles spoke in tongues WIL. Only way spiritual gifts were passed to people was by laying on of apostles hands. Acts 8. But only apostles were doing miraculous things until Acts 6 when the apostles laid hands on the seven.
Where can I get a copy of the Bible you use, it appears to be missing a chapter or two. The Apostles are the only way Spiritual gifts were given out?
nobody

Nicholasville, KY

#268 Feb 12, 2013
New Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
The 120 are not in play here, nor as the 70. The seventy are not mentioned in this text at all. The 120 were mentioned 10 days earlier.
Because they were not mentioned does not mean they were not there. 120 were there praying with them. Why do you ASSUME they were sent home? From reading other accounts we know there were followers at different times.
New Guy wrote:
<quoted text>Read your Bible nobody. Acts 2:43 says that many signs and wonders were being done by the apostles. No one besides an apostle does any miracles or signs until chapter 6, after they lay hands on the seven. The apostles are the ones baptized in the Spirit.
I read the bible but I try not to add anything to it. You think when something is not said you have the liberty to fill in the blanks. You do not.
New Guy wrote:
<quoted text>What caused the crowd to wonder was the fact a bunch of hillbillies from Galilee were speaking in the languages of those far off places. They heard the apostles in their own tongues, from where they were born. The native languages of Galilee would have been Aramaic and Hebrew. They could speak Greek, and would have known Latin probably. The native language did not cause the response- them speaking in foreign languages did.
Some of the languages are considered not as, but speculation for different reasons. The Acts 2:7 question could possibly be because they were considered uneducated by some.
Clark: Matthew 25:73
Thy speech - Thy manner of speech, that dialect of thine - his accent being different from that of Jerusalem. From various examples given by Lightfoot and Schoettgen, we find that the Galileans had a very corrupt pronunciation, frequently interchanging (Greek letters will not paste correctly), and so blending or dividing words as to render them unintelligible, or cause them to convey a contrary sense.
Barnsweb

Canton, OH

#269 Feb 12, 2013
They were to tarry at Jerusalem. The disciples were sticking together, weren't they? Pentecost was an Appointed Day of God, and it seems very reasonable that those present ten days earlier were also there at Pentecost. We have what we have in the records, but Luke's writings are historical records from his viewpoint - and likely Paul's as well. The twelve were told to be His witnesses and to tarry. One was appointed to take the place of Judas. In spite of this, it seems equally fitting to think that the twelve were the ones speaking in tongues.

But that's just my opinion:-)
nobody

Nicholasville, KY

#270 Feb 12, 2013
I think we all read things differently and have different opinions. There is a difference though, between that and stating something as fact. I don't believe we are at liberty to declare opinions as biblical facts. A fact should have it's origin in scripture and not opinion, is what I am saying. There are a lot of grey areas especially in something studied as much as the bible is.
New Guy

Lexington, KY

#271 Feb 12, 2013
Walkinginlove wrote:
<quoted text>
Where can I get a copy of the Bible you use, it appears to be missing a chapter or two. The Apostles are the only way Spiritual gifts were given out?
You must be missing Acts chapter 8 and Romans 1.
New Guy

Lexington, KY

#272 Feb 12, 2013
nobody wrote:
<quoted text>Because they were not mentioned does not mean they were not there. 120 were there praying with them. Why do you ASSUME they were sent home? From reading other accounts we know there were followers at different times. <quoted text> I read the bible but I try not to add anything to it. You think when something is not said you have the liberty to fill in the blanks. You do not.
<quoted text>Some of the languages are considered not as, but speculation for different reasons. The Acts 2:7 question could possibly be because they were considered uneducated by some.
Clark: Matthew 25:73
Thy speech - Thy manner of speech, that dialect of thine - his accent being different from that of Jerusalem. From various examples given by Lightfoot and Schoettgen, we find that the Galileans had a very corrupt pronunciation, frequently interchanging (Greek letters will not paste correctly), and so blending or dividing words as to render them unintelligible, or cause them to convey a contrary sense.
Did I ever say any of them were sent home? No. It was Pentecost. All those people were gathered for a reason. No doubt the group didn't leave town. As for the 70, who is to say they weren't part of the 120. We do know that the 70 as a group aren't mentioned in Acts.2.
You say that I am filling in the blanks. Ok then, show us where someone besides an apostle was doing any miraculous thing in Acts before chapter 6. Why do you think that the scriptures specifically tell us that the Spirit is given by laying on of hands? Is there a reason, or just coincidence? If others were doing miracles, where's the accounts? The scripture tells us the exact story. We know who spoke in tongues, what those tongues were, who had the ability to pass the gifts of the Spirit, when they did so. We have all of that. So why deny that, why try to make a case for all 120 being baptized with the Spirit when there is no evidence for it?
If I can answer my own question, I think the whole matter of the baptism of the Spirit boils down to some persons saving their pet doctrine. Bobby said baptismal regeneration is the coc pet doctrine, but I believe this matter of the baptism of the Spirit to be a pet doctrine that if debunked, many people's theology of "Spirit baptism" comes crashing down. Again, you say I am filling in the blanks with my opinion. But to assert that 120 were baptized in the Spirit on Pentecost with no evidence is doing exactly that.
And again, as to the response of verse 7, read verse 6, 8, 11 and 12. It has nothing to do with their accent from Galilee. It is all about their speaking in foreign tongues without knowing them. Let the book explain itself. Sometimes we make gray areas where there are none.

“Regina A Steele Marrs”

Since: Jun 11

Big Rock,Va

#273 Feb 12, 2013
Since we have so many answers/questions , about the Holy Ghost.

Can someone show me ,''where Jesus/Apostles said this.''

1. I am only giving the Eleven Chosen Apostles , the Holy Ghost and speaking with tongues.
2. No one but the Apostles , will have the Nine Gifts of the Holy Ghost and use them.
3. Where did Jesus , give instructions, for someone to lay hands upon someone to receive something , that is given at Baptism (as some believe)?

I have seen many questions/answers , but none address this (only theories).

Joel prophesied that in the last days , that in the last days....

Where is any reference to Phillip's daughters , who prophesied , owww , what a sin , for a woman to speak in Church.

Posted by someone who still gets a kick out of same ole same ole arguments ,and no answers.
Barnsweb

Canton, OH

#274 Feb 12, 2013
And if prophets were to tell what is shortly to come to pass, and mentioned in the NT in the Church as operative - where is the 'authority' to say the office ended?

How many Church of Christ or Protestants consider to even note all the offices mentioned in the Scriptures regarding the Church?

Math. 23:34 - Jesus says He will send:
Prophets
Wise Men
Scribes

Which denomination or attempted 'remanufacture' Church have offices Jesus said He would send?:-)

And it's interesting to note that this is just prior to the famous end times prophecies of Matthew 24.... hmmmm....
Barnsweb

Canton, OH

#275 Feb 13, 2013
If the Isiah 9:10 prophecy is being fulfilled exactly with the Gentiles as it was with Israel, I have no doubt the warning also applies to 'this generation' today as it did to those when Jesus first spoke this particular teaching.

What are the weightier matters of the gospel? Especially noted from what He said matters most.
(not Paul)
nobody

Nicholasville, KY

#276 Feb 13, 2013
New Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
You say that I am filling in the blanks. Ok then, show us where someone besides an apostle was doing any miraculous thing in Acts before chapter 6.
Because something is not mentioned does not mean it did happen. I am not saying the seventy were there but it is reasonable they might have been some of the 120 praying with the apostles. Who knows? The claims you are making are not there in the bible that I read. I can suggest a possibility why the apostles were mentioned more than anyone in the account. The book is called the Acts of the Apostles so it would make sense it would be about their actions, just a thought.
New Guy wrote:
<quoted text> Why do you think that the scriptures specifically tell us that the Spirit is given by laying on of hands? Is there a reason, or just coincidence? If others were doing miracles, where's the accounts? The scripture tells us the exact story. We know who spoke in tongues, what those tongues were, who had the ability to pass the gifts of the Spirit, when they did so. We have all of that. So why deny that, why try to make a case for all 120 being baptized with the Spirit when there is no evidence for it?
If I can answer my own question, I think the whole matter of the baptism of the Spirit boils down to some persons saving their pet doctrine. Bobby said baptismal regeneration is the coc pet doctrine, but I believe this matter of the baptism of the Spirit to be a pet doctrine that if debunked, many people's theology of "Spirit baptism" comes crashing down. Again, you say I am filling in the blanks with my opinion. But to assert that 120 were baptized in the Spirit on Pentecost with no evidence is doing exactly that.
It is not about making a case for the 120 with me. That would be doing the same thing you are doing with the twelve. I do not believe the scriptures are that plain about exactly who did and did not receive the the Baptism. Sometimes I think we try to align the bible with our doctrine instead of the other way around.
New Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
And again, as to the response of verse 7, read verse 6, 8, 11 and 12. It has nothing to do with their accent from Galilee. It is all about their speaking in foreign tongues without knowing them. Let the book explain itself. Sometimes we make gray areas where there are none.
Sometimes we cover up grey areas,also. That is a mute point about the languages spoken through the Holy Spirit. Kinda hard for any twisting of what is meant there. My point had to do with the grammar crap you and Full Circle were using for your case of the apostles being the only ones speaking in tongues. Grammar rules are fine if they are applied equally on the originating end as well as the interpreting end. Don't bet your soul on an interpretation of a 2000 year old statement from a member of a Swahili tribe based upon Morphological Analysis Codes. They may not have the same thought process. I think Confucius said that but maybe he didn't. My point is those grammar rules we use today may have been useless to them unless they tasted good in the soup.
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#277 Feb 13, 2013
regina steele marrs wrote:
Since we have so many answers/questions , about the Holy Ghost.
Can someone show me ,''where Jesus/Apostles said this.''
1. I am only giving the Eleven Chosen Apostles , the Holy Ghost and speaking with tongues.
2. No one but the Apostles , will have the Nine Gifts of the Holy Ghost and use them.
3. Where did Jesus , give instructions, for someone to lay hands upon someone to receive something , that is given at Baptism (as some believe)?
I have seen many questions/answers , but none address this (only theories).
Joel prophesied that in the last days , that in the last days....
Where is any reference to Phillip's daughters , who prophesied , owww , what a sin , for a woman to speak in Church.
Posted by someone who still gets a kick out of same ole same ole arguments ,and no answers.
I was reading the earlier messages and was thinking of how this subject might be of interest to you-thanks for your input. The issue that causes some like (new guy) to take this position on the holy spirit and tongues is a direct result of denominational prejudice designed solely to defend baptismal regeneration. The coc has a long history of HS denial and it shows up in various forms.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#278 Feb 13, 2013
Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
I was reading the earlier messages and was thinking of how this subject might be of interest to you-thanks for your input. The issue that causes some like (new guy) to take this position on the holy spirit and tongues is a direct result of denominational prejudice designed solely to defend baptismal regeneration. The coc has a long history of HS denial and it shows up in various forms.
Thanks again Bobby you seem to never get it. Your so good at explaining how others came to their thoughts without their imput. You might ask NG about those things. Opps forgot you know all our minds.
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#279 Feb 13, 2013
What New Guy is trying to tell us that the only way to get the Holy Spirit is through water baptism. And yet, we have no evidence of the eleven having any baptism other than John's baptism.

So in order to keep with the teaching (baptismal regeneration) we must deny that anyone other than the eleven had received the holy spirit with power/gift of tongues. So in reality, I suppose the one doing the baptism is practicing a form of laying on of hands in order to pass on the holy spirit through water:-)
New Guy

Lexington, KY

#280 Feb 13, 2013
nobody wrote:
<quoted text> Because something is not mentioned does not mean it did happen. I am not saying the seventy were there but it is reasonable they might have been some of the 120 praying with the apostles. Who knows? The claims you are making are not there in the bible that I read. I can suggest a possibility why the apostles were mentioned more than anyone in the account. The book is called the Acts of the Apostles so it would make sense it would be about their actions, just a thought.
<quoted text>It is not about making a case for the 120 with me. That would be doing the same thing you are doing with the twelve. I do not believe the scriptures are that plain about exactly who did and did not receive the the Baptism. Sometimes I think we try to align the bible with our doctrine instead of the other way around.
<quoted text> Sometimes we cover up grey areas,also. That is a mute point about the languages spoken through the Holy Spirit. Kinda hard for any twisting of what is meant there. My point had to do with the grammar crap you and Full Circle were using for your case of the apostles being the only ones speaking in tongues. Grammar rules are fine if they are applied equally on the originating end as well as the interpreting end. Don't bet your soul on an interpretation of a 2000 year old statement from a member of a Swahili tribe based upon Morphological Analysis Codes. They may not have the same thought process. I think Confucius said that but maybe he didn't. My point is those grammar rules we use today may have been useless to them unless they tasted good in the soup.
Grammar, context, reading what the text says. They all point directly to the apostles, any way one wants to slice it. The fact that Peter stood up with the eleven, the fact that afterwards the apostles were doing signs and wonders, the fact that no person performed miracles besides an apostle until chapter 6. The fact that the crowd said these men are full of new wine. One doesn't have to stick with grammar rules to make the case. It is a good tool though.

The Bible is not as vague as it is made out to be at times.
New Guy

Lexington, KY

#281 Feb 13, 2013
JustChristian wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks again Bobby you seem to never get it. Your so good at explaining how others came to their thoughts without their imput. You might ask NG about those things. Opps forgot you know all our minds.
Who said prophets were done away with JC? We still have Bobby lol.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#282 Feb 13, 2013
Bobby wrote:
What New Guy is trying to tell us that the only way to get the Holy Spirit is through water baptism. And yet, we have no evidence of the eleven having any baptism other than John's baptism.
So in order to keep with the teaching (baptismal regeneration) we must deny that anyone other than the eleven had received the holy spirit with power/gift of tongues. So in reality, I suppose the one doing the baptism is practicing a form of laying on of hands in order to pass on the holy spirit through water:-)
This is a great statement you made. "In Reality I suppose". Does that mean in reality I dont know? Think so.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Martinsville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Catholics (Feb '14) 2 hr Eyeseaewe 1,634
gay marriage in martinsville va 5 hr Eyeseaewe 28
Have Johnny Robertson and his COC been defeated? (Jan '13) Oct 12 Funny 333
Johnny Robertson (Oct '12) Oct 2 Ernie 124
How can i get a copy of my background check? (Nov '13) Sep 29 Louis Hawkins 3
Are there any free people finder/background che... (Oct '13) Sep 29 Asiagirl 3
Indictments issued Sep 26 shannonsmith 1
Martinsville Dating
Find my Match

Martinsville Jobs

Martinsville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Martinsville News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Martinsville

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]