Acts 2

[Tom]

I never said stupid or asinine!

Lighten up, bro. I wasn't talking about you. Perhaps I should have said so.

[Raf]

;)

[geisha779]

My mom WAS born in 1919, thirty years before she bore me

I am sure your mom was great...I never meant to imply anything less.

As for TWI, I do find it a tiny bit ironic that they were so willing to bash theologians and scholarship....but so ready to embrace the knowledge found in the back hills of....wherever the person telling that same story, decided the hills would be.

And this is the ministry I supported with my blood, sweat, and paycheck. Go figure.

[Tom]

;)

No, really, tongues DOES seem stupid & useless. OT, God cuts on man's penis. NT, God cuts on man's almighty brain power, logic, wisdom, & understanding. How more obvious can God get that the glory should be of God & not of man, but man continues to turn it around the other way. OK, I can do nothing of myself, but somehow I turn the sign of that very inability around to indicate that I'm better than.

It's not like I haven't considered the reality that I have a tendency to be a complete jerk. Why not in the matter of SIT?

, OK? No offense intended, Raf

[Tom]

I am sure your mom was great...I never meant to imply anything less.

As for TWI, I do find it a tiny bit ironic that they were so willing to bash theologians and scholarship....but so ready to embrace the knowledge found in the back hills of....wherever the person telling that same story, decided the hills would be.

And this is the ministry I supported with my blood, sweat, and paycheck. Go figure.

Might as well have read the bible everyday in the back hills, but we were taught we couldn't understand the Word without the keys. If we could, they wouldn't have gotten your paycheck, not to mention your sweat and your blood.

[Raf]

No offense taken

[OperaBuff]

I'm torn. Do I love God more for His majesterial creative powers, or for His sense of humor?

Since He's already created this heaven and earth, and has promised us a new heaven and earth, I'm going with His sense of humor.

Eternity, my brothers and sisters, is a very long time to spend with just anyone...

[geisha779]

I do appreciate the answer Tom. Please don't take exception, but I can't go there with you....there was a time I believed the same thing....but not anymore.

Just a couple of thoughts....we would have to assume that all Christians are given the gift of SIT, if that is what builds us up in the inner man. I don't SIT. We would have to assume that the practice of SIT, is actually for edification of the individual, and not, as what I believe Paul is calling selfish and the wrong heart toward spiritual gifts. We would also have to assume that SIT in or outside the assembly (uninterpreted) for prayer is more than speaking into the air, as no one understands it.

We would have to assume that SIT is speaking mysteries to God in a positive way instead of what I believe Paul is saying, that it is a mystery to everyone, but God, because no one else understands it. It is simply a mystery because it is unintelligible.

Furthermore, we would have to take credit for doing something, that God's Spirit does, by His riches and Glory and by His grace and His mercy. In other words, we would have to stand before Jesus Christ, with the nail marks in His hands and tell Him....we SIT to build up our inner man. I'll pass on that one.

Same for the verse in Romans. If it is the Spirit making intercession with groaning which cannot be uttered ....and we are uttering it and doing it....it is not the Spirit, but us operating the Spirit. Kind of takes the God out of God. No?

I do believe God has set teachers in the body for our edification.....so, not really sure what the back hills would do for me. I don't mind sound theology or people with letters after their names. Left with no accountability and some communally reinforced deception .....I have been known to believe some pretty wacky things. I was in a cult after all! :)

[Tom]

I do appreciate the answer Tom. Please don't take exception, but I can't go there with you....there was a time I believed the same thing....but not anymore.

Just a couple of thoughts....we would have to assume that all Christians are given the gift of SIT, if that is what builds us up in the inner man. I don't SIT. We would have to assume that the practice of SIT, is actually for edification of the individual, and not, as what I believe Paul is calling selfish and the wrong heart toward spiritual gifts. We would also have to assume that SIT in or outside the assembly (uninterpreted) for prayer is more than speaking into the air, as no one understands it.

We would have to assume that SIT is speaking mysteries to God in a positive way instead of what I believe Paul is saying, that it is a mystery to everyone, but God, because no one else understands it. It is simply a mystery because it is unintelligible.

Furthermore, we would have to take credit for doing something, that God's Spirit does, by His riches and Glory and by His grace and His mercy. In other words, we would have to stand before Jesus Christ, with the nail marks in His hands and tell Him....we SIT to build up our inner man. I'll pass on that one.

Same for the verse in Romans. If it is the Spirit making intercession with groaning which cannot be uttered ....and we are uttering it and doing it....it is not the Spirit, but us operating the Spirit. Kind of takes the God out of God. No?

I do believe God has set teachers in the body for our edification.....so, not really sure what the back hills would do for me. I don't mind sound theology or people with letters after their names. Left with no accountability and some communally reinforced deception .....I have been known to believe some pretty wacky things. I was in a cult after all! :)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand a lot of what you just said or why we would have to assume all those things, but from what I think I do understand:

I don't believe SIT is a gift.

Neither do I believe it is a manifestation.

I believe it is the energizing of the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ.

I agree it is the Holy Spirit that strengthens us with might in the inner man.

I don't believe Paul is calling any matter of the Spirit selfish, just the people who are walking outside of love.

"We would have to assume that SIT is speaking mysteries to God in a positive way instead of what I believe Paul is saying, that it is a mystery to everyone, but God, because no one else understands it. It is simply a mystery because it is unintelligible." Well, what you are seeing there certainly seems to be what the Word is saying there Geisha. Thank you, but I still don't see why we would have to assume otherwise. I don't assume all those things that TWI taught just because I believe something that TWI taught. Please don't assume so.

We speak like they spoke in Acts, like they spoke in 1 Cor., but it is still the Spirit, Jesus Christ, the Comforter making intercession.

I don't believe we operate the Spirit. I think that is one of the biggest errors foisted on people by TWI. All spiritual matters are operated/energized/worked by that one & self same Spirit. We just believe that He is working in us to will and to do of HIS good pleasure. Jesus Christ is Lord, not us. Jesus Christ is the head over ALL THINGS that have to do with his body - us. 1 John 4:2&3 & 2 John 1:7 Jesus Christ is come in the flesh - our flesh, but we don't tell the Lord what to do. Anything else is the spirit of antichrist. They stole our Lord away.

I was being facetious about the back hills remark; it was a dig about TWI. But I still would rather listen to someone speak the Word to me in plain English than someone who speaks in terms that schools of people decided was a biblical concept & then other schools decided the opposite is a biblical concept & gave it a name & they argue terms forever. Jesus didn't do that. Paul didn't do that. Teachers set in the body for our edification, yes.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Tom

[geisha779]

Okay. . . . . I think you may have a much different take on the gifts of the HS and the Holy Spirit Himself, than I do, as well as the Lord. I would go to the trinity to explain how Father, Son, and HS work as one, but I don't call them the same. Guess what? I am not going there.

But, to be honest....I don't have too much more discussion in me. If you want to read my post in the other thread on Corinthians....that is the extent of my contribution for a bit.

I really do not believe we did SIT in TWI or were doing what they did in Acts. I know I didn't. I have serious doubts about the rest of us as well. If the HS leads us into all truth and it is He who reveals Jesus Christ to us and this brings glory to God.....there was a serious disconnect.

You quoted Oral Roberts....I responded. As for the rest, if that is what you believe....I don't mind.

Edited September 25, 2012 by geisha779

[geisha779]

And then tongues. Why did God chose tongues as a sign for Christians? Of all things!! Maybe He chose it so that, instead of Christians having to whip out our penises to show people, we could just stick out our tongues. That's what I think.

Is this off topic?

I don't think God did choose SIT as a sign for Christians. We don't need a sign, we have faith. :)

Edited September 25, 2012 by geisha779

[Tom]

I would go to the trinity to explain how Father, Son, and HS work as one, but I don't call them the same. Guess what? I am not going there.

I'm glad. You know how I feel about man made labels counsels have decided represent biblical concepts. I wouldn't have followed you there. But there's really no need. Jesus said they're one & did an amazingly succinct job of putting in words (God doing the work in him) of how they work together in John 14-16. And how we can be one with them beholding His glory. I'll just take Jesus at his word (that's all he asked us to do). AND enjoy the ecstatic experience of his glory. In that order.

Thanks for the conversation, Geisha.

Love,

Tom

I don't think God did choose SIT as a sign for Christians. We don't need a sign, we have faith. :)

Good catch, Geisha.

[Steve Lortz]

I gotta backburner this... for maybe as much as a week... while I write a paper for one of my classes.

Here are a few questions to think about and discuss: What does the Bible mean by a "sign"? How do signs function? What do the mark of Cain, circumcision and tongues (as per the Bible, not as per TWI) have in common? (and jokes are okay!)

Love,

Steve

[waysider]

Check with Ham. He's the sine guy.

[geisha779]

I gotta backburner this... for maybe as much as a week... while I write a paper for one of my classes.

Here are a few questions to think about and discuss: What does the Bible mean by a "sign"? How do signs function? What do the mark of Cain, circumcision and tongues (as per the Bible, not as per TWI) have in common? (and jokes are okay!)

Love,

Steve

Homework? Is there extra credit? Are you taking off points for spelling?

Are we getting a shout out in the footnotes of this thesis?

Have a good week.

Edited September 26, 2012 by geisha779

[Steve Lortz]

I had a great advancement in my thesis project this week! I received permission to use the Septuagint for Old Testament studies that lay foundational work for my interpretations of Acts 2, partially on the grounds that Luke ALSO used the Septuagint for his references to the Old Testament!

Here is my interpretation of Acts 2:1, "And while the day of Pentecost was being completely fulfilled, they were all together for the same."

More as work progresses!

Love,

Steve

[Twinky]

Luke ALSO used the Septuagint for his references to the Old Testament!

Luke used the Septuagint? Luke? Used?

Or, the compiler(s) of the (oral gospel of) "Luke" used the OT (Hebraic Torah?) and the translators of "Luke" used the Septuagint?

Wouldn't "Luke" have been in Aramaic?

[Tom]

Luke used the Septuagint? Luke? Used?

Or, the compiler(s) of the (oral gospel of) "Luke" used the OT (Hebraic Torah?) and the translators of "Luke" used the Septuagint?

Wouldn't "Luke" have been in Aramaic?

Twinky, that's without price.

[Steve Lortz]

Luke used the Septuagint? Luke? Used?

Or, the compiler(s) of the (oral gospel of) "Luke" used the OT (Hebraic Torah?) and the translators of "Luke" used the Septuagint?

Wouldn't "Luke" have been in Aramaic?

There is nothing more than tradition to say that "Luke-Acts" was written by "Luke", the physician mentioned in Acts and Paul's letters, but scholarship generally agrees that "Luke-Acts" was written by a single author from a variety of sources, both written and oral, as indicated in the prologues of both books. And they were written in Greek, even though some passages may have been translated from Hebrew or Aramaic sources.

Here is an example of the kinds of discussions that go on:

My link

I personally think that Luke-Acts was written by Luke as the legal brief to be presented to the magistrate Nero appointed to hear Paul's case in Rome.

As a result of persecution against Greek-speaking Christians after the death of Stephen, the Word "moved out" from Jerusalem to Antioch and points beyond. These Greek-speaking Christians used the Septuagint, and the Greek forms impressed themselves deeply into the Christian tradition.

The Septuagint also had a secure place in Second Temple Judaism. There were many Jews of the diaspora who no long spoke Hebrew or Aramaic. That's why the Septuagint was made in the first place.

Love,

Steve

Edited November 23, 2013 by Steve Lortz