ACTS 2 PENTECOST ***

[FHII]

The apostles also spoke in tongues, which is confirmed at the home of Cornelius.

Well... Reading the text it seems to me that believing Jews were astounded that the gentiles received the Holy Ghost.

There is only mention of Peter there with brethren. Not of the other apostles.

Acts 10:
46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered

The "they" were the believing Jews. The "them" who spoke in tongues where gentiles (see verse 45). [SIDENOTE: That is not to say the gentiles were the only ones speaking in tongues. The chapter says the Holy Ghost came to all in attendance who heard Peter preach the Word. But the "them" is only the gentiles. The believing Jews were astonished that this particular group received the HG]. They spoke in tongues after the HG fell upon them which was a result of hearing the Word. Peter was speaking the Word. So the scripture hints that Peter wasn't speaking in tongues here either.

In both chapter 2 and here in chapter 10, an apostle could've been speaking in tongues. But in both cases the focus and wording (at least to me) seem to indicate they weren't.

Did the Apostles ever speak in tongues? I believe they did. Paul said he spoke in tongues more than any of the Corinthians. So at least one Apostle did and I have no reason to believe the others didn't . so while I will concede its possible, I don't believe they did in chapters 2 and 10.

 

[Enoch111]

Verse 16 says (Peter speaking), "These are not drunken, as ye suppose..." He didn't say "we aren't drunken"; he was referring to someone else. "These".

Acts 2:14 cannot contradict Acts 2:4. Peter was including himself when he made that statement, even though it sounds as if he was excluding himself. The apostles were the PRIMARY speakers in view of Acts 1:8.

But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

The power of the Holy Spirit was manifested through the speaking of at least 15 foreign languages and dialects SUPERNATURALLY by the speakers (including the apostles).

And thanks for a couple of you for confirming that there were 120 in the upper room.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

Well... Reading the text it seems to me that believing Jews were astounded that the gentiles received the Holy Ghost.

There is only mention of Peter there with brethren. Not of the other apostles.


The "they" were the believing Jews. The "them" who spoke in tongues where gentiles (see verse 45). [SIDENOTE: That is not to say the gentiles were the only ones speaking in tongues. The chapter says the Holy Ghost came to all in attendance who heard Peter preach the Word. But the "them" is only the gentiles. The believing Jews were astonished that this particular group received the HG]. They spoke in tongues after the HG fell upon them which was a result of hearing the Word. Peter was speaking the Word. So the scripture hints that Peter wasn't speaking in tongues here either.

In both chapter 2 and here in chapter 10, an apostle could've been speaking in tongues. But in both cases the focus and wording (at least to me) seem to indicate they weren't.

Did the Apostles ever speak in tongues? I believe they did. Paul said he spoke in tongues more than any of the Corinthians. So at least one Apostle did and I have no reason to believe the others didn't . so while I will concede its possible, I don't believe they did in chapters 2 and 10.

I doubt very much that you are right that not all the apostles spoke in tongues.

 

[FHII]

Acts 2:14 cannot contradict Acts 2:4. Peter was including himself when he made that statement, even though it sounds as if he was excluding himself. The apostles were the PRIMARY speakers in view of Acts 1:8.

Again, I have no problem if they did speak in tongues. It doesn't change any of my understanding. I have noted they could have. However, based on the way it is presented, it doesn't appear they were involved. I am going by what it actually says without presumptions. Its presumptious to say Peter was including himself. He didn't say "we". I am simply going by what he said without private interpretation.

They were all filled with the HG, right? They all spoke with tongues, right? Well what about those spoken of in Acts 2:12-13? Did they speak in tongues and then turb around to mock everyobe else? That seems crazy!

So if you want to dwell on "all" in verse 2:4... Then you have to say the mockers also were speaking in tongues and thus were mocking themselves.

That doesn't make much sense!

 

[FHII]

I doubt very much that you are right that not all the apostles spoke in tongues.

I didn't say that. In fact I said just the opposite. I just don't think it happened in Acts 2 or Acts 10. It may have happened in Acts 2. It definitely didn't happen in chapter 10 . Peter was the only apostle present. I do doubt he was speaking in tongues then. But I am confident that there weren't 12 or 13 apostles speaking in tongues with Cornelius.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

I didn't say that. In fact I said just the opposite. I just don't think it happened in Acts 2 or Acts 10. It may have happened in Acts 2. It definitely didn't happen in chapter 10 . Peter was the only apostle present. I do doubt he was speaking in tongues then. But I am confident that there weren't 12 or 13 apostles speaking in tongues with Cornelius.

Chapter 10 only says "of the circumcision," meaning Jews, seeing as the issue was that the gospel up to that point only went to the Jews. Just because it wasn't specified that there were other apostles with Peter doesn't mean their weren't. In fact, it is good that other apostles weren't mentioned, as some yo yo today would try to make an issue that only apostles spoke in tongues.

 

[FHII]

Chapter 10 only says "of the circumcision," meaning Jews, seeing as the issue was that the gospel up to that point only went to the Jews. Just because it wasn't specified that there were other apostles with Peter doesn't mean their weren't. In fact, it is good that other apostles weren't mentioned, as some yo yo today would try to make an issue that only apostles spoke in tongues.

Well, I am not a yo yo. And I read chapter 8 and 9 before posting my comments. There is absolutely no indication that other apostles were present. Acts 11 pretty much says the other apostles weren't with him.

 

[Willie T]

Acts 2:14 cannot contradict Acts 2:4. Peter was including himself when he made that statement, even though it sounds as if he was excluding himself. The apostles were the PRIMARY speakers in view of Acts 1:8.

But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

The power of the Holy Spirit was manifested through the speaking of at least 15 foreign languages and dialects SUPERNATURALLY by the speakers (including the apostles).

And thanks for a couple of you for confirming that there were 120 in the upper room.

However, again we are making conclusions. The Bible never said this happened "in the Upper room."

 

[1stCenturyLady]

Well, I am not a yo yo. And I read chapter 8 and 9 before posting my comments. There is absolutely no indication that other apostles were present. Acts 11 pretty much says the other apostles weren't with him.

You never said that, but I've heard others claim things like that.

 

[Enoch111]

However, again we are making conclusions. The Bible never said this happened "in the Upper room."

But that is the logical conclusion from Acts 2:1. However, it does not mean that those who were in the upper room remained there. What happened in that room was "noised abroad" meaning published throughout Jerusalem.

It would appear that they then stepped out (as they were meant to do) and were in a public place, where they could be heard by large numbers of Jews gathered in Jerusalem from all over the Roman Empire, for the feast of Pentecost. This would make perfect sense, since what we see next is Peter preaching to a multitude and thousands getting saved on that very day.

 

[Jun2u]

To The OP only,

Why do you folks quibble amongst yourselves? As far as I have noted, none who posted here understood the gist and/or PURPOSE of why Pentecost happened.

Please, don’t get me wrong. Some of you have understood and given the correct meaning of the verses set forth in Acts Chapter 2.

However, to understand Acts Chapter 2 we must begin at the prophecy given by Joel 2:28-29 which was also written in Acts 2:16-17 which reads:

16) But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel:
17) And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shal prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.

Can the spirit of God be poured out as if like water? I don’t believe so. What then does it mean? Well we have to go back to Acts 1:5 “...” but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. “ Does this verse teach that the Apostles in a few days were to receive the Holy Spirit for the first time? Not at all. Immediately, upon conversion, every believer receives the Holy Spirit.

However, the solution of Acts Chapter 2 is found in Acts 1:8 were we read: “But ye shall receive power (dunamis) after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.”

GOD HAS BEGUN HIS PROGRAM TO EVANGELIZE THE WORLD STARTING ON PENTECOST WHERE THREE THOUSAND SOULS WERE SAVED!

To God Be The Glory

 

[Enoch111]

Immediately, upon conversion, every believer receives the Holy Spirit.

This happened only AFTER Pentecost. However Pentecost (after the ascension of Christ) was a totally unique event.

John the Baptist had prophesied that Christ Himself would baptize (immerse or submerge or pour upon) people with the Holy Ghost, and that is exactly what happened on that day of Pentecost. About 3,000 Jews received the gift of the Holy Spirit via the baptism WITH the Holy Ghost, but only the apostles and their companions spoke in tongues [supernaturally spoken human languages (glossais) and dialects (dialektos)].

We should also bear in mind that tongues were primarily a sign to unbelieving Jews that God was speaking through the apostles, and that the prophecy of Joel was being fulfilled (in part). Therefore the first group of Gentile converts also spoke in tongues, to confirm to the visiting Jews that God was also saving Gentiles and giving them the gift of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Jun2u]

Jun2u said: ↑
Immediately, upon conversion, every believer receives the Holy Spirit.

This happened only AFTER Pentecost

1 John 4:4
Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

Would you say this verse was written BEFORE Pentecost?

However Pentecost (after the ascension of Christ) was a totally unique event.

INDEED, Pentecost was a unique event! It was the day God began His program to evangelize the world!!! Why can’t you see it? Has my Scripture reference Acts 1:8 not reason enough?

If not, how do you understand Acts 1:8?

To God Be The Glory

 

[Enoch111]

Has my Scripture reference Acts 1:8 not reason enough?

I have no issue with Acts 1:8 which is a critical verse. I was simply pointing out some of the other aspects of Pentecost. Obviously 1 John 4:4 was written AFTER Pentecost. Long after.

 

[Jun2u]

I have no issue with Acts 1:8 which is a critical verse. I was simply pointing out some of the other aspects of Pentecost. Obviously 1 John 4:4 was written AFTER Pentecost. Long after.

I stand corrected and I apologize. I was thinking John wrote the Gospel of John and therefore concluded I John would have been written with only a few years apart.

I had forgotten that the apostle John was not the author of the Gospel of John.

To God Be The Glory

 

[Helen]

I had forgotten that the apostle John was not the author of the Gospel of John.

To God Be The Glory

How so? I had never ever heard that! I am intrigued...who was the other John then?
And who says they are not the same person?

Thanks. ( not trying to knock the thread off topic)

 

[bbyrd009]

How so? I had never ever heard that! I am intrigued...who was the other John then?
And who says they are not the same person?

Thanks. ( not trying to knock the thread off topic)

ha you beat me to it!

 

[Jun2u]

[QUOTE=""ByGrace", post: 462862, member: 4427"]How so? I had never ever heard that! I am intrigued...who was the other John then?
And who says they are not the same person?

Thanks. ( not trying to knock the thread off topic)[/QUOTE]


I knew I was going to have comments and for some reason, I also knew it would be coming from you cause you have a good inquisitive mind.

Traditionally and historically, scholars have always believed and taught the Apostle John was the writer of the Book of John.

About a year or so ago I was perusing the internet and came upon an article titled, “The disciple whom Jesus loved.”

Needless to say, with pen and paper handy I began to read and follow what the writer was saying. I found his work to be faithful to the word of God.

His name is Alan Rudnick if you want to read the article.

To God Be The Glory

 

[Willie T]

So, basically, some people think one way about who wrote what, and other people think another way. And none of us know for sure.

 

[Jun2u]

So, basically, some people think one way about who wrote what, and other people think another way. And none of us know for sure.

We would surely know if what was said was faithful to the word of God!