It's merely another classic example in a long line of VP's semantic prestidigitation (slight of hand). But in this case --- it's more like slight of mouth!
We might do well to remember that the same thing happened when God "breathed into man the breath of life". So, you're basically correct in declaring the essence here is to breathe upon.
Interestingly: In one case, we're speaking of the very beginning of natural life; and in the other, the very beginning of spiritual life!
SO: Is it any wonder why "Jesus breathed on [upon] them" ---as a prophecy for a future event?
(I absolutely love parallels in Scripture like this!)
And if that's not enough, consider this: VP taught this verse just as though each of these things (in Acts: 2-4) happened in succession, one after the other (ie: this, then this, and then this) --- when in fact this entire event happened in an instant!
Act 2:1-4 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Notice the words and, (not then) which connect this entire section together, forming the whole of these scriptures into a single event!
Interestingly: In one case, we're speaking of the very beginning of natural life; and in the other, the very beginning of spiritual life!
Yes, that IS interesting. I hadn't seen that correlation before - thanks for showing that.
2 hours ago, spectrum49 said:
Notice the words and, (not then) which connect this entire section together, forming the whole of these scriptures into a single event!
That makes perfect sense. The only thing I would think came as an after effect would be them speaking in tongues. They would have to have received holy spirit first.
While I understand your point, I believe there are other instances in the bible of many ands that indicate a rapid succession of events, not that they happened all at once. I will have to look that up and post again to you.
I guess the point I was trying to make is more like this: At the very moment God breathed unto Adam, he began living his natural life. And In acts, the very moment the rushing mighty wind thing happened is precisely when the 12 apostles' spiritual life began. And immediately after they had received this new life, they began putting it to use --- by speaking in tongues.
As far as the polysyndeton (many ands) goes, that figure of speech doesn't always entail a rapid succession of things happening, but is always a semantic convention alluding to the importance (and stress) we should place upon each individual item contained therein.
And as far as Pentecost is concerned, I believe the wind, the cloven tongues, their becoming born again and speaking in tongues all happened within a very short space of time. (In fact, I'm also of the opinion that the vision of the cloven tongues as of fire was not only God's way of letting them know they had already received the spirit, but was also as a sign that they would perceive what to do --- and use those tongues by speaking out.)
Now my friend, please understand one thing about me as we get to know each other. Certainly I put my best foot forward (so to speak) when I proclaim things. In doing so, I'm giving it the best chance to be accepted by those who read my work. After all, I do need to sound as convincing as possible, don't I?
However, that does not mean those things are settled in stone for me. Simply come up with something which sounds even more logical to me, and I have no problem adapting that in its place.
And In acts, the very moment the rushing mighty wind thing happened is precisely when the 12 apostles' spiritual life began.
Seems that's how some thought it was taught in twi, and perhaps in a certain sense (of spiritual awareness) I would be somewhat inclined to agree with such a statement ... but not from the perspective of it being anything more than the (spiritual life of) Christ within them. In other words, I no longer see in Acts 2 the creation (or birth) of new life, but rather, the enjoinment to (and manifestation of) the living Christ.
when in fact this entire event happened in an instant!
Spectrum,
I looked for another occurrence of many and's - I didn't have to go far. Acts 2:41-46
Act 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
Act 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
Act 2:43 And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.
Act 2:44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
Act 2:45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
Act 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
If "and" means simultaneously then they broke bread, prayed, many signs happened all at once, they sold their possessions, all together. This doesn't make sense. I'm inclined to believe this was a tight sequence of events, just as in verses 1-4. Ans also like verses 1-4, each of these items it important.
However, that does not mean those things are settled in stone for me.
I follow the same mind. I would love to be able to say that I have it all down, but such is not the case, as I indicated with your correlation between the start of physical life and spiritual life. I am here both to learn from all of you and to share what I do understand.
The point of Jesus breathing on was a stickler for me because I had met former wayers that said they were hyperventilating trying to receive holy spirit. It was all I could do not to laugh. But I see where they would have gotten that from. VPW propounded that they were breathing heavily, so heavily that it sounded like a heavy wind and filled the temple.
My contention was that if they had to breath in to receive holy spirit, then that should mean all of us do, but you don't inhale spirit. Plus, while I have never seen the temple, I have been in a synagogue, and those guys would have had to have some serious breathing to fill even that small place to that extent.
In other words, I no longer see in Acts 2 the creation (or birth) of new life, but rather, the enjoinment to (and manifestation of) the living Christ.
Is this not the first time recorded that anyone was born again of the spirit? That's what the "new man" is, no? And isn't that an indication of new life?
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Are you implying that this could have happened prior to Pentecost?
There's a variance of meanings in the phrase "born again." (for example, see Acts 13:33)
And it's not "what" the new man is, but rather, who.
New life? Yes, being it's that of the new man.
What is it, really, to be born again or to enter the kingdom of God? And does (or how does) your answer to this fit with John 3:8?
The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
I looked for another occurrence of many and's - I didn't have to go far. Acts 2:41-46
Act 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
Act 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
Act 2:43 And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.
Act 2:44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
Act 2:45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
Act 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
If "and" means simultaneously then they broke bread, prayed, many signs happened all at once, they sold their possessions, all together. This doesn't make sense. I'm inclined to believe this was a tight sequence of events, just as in verses 1-4. Ans also like verses 1-4, each of these items it important.
What do you see?
Prior to your above post, I had also said the following:
12 hours ago, spectrum49 said:
Taxidev:
<snip, with added highlight in red>
As far as the polysyndeton (many ands) goes, that figure of speech doesn't always entaila rapid succession of things happening, but is always a semantic convention alluding to the importance (and stress) we should place upon each individual item contained therein.
So (of course) you're correct! The passage you quoted indeed took place over quite some time. Yet, it still follows (per the figure, many ands) that each item in the list is of great importance, for they lay the pattern for how the believers conducted themselves.
8 hours ago, TLC said:
Seems that's how some thought it was taught in twi, and perhaps in a certain sense (of spiritual awareness) I would be somewhat inclined to agree with such a statement ... but not from the perspective of it being anything more than the (spiritual life of) Christ within them. In other words, I no longer see in Acts 2 the creation (or birth) of new life, but rather, the enjoinment to (and manifestation of) the living Christ.
For brevity's sake, I did leave out something of relative importance from my earlier remarks, which you might consider:
Mat 3:11 "I [John] indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me [JC] is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost [holy spirit],and with fire:
There seems something interesting here when we think of the cloven tongues like as of fire. Your thoughts?
And there's also something else I find intriguing, which (to my knowledge)The Way never spoke of. Notice it says: "he[Jesus!]shall baptize you..." That makes me wonder a bit! --- Again, your thoughts?
The point of Jesus breathing on was a stickler for me because I had met former wayers that said they were hyperventilating trying to receive holy spirit. It was all I could do not to laugh. But I see where they would have gotten that from. VPW propounded that they were breathing heavily, so heavily that it sounded like a heavy wind and filled the temple.
Hyperventilating --- That makes me laugh too!
My contention was that if they had to breath in to receive holy spirit, then that should mean all of us do, but you don't inhale spirit. Plus, while I have never seen the temple, I have been in a synagogue, and those guys would have had to have some serious breathing to fill even that small place to that extent.
And let us remember that the sound of the breathingwas not because of what people were doing, but was what The Holy Spirit was doing --- and perhaps, via Jesus Christ himself! (See my other post to TLC, just above.)
Also, remember that the Vickster had learned this convention (the ultimate highlight atthe very end of his foundational class) from attending other classes on the subject --- many years before he came up with his (plagiarized) version of all that, called PFAL.
To me the verses seem to sound and flow differently in Acts 2:1-4 than Acts 2:41-46.
In Acts 2:1-4 it seems like it is a narrative flow, like a 3 year old tells you a story "and we went to the park, and we sat on the swing, and I saw a dog, and we ate ice cream". Did all of those things necessarily happen in that order? maybe, maybe not. But they all happened with the 3 year old probably.
In Acts 2:41-46 it seems to be more in a summary type statement, where the "ands" seem to be building in concept rather than in a narrative of an event.
To me the flaw of Wierwilist fundamentalist logic breaks down when you impose some kind of human made rule saying that the "ands" in Acts 2:1-4 HAVE TO BE THE SAME as the "ands" in Acts 2:41-46.
OH RLLLLLLLLLLLLY.
Why?
Oh, because they are the same Greek word for "and", which we all marked every single one of from Bullinger before the Advanced class.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"
In Acts 2:41-46 it seems to be more in a summary type statement, where the "ands" seem to be building in concept rather than in a narrative of an event.
I totally agree this is a summary statement, generally commenting upon how the believers conducted themselves --- and is not portraying the things mentioned in any progressive order.
I totally agree this is a summary statement, generally commenting upon how the believers conducted themselves --- and is not in any progressive order.
And I totally agree that the "ands" in Acts 2:1-4 consist of statements in a narrative event, which tie all of the individual clauses together to the same event.
And I totally agree that the "ands" in Acts 2:1-4 consist of statements in a narrative event, which tie all of the individual clauses together to the same event.
My my --- aren't WE agreeable today! (Bless ya...)
My my --- aren't WE agreeable today! (Bless ya...)
Sure bro - bless you too!
In the Acts 2:1-4 narrative I wasn't 100% one way or the other on whether the "ands" are just a loose collective, tying the individual portions of the event together, or whether they had some "tighter" form of connection indicating order or sequence. I was kind of leaning towards the loose collective but again not 100% one way.
Any thoughts?
Sometimes I get to a point where i think more investigation would produce a "poof" it disappears, and I am in scribe city. On the other side, sometimes the intricate details can be inspiring.
I was kind of leaning towards the loose collective but again not 100% one way.
I see V 1-4 as a rapid succession of events, maybe overlapping, maybe not, but still taken in order as given.
In 41-46 I see it as a sequence of events, but a summary of those events all the same, building to the crescendo in V 46. But, it makes sense to me that there would be overlap of almost all of them.
What is it, really, to be born again or to enter the kingdom of God? And does (or how does) your answer to this fit with John 3:8?
The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
Being born again is to receive holy spirit within.
I'm not so sure anyone has actually entered the kingdom of God. I would have to look into that one, but it will probably take a while and doesn't really follow the point of the topic here.
As for that verse, I have no idea how what I said fits that, if at all. I'm not so sure I even know what it really means. Do you?
In Acts 2:41-46 it seems to be more in a summary type statement, where the "ands" seem to be building in concept rather than in a narrative of an event.
Agreed. In fact, those individual statements seem to indicate an overlap of multiple statements, even though some would have begun before others.
1 hour ago, chockfull said:
like a 3 year old tells you a story
I wouldn't take it to that extreme, but I get your point. It does look to emphasize each of them, and that they happened in succession.
Sure bro - bless you too! Chock: You make this so fun for me!
Sometimes I get to a point where i think more investigation would produce a "poof" it disappears, and I am in scribe city. On the other side, sometimes the intricate details can be inspiring.
To quote Jim Carrey: "Well, alrighty then!" How about a little more detail, perhaps to make it a bit more intriguing?
So, let's go back a tad: As we see in the latter part of Acts 1, there was a problem: Because Judas was dead, there were only 11 apostles. And (for some spiritual reason [?] or other) it appears there actually needed to be twelve present to receive the holy spirit.
It seems to me that the great event which was to happen on Pentecost was slightly delayed because of this glitch. And therefore, something needed to be done --- to put things back into proper order. (Notice they even considered their intended action as the fulfilling of a prophecy from Psalms! -- See Act 1:20)
NOW LOOK --- The "ands" we saw in Acts 2 were actually preceded by a few more of them:
Act 1:23-26 "And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said: 'Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, that he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.' And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles."
At this point, it might be said: "Okay, Houston: the problem has been fixed! We have twelve again, so let's resume the countdown."Now, the very next verse: Acts 2:1 "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place...."
Is that more inspiring to you --- or are you still in scribe city?
7 hours ago, Taxidev said:
I see V 1-4 as a rapid succession of events, maybe overlapping, maybe not, but still taken in order as given.
In 41-46 I see it as a sequence of events, but a summary of those events all the same, building to the crescendo in V 46. But, it makes sense to me that there would be overlap of almost all of them.
The crescendo...yes! --- and especially the culminating point which we see in the latter part of verse 47: "...And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." Now, isn't this our main objective --- to build God's family? (yet not only in numbers, but quality as well!)
Being born again is to receive holy spirit within.
I'm not so sure anyone has actually entered the kingdom of God. I would have to look into that one, but it will probably take a while and doesn't really follow the point of the topic here.
As for that verse, I have no idea how what I said fits that, if at all. I'm not so sure I even know what it really means. Do you?
Yes...Jn 3:8 does seem a bit like a "more remote connection" to all of this. Perhaps (at some later time) we might explore that intriguing avenue. Yet (as I believe the 3 of us...Tax, chock and yours truly...are all aware) the entirety of Scripture is basically one great overall connected context!
Nevertheless, (because you're somewhat curious) Rob J Hyndman seemed to sum it up pretty well at the following link: http://bibleq.net/answer/2891/ (And not to worry --- it's very short!)
To quote Jim Carrey: "Well alrighty then!" How about a little more detail, perhaps to make it a bit more intriguing?
So, let's go back a tad: As we see in the latter part of Acts 1, there was a problem: Because Judas was dead, there were only 11 apostles. And (for some spiritual reason [?] or other) it appears there actually needed to be twelve present to receive the holy spirit.
It seems to me that the great event which was to happen on Pentecost was slightly delayed because of this glitch. And therefore, something needed to be done --- to put things back into proper order. (Notice they even considered their intended action as the fulfilling of a prophecy from Psalms! -- See Act 1:20)
NOW LOOK --- The "ands" we saw in Acts 2 were actually preceded by a few more of them:
Act 1:23-26 "And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said: 'Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, that he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.' And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles."
At this point, it might be said: "Okay, Houston: the problem has been fixed! We have twelve again, so let's resume the countdown."Now, the very next verse: Acts 2:1 "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place...."
Is that more inspiring to you --- or are you still in scribe city?
No that makes a lot more sense specific to the narrative.
The inspiring part is the collaboration actually. It was not the one "lead apostle" or whatever, who got zapped with a lightning bolt, then he / she / it started "putting together a plan" for the distribution of the gift. It was all of them working together.
The problem "needed to be 12" delves into what, governmental perfection? The same number as a jury for a trial? Yes the fulfilling of the prophecy of Psalms from Acts 1:20 also referenced. But the emphasis for teamwork here is what gets me out of "scribe city" currently LOL. On a deep front.
The problem "needed to be 12" delves into what, governmental perfection? The same number as a jury for a trial? Yes the fulfilling of the prophecy of Psalms from Acts 1:20 also referenced. But the emphasis for teamwork here is what gets me out of "scribe city" currently LOL. On a deep front.
Thx bro.
You're quite welcome, chock! (By the way, the spiritual meaning behind numbers appearing in Scripture is quite fascinating to me, personally!) Here's a link to something "fairly straightforward and rather simple" concerning the number 12 in Scripture: http://www.biblestudy.org/bibleref/meaning-of-numbers-in-bible/12.html ENJOY! (But use caution: If you delve too far into numerology, it becomes increasingly VAST!)
On a related note: In case you're unaware of this, here's a tangent which might make you wonder --- in sheer awe! Gematria is the technique of using the numeric values of Hebrew and Greek letters to find a hidden or symbolic meaning to the corresponding word. (Each letter in those languages has a number associated with it; and it's possible to gain insight via this convention.)
For example, the combined value of the numbers associated with the words man and woman (when added together) are equivalent to the value of the word child. In other words: man + woman = child! (Well...so much for that! --- Enjoy "12")
I'm not so sure anyone has actually entered the kingdom of God. I would have to look into that one, but it will probably take a while and doesn't really follow the point of the topic here.
Seems to depend on whether you think it has much of anything to do with being born again.
3 hours ago, Taxidev said:
As for that verse, I have no idea how what I said fits that, if at all. I'm not so sure I even know what it really means. Do you?
Not if you're persuaded that being born again doesn't (or can't) refer to something yet to come.
Recommended Posts
spectrum49
Taxidev:
It's merely another classic example in a long line of VP's semantic prestidigitation (slight of hand). But in this case --- it's more like slight of mouth!
We might do well to remember that the same thing happened when God "breathed into man the breath of life". So, you're basically correct in declaring the essence here is to breathe upon.
Interestingly: In one case, we're speaking of the very beginning of natural life; and in the other, the very beginning of spiritual life!
SO: Is it any wonder why "Jesus breathed on [upon] them" --- as a prophecy for a future event?
(I absolutely love parallels in Scripture like this!)
And if that's not enough, consider this: VP taught this verse just as though each of these things (in Acts: 2-4) happened in succession, one after the other (ie: this, then this, and then this) --- when in fact this entire event happened in an instant!
Act 2:1-4 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Notice the words and, (not then) which connect this entire section together, forming the whole of these scriptures into a single event!
Edited by spectrum49grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
Yes, that IS interesting. I hadn't seen that correlation before - thanks for showing that.
That makes perfect sense. The only thing I would think came as an after effect would be them speaking in tongues. They would have to have received holy spirit first.
While I understand your point, I believe there are other instances in the bible of many ands that indicate a rapid succession of events, not that they happened all at once. I will have to look that up and post again to you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
Taxidev:
I guess the point I was trying to make is more like this: At the very moment God breathed unto Adam, he began living his natural life. And In acts, the very moment the rushing mighty wind thing happened is precisely when the 12 apostles' spiritual life began. And immediately after they had received this new life, they began putting it to use --- by speaking in tongues.
As far as the polysyndeton (many ands) goes, that figure of speech doesn't always entail a rapid succession of things happening, but is always a semantic convention alluding to the importance (and stress) we should place upon each individual item contained therein.
And as far as Pentecost is concerned, I believe the wind, the cloven tongues, their becoming born again and speaking in tongues all happened within a very short space of time. (In fact, I'm also of the opinion that the vision of the cloven tongues as of fire was not only God's way of letting them know they had already received the spirit, but was also as a sign that they would perceive what to do --- and use those tongues by speaking out.)
Now my friend, please understand one thing about me as we get to know each other. Certainly I put my best foot forward (so to speak) when I proclaim things. In doing so, I'm giving it the best chance to be accepted by those who read my work. After all, I do need to sound as convincing as possible, don't I?
However, that does not mean those things are settled in stone for me. Simply come up with something which sounds even more logical to me, and I have no problem adapting that in its place.
Peace, bro...
Edited by spectrum49grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Seems that's how some thought it was taught in twi, and perhaps in a certain sense (of spiritual awareness) I would be somewhat inclined to agree with such a statement ... but not from the perspective of it being anything more than the (spiritual life of) Christ within them. In other words, I no longer see in Acts 2 the creation (or birth) of new life, but rather, the enjoinment to (and manifestation of) the living Christ.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
Spectrum,
I looked for another occurrence of many and's - I didn't have to go far. Acts 2:41-46
Act 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
Act 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
Act 2:43 And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.
Act 2:44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
Act 2:45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
Act 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
If "and" means simultaneously then they broke bread, prayed, many signs happened all at once, they sold their possessions, all together. This doesn't make sense. I'm inclined to believe this was a tight sequence of events, just as in verses 1-4. Ans also like verses 1-4, each of these items it important.
What do you see?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
I follow the same mind. I would love to be able to say that I have it all down, but such is not the case, as I indicated with your correlation between the start of physical life and spiritual life. I am here both to learn from all of you and to share what I do understand.
The point of Jesus breathing on was a stickler for me because I had met former wayers that said they were hyperventilating trying to receive holy spirit. It was all I could do not to laugh. But I see where they would have gotten that from. VPW propounded that they were breathing heavily, so heavily that it sounded like a heavy wind and filled the temple.
My contention was that if they had to breath in to receive holy spirit, then that should mean all of us do, but you don't inhale spirit. Plus, while I have never seen the temple, I have been in a synagogue, and those guys would have had to have some serious breathing to fill even that small place to that extent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
Is this not the first time recorded that anyone was born again of the spirit? That's what the "new man" is, no? And isn't that an indication of new life?
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Are you implying that this could have happened prior to Pentecost?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
There's a variance of meanings in the phrase "born again." (for example, see Acts 13:33)
And it's not "what" the new man is, but rather, who.
New life? Yes, being it's that of the new man.
What is it, really, to be born again or to enter the kingdom of God? And does (or how does) your answer to this fit with John 3:8?
The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
Prior to your above post, I had also said the following:
So (of course) you're correct! The passage you quoted indeed took place over quite some time. Yet, it still follows (per the figure, many ands) that each item in the list is of great importance, for they lay the pattern for how the believers conducted themselves.
For brevity's sake, I did leave out something of relative importance from my earlier remarks, which you might consider:
Mat 3:11 "I [John] indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me [JC] is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost [holy spirit], and with fire:
There seems something interesting here when we think of the cloven tongues like as of fire. Your thoughts?
And there's also something else I find intriguing, which (to my knowledge) The Way never spoke of. Notice it says: "he [Jesus!] shall baptize you..." That makes me wonder a bit! --- Again, your thoughts?
Edited by spectrum49grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
Edited by spectrum49grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
To me the verses seem to sound and flow differently in Acts 2:1-4 than Acts 2:41-46.
In Acts 2:1-4 it seems like it is a narrative flow, like a 3 year old tells you a story "and we went to the park, and we sat on the swing, and I saw a dog, and we ate ice cream". Did all of those things necessarily happen in that order? maybe, maybe not. But they all happened with the 3 year old probably.
In Acts 2:41-46 it seems to be more in a summary type statement, where the "ands" seem to be building in concept rather than in a narrative of an event.
To me the flaw of Wierwilist fundamentalist logic breaks down when you impose some kind of human made rule saying that the "ands" in Acts 2:1-4 HAVE TO BE THE SAME as the "ands" in Acts 2:41-46.
OH RLLLLLLLLLLLLY.
Why?
Oh, because they are the same Greek word for "and", which we all marked every single one of from Bullinger before the Advanced class.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
I totally agree this is a summary statement, generally commenting upon how the believers conducted themselves --- and is not portraying the things mentioned in any progressive order.
Edited by spectrum49grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
And I totally agree that the "ands" in Acts 2:1-4 consist of statements in a narrative event, which tie all of the individual clauses together to the same event.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
My my --- aren't WE agreeable today! (Bless ya...)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Sure bro - bless you too!
In the Acts 2:1-4 narrative I wasn't 100% one way or the other on whether the "ands" are just a loose collective, tying the individual portions of the event together, or whether they had some "tighter" form of connection indicating order or sequence. I was kind of leaning towards the loose collective but again not 100% one way.
Any thoughts?
Sometimes I get to a point where i think more investigation would produce a "poof" it disappears, and I am in scribe city. On the other side, sometimes the intricate details can be inspiring.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
I see V 1-4 as a rapid succession of events, maybe overlapping, maybe not, but still taken in order as given.
In 41-46 I see it as a sequence of events, but a summary of those events all the same, building to the crescendo in V 46. But, it makes sense to me that there would be overlap of almost all of them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
Being born again is to receive holy spirit within.
I'm not so sure anyone has actually entered the kingdom of God. I would have to look into that one, but it will probably take a while and doesn't really follow the point of the topic here.
As for that verse, I have no idea how what I said fits that, if at all. I'm not so sure I even know what it really means. Do you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
Now you have me wondering also.
But I really like how you make these connections.
Edited by TaxidevLink to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
Agreed. In fact, those individual statements seem to indicate an overlap of multiple statements, even though some would have begun before others.
I wouldn't take it to that extreme, but I get your point. It does look to emphasize each of them, and that they happened in succession.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
To quote Jim Carrey: "Well, alrighty then!" How about a little more detail, perhaps to make it a bit more intriguing?
So, let's go back a tad: As we see in the latter part of Acts 1, there was a problem: Because Judas was dead, there were only 11 apostles. And (for some spiritual reason [?] or other) it appears there actually needed to be twelve present to receive the holy spirit.
It seems to me that the great event which was to happen on Pentecost was slightly delayed because of this glitch. And therefore, something needed to be done --- to put things back into proper order. (Notice they even considered their intended action as the fulfilling of a prophecy from Psalms! -- See Act 1:20)
NOW LOOK --- The "ands" we saw in Acts 2 were actually preceded by a few more of them:
Act 1:23-26 "And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said: 'Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, that he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.' And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles."
At this point, it might be said: "Okay, Houston: the problem has been fixed! We have twelve again, so let's resume the countdown."
Now, the very next verse: Acts 2:1 "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place...."
Is that more inspiring to you --- or are you still in scribe city?
The crescendo...yes! --- and especially the culminating point which we see in the latter part of verse 47: "...And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." Now, isn't this our main objective --- to build God's family? (yet not only in numbers, but quality as well!)
Edited by spectrum49grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
Yes...Jn 3:8 does seem a bit like a "more remote connection" to all of this. Perhaps (at some later time) we might explore that intriguing avenue. Yet (as I believe the 3 of us...Tax, chock and yours truly...are all aware) the entirety of Scripture is basically one great overall connected context!
Nevertheless, (because you're somewhat curious) Rob J Hyndman seemed to sum it up pretty well at the following link: http://bibleq.net/answer/2891/ (And not to worry --- it's very short!)
Edited by spectrum49Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
No that makes a lot more sense specific to the narrative.
The inspiring part is the collaboration actually. It was not the one "lead apostle" or whatever, who got zapped with a lightning bolt, then he / she / it started "putting together a plan" for the distribution of the gift. It was all of them working together.
The problem "needed to be 12" delves into what, governmental perfection? The same number as a jury for a trial? Yes the fulfilling of the prophecy of Psalms from Acts 1:20 also referenced. But the emphasis for teamwork here is what gets me out of "scribe city" currently LOL. On a deep front.
Thx bro.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
You're quite welcome, chock! (By the way, the spiritual meaning behind numbers appearing in Scripture is quite fascinating to me, personally!) Here's a link to something "fairly straightforward and rather simple" concerning the number 12 in Scripture: http://www.biblestudy.org/bibleref/meaning-of-numbers-in-bible/12.html ENJOY! (But use caution: If you delve too far into numerology, it becomes increasingly VAST!)
On a related note: In case you're unaware of this, here's a tangent which might make you wonder --- in sheer awe! Gematria is the technique of using the numeric values of Hebrew and Greek letters to find a hidden or symbolic meaning to the corresponding word. (Each letter in those languages has a number associated with it; and it's possible to gain insight via this convention.)
For example, the combined value of the numbers associated with the words man and woman (when added together) are equivalent to the value of the word child. In other words: man + woman = child! (Well...so much for that! --- Enjoy "12")
Edited by spectrum49Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Seems to depend on whether you think it has much of anything to do with being born again.
Not if you're persuaded that being born again doesn't (or can't) refer to something yet to come.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.