Acts 2: Then and Now

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by JoeHardy07

The onlookers accused the 120 of being drunk on wine. Peter said they weren't.

Today, we have a new type of drunkeness, with new effects...of which are NOT recorded in Acts...which place happens to be what the Pentecostals claim as proof of their actions.

When a noob is found in a service and witnesses someone "slain" in the Spirit, he/she asks why. The spirituals tell him that it's just like in Acts 2. When he reads it, he finds that this "slaying" is not even mentioned in Acts 2, or anywhere else in the Bible (I'm referring to reeling backwards or slashing about on the floor uncontrollably or just out cold). Nor is the running, jumping, whooping, wailing, moaning and sobbing...or the $10 ointment cloths either I might add.

I'm not saying that these things are not of God (I have my doubts), however, they are NOT recorded in any of the out-pourings in Acts.

So what's the deal?

Peter only said they were not drunk on wine. In fact he went on to say that whatever they were doing that was causing those onlookers to think they were drunk was the Spirits doing. So the question is what were they doing that caused those onlookers to think they were drunk? Well, the bible tells us what caused the onlookers to think they were drunk. The reason was that they were all speaking in different languages at the same time (that is something I could imagine a group of drunk people doing). So my conclusion is that there is no bible for the modern day practice of being drunk/slain in the spirit.

What should we make of it? I believe that whether God is doing it or not that being slain/drunk in the spirit and other such things can be viewed as a person expressing their faith. So, I don't think the practice can simply be condemned because it is not found in the bible. I don't think the practice should really be encouraged either, even though it can be viewed as an expression of a persons faith. I think the practice should be tolerated. I think that its an okay way for some people to express their faith that way. I don't think it would be a good thing if every Christian started expressing their faith that way. Also, I think that those who do not express their faith that way should not look down on those that do.

[KWSS1976]

You all should know my thoughts on all this......lol...but just incase you don't I have yet to see someone filled with the holyghost as they were in the bible....

[LadyRev]

Originally Posted by KWSS1976

You all should know my thoughts on all this......lol...but just incase you don't I have yet to see someone filled with the holyghost as they were in the bible....

As I stated in response to a similar post of yours on another thread,...

People receive the Holy Ghost at my church almost every sunday, as they were filled in the bible. You can come see it and hear it happen any ole time.

No one screams, spits, pushes, pulls, slaps under the chin, or instructs them to repeat words over and over and over. Neither does it take hours or days or weeks or months for someone to receive the Holy Ghost. Average time of receipt at my church is 10 minutes, and often less than this. God gets all the credit and all the glory! He is the one that gives the gift.

As for the topic of this thread...
Among Christians, anything that is HUMANLY impossible can very easily be referred to as HEAVENLY. So when people talk about a "heavenly language", it means that it is something that comes from heaven, in other words, something from God. This is an accurate description of "speaking in tongues as the Spirit gives utterance."

The bible says every good and perfect GIFT comes from above. What does "above" mean? Something from heaven, something from God.

As for no reference in Acts using the words "heavenly language"...
Just because its not recorded in Acts in black and white doesn't make it wrong. You want to split hairs over terminology? If so, there are alot of examples of terms we use that are no where to be found in scripture.

There are also alot of practices, things we Christians do, that are no where to be found in scriptures. That doesn't necessarily make it wrong, its simply different.

If we are going to be so hung up on having precise, specific, scriptural examples for everything we say and do then we best get back to going house to house for fellowship and the word and get back to having all things common! To name just a couple of examples of things most Christians DON'T practice.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by LadyRev

As I stated in response to a similar post of yours on another thread,...

People receive the Holy Ghost at my church almost every sunday, as they were filled in the bible. You can come see it and hear it happen any ole time.

No one screams, spits, pushes, pulls, slaps under the chin, or instructs them to repeat words over and over and over. Neither does it take hours or days or weeks or months for someone to receive the Holy Ghost. Average time of receipt at my church is 10 minutes, and often less than this. God gets all the credit and all the glory! He is the one that gives the gift.

For some reason I doubt that is how it happens at most churches...

Originally Posted by LadyRev

As for the topic of this thread...
Among Christians, anything that is HUMANLY impossible can very easily be referred to as HEAVENLY. So when people talk about a "heavenly language", it means that it is something that comes from heaven, in other words, something from God. This is an accurate description of "speaking in tongues as the Spirit gives utterance."

The bible says every good and perfect GIFT comes from above. What does "above" mean? Something from heaven, something from God.

As for no reference in Acts using the words "heavenly language"...
Just because its not recorded in Acts in black and white doesn't make it wrong. You want to split hairs over terminology? If so, there are alot of examples of terms we use that are no where to be found in scripture.

When people refer to heavenly languages they ARE NOT referring to earthly languages that God gives a person to speak. When people refer to heavenly languages they do so in contrast to earthly languages. What they ALWAYS mean is that the language being spoken is not an earthly language like spanish, arabic, hebrew, portugeese, chineese, any of the african languages, native american or any other such languages.

Originally Posted by LadyRev

There are also alot of practices, things we Christians do, that are no where to be found in scriptures. That doesn't necessarily make it wrong, its simply different.

If we are going to be so hung up on having precise, specific, scriptural examples for everything we say and do then we best get back to going house to house for fellowship and the word and get back to having all things common! To name just a couple of examples of things most Christians DON'T practice.

The people really hung up on precise, specific, scriptural examples for everything is the "No Tongues = No Holy Ghost" crowd. In fact, its quite interesting that you will argue that christians don't have to do things exactly as the bible gives example and then claim that "No Tongues = No Holy Ghost" (which is a doctrine completely based on 3-4 examples).

[pastorrick1959]

[You all should know my thoughts on all this......lol...but just incase you don't I have yet to see someone filled with the holyghost as they were in the bible

are you really old enought to know hopw they got it bible days as in to relate it to now?

[pastorrick1959]

mr joe .. you are truely deceiveing your own self . you even admit you have to conjure up a different idea to make your idea work ...

peter stated they are not drunk as ye suppose ,seeing it is but the third hour of the day .. never did he deny they were drunk or acted that way NOWHERE. they were drunk in the spirit ..

i am so glad our church is a lively church that gets emotional ,,,i would go to sleep in your church probably if they are dead as a doorknob.

no church on fire for god is dead ,no praise and worship.



as for the comment one guy made about a lady screaming every service ..did it occur to you she might very well have something worth screaming over. maybe you should hang around her some and let it rub off a bit !

[TrmptPraise]

This has been a good thread...have enjoyed the posts.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by jfrog

When people refer to heavenly languages they ARE NOT referring to earthly languages that God gives a person to speak. When people refer to heavenly languages they do so in contrast to earthly languages. What they ALWAYS mean is that the language being spoken is not an earthly language like spanish, arabic, hebrew, portugeese, chineese, any of the african languages, native american or any other such languages.

Maybe some people but not ALL. I agree with LadyRev. When I hear tongues called heavenly languages, I think it is because the utterance is given by God and not because it is a language God and the angels speak in heaven. Frog, you can't speak for All people, you can only speak to what you know unless you are an authority on the subject and have spoken to everyone who refers to tongues as a heavenly language and they have All specifically told you that the heavenly language is "heavenly" not because it comes from God but because it is a language spoken in heaven and not a known language spoken on earth by men. LadyRev explained to you why she thinks tongues is referred to as heavenly languages and you are saying she is wrong. Her opinion can't be wrong since it is her opinion. Some folks might agree with what you say and teach what you say, but imho, they are SOME and not ALL. Some folks call tongues a heavenly language for the exact reason that LadyRev gave. I don't see how you can say she is wrong unless you have heard EVERYONE who has ever called tongues a heavenly language give the same reason you gave.

[shag]

Originally Posted by pastorrick1959

mr joe .. you are truely deceiveing your own self . you even admit you have to conjure up a different idea to make your idea work ...

peter stated they are not drunk as ye suppose ,seeing it is but the third hour of the day .. never did he deny they were drunk or acted that way NOWHERE. they were drunk in the spirit ..


He did not affirm it either with ANY scriptual reference either, so really, we should be careful what we add to the word of God as a requirment for "spiritualness".

i am so glad our church is a lively church that gets emotional ,,,i would go to sleep in your church probably if they are dead as a doorknob.

no church on fire for god is dead ,no praise and worship.



Many have outlined requirements of what it supposedly is to be "on fire for God" concerning worship that is given to God, and it is sometimes well beyong scripture references. If there lacks the unscriptural aile running or whatever, then its judged as a dead unspiritual church. Truth is they were SITTING DOWN waiting for the Holyghost to come upon them in Acts 2, not dancin around getting all worked up and spiritual enough for it(Him) to fall. Then when He did "fall", they spoken in many languages understood by those that had traveled to Jerusulem. Thats the reason given that they thought they were drunk. Nothing about stumbling around drunk, wallering around on the ground, clucking like a chicken, oinking like a pig, dancing in the spirit, or whatever else kinda thing folks think they might have been doing. Heres the deal, I agree we should NOT judge other's experiences with God, but at the same time we can NOT REQUIRE folks to practice things not found in scripture in order for them to be considered(judged) "apostolic" or "ON FIRE FOR GOD".

as for the comment one guy made about a lady screaming every service ..did it occur to you she might very well have something worth screaming over. maybe you should hang around her some and let it rub off a bit !

also...when I was real young I had a teenage cousin, that recived the Holyghost and laughed without even recognizing anyone untill she woke up the next day. I do not judge that as it is between her and God, and also I do not require that as part of my reasoning for someone to be "spirit filled or on fire" any more than I would the other person in the pew that received His spirit without gigling all night, and has continued to produce spiritual fruit, but does not outwardly display wild so called "apostolic worship".

[JoeHardy07]

Hey guys,

Need to apologize to ya! Didn't mean to cause a ruckus. Just trying to get some opinions of why and how these things came into the church.

However, I have to stand firm on my own opinions. I'm not deceiving myself. Peter did in fact deny they were drunk. The problem with that passage is this: the way it's written makes it subject to being twisted to mean anything. And my argument is solid because in the half dozen out-pouring recordings there is not a single mention of any of our "drunken activities." I understand what was said about not following scripture to a T, but dont you think that with a half dozen recordings that at least once in there the jirating and screaming would have been mentioned?

It isn't.

And I totally agree with the "all things in common" comment. Seems like no one ever reaches that part when billowing about the great and wonderful Holy Ghost of Acts chapter 2...lol...always seem to leave that part out...

What happens after a Holy Ghost service nowadays? Anyone who can afford it meets up for a fine meal and fellowship at McDs or whatever. Ha ha!

As far as a lively church and falling asleep amidst a bunch of dead-heads, that's the flesh talking. We think if the music is not loud and fast, and the people are not jirating acroos the floor, that God's Spirit is not there. Bummer. That sure isnt what's recorded in Acts.

By the way, does anyone know what the angel did after he rolled away the stone from Jesus tomb? That dead-head sat on it!! The presence of God was all around and that dead-head hopped up on top of that stone and sat on it!!! (Matt 28:2). Now if he can't dance and shout down here in the presence of God...how's he gona dance in heaven???

Hey, thanks for bringing up Holy Laughter too. Forgot about that one! LOL!