What does having the Holy Spirit mean?

Originally Posted by Newman

TB- Notice that Luke is more specific about what actually occurs with the smaller numbers and much more general with the bigger numbers. That's not all....

Luke writes about ressurected Jesus being on Earth for 40 days in the first chapter of Acts with almost nilch detail. What's up with that?

In fact, I read a book by an attorney, John W. Mauck, called "Paul on Trial" which makes an excellent case for the book of Acts being written as a trial brief on Paul's behalf. This would explain all kinds of things we don't find in Acts that we would expect to be there and things we are told that we wouldn't expect to be there.

The author goes through each chapter of Acts and shows how what was written was legally relevant to Paul's upcoming trial. In fact, Luke clearly lays out the position that Christianity was born of Judiasm [which had an exemption from Roman religion/pagan worship] and would be the basis for defending Paul at his trial.

Luke paid more attention to smaller groups of people and individuals (potential witnesses) then large groups of people (who were nameless).

Consequently, I would not be comfortable putting too much stock in the lack of detail about larger groups.

Very Good points and examples per the issue TB has.

The rest is interesting, but what was The Gospel of Luke? Exhibit A?

Though I think that both books might have been good evidence for Paul's trial, I somewhat doubt that this was the original intent, but I understand the attorney's viewpoint might appeal to you.

[RevDWW]

Rom 8:11 (KJV)
11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

You will not be quickened without the Holy Ghost within!

[Newman]

Originally Posted by Felicity

Another fact:

The majority of apostolics are hard pressed to give an affirmative answer when asked the question.......... "Will every believer who never spoke in tongues be lost and spend eternity in hell?"

I certainly hope not and doubt it given the great cloud of witnesses of whom I am unworthy to stand beside; but that in no way negates what we can reasonably believe the early church experienced and what I can comfortably assure anybody.

God is sovereign. He can do whatever He wants but I can't speak for Him contrary to what happened in the NT.

Originally Posted by Newman

I certainly hope not and doubt it given the great cloud of witnesses of whom I am unworthy to stand beside; but that in no way negates what we can reasonably believe the early church experienced and what I can comfortably assure anybody.

God is sovereign. He can do whatever He wants but I can't speak for Him contrary to what happened in the NT.

Or the Old, God is extremely particular concerning the aspects of His covenants, the New Covenant being no exception.

[Newman]

Originally Posted by Theophilus

Very Good points and examples per the issue TB has.

The rest is interesting, but what was The Gospel of Luke? Exhibit A?

The author wrote a chapter about Luke that began "No legal defense of Paul was possible without an understanding of Christianity. No understanding of the Way was possible without understanding the life and teaching of Jesus." Both books speak to Theopolis in the beginning (potentially a Roman official).

In no way am I suggesting that the book of Luke and Acts weren't inspired by God. Only suggesting one of the ways God might have inspired them.

[Barb]

Originally Posted by Newman

The author wrote a chapter about Luke that began "No legal defense of Paul was possible without an understanding of Christianity. No understanding of the Way was possible without understanding the life and teaching of Jesus." Both books speak to Theopolis in the beginning (potentially a Roman official).

In no way am I suggesting that the book of Luke and Acts weren't inspired by God. Only suggesting one of the ways God might have inspired them.

Interesting, Sis. Newman...

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by Newman

I certainly hope not and doubt it given the great cloud of witnesses of whom I am unworthy to stand beside; but that in no way negates what we can reasonably believe the early church experienced and what I can comfortably assure anybody.

God is sovereign. He can do whatever He wants but I can't speak for Him contrary to what happened in the NT.

I agree with you Sis.

"We can but speak of those things we have both seen and heard."



While God is sovereign, he will fulfill his Word. I believe he bound himself to it.

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by Newman

I certainly hope not and doubt it given the great cloud of witnesses of whom I am unworthy to stand beside; but that in no way negates what we can reasonably believe the early church experienced and what I can comfortably assure anybody.

God is sovereign. He can do whatever He wants but I can't speak for Him contrary to what happened in the NT.

Yes, I've heard you refer before to the great cloud of witnesses in regard to this particular discussion. First time I ever heard that brought into this issue regarding whether or not a person is lost if they haven't spoken in tongues.

I have never ever attempted to negate or refute what the early Church experienced. Why would I? We believe, teach, preach, advocate, practice, experience and expect the same as the apostles did!

[Newman]

Originally Posted by Felicity

Yes, I've heard you refer before to the great cloud of witnesses in regard to this particular discussion. First time I ever heard that brought into this issue regarding whether or not a person is lost if they haven't spoken in tongues.

I have never ever attempted to negate or refute what the early Church experienced. Why would I? We believe, teach, preach, advocate, practice, experience and expect the same as the apostles did!

Actually, my writing may have been a bit ambigous. The cloud of witnesses that I am unworthy to stand by that I was referring to are the many men and women of God that aren't Apostolic so far as I know and have nevertheless done mighty works in the name of Jesus.

And Felicity, I never intended to suggest that you were refuting the early church. I only wanted to say that I have no embarrasment in hoping that others might be saved even though I fully believe that Acts 2:38 is the known way.

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by Newman

Actually, my writing may have been a bit ambigous. The cloud of witnesses that I am unworthy to stand by that I was referring to are the many men and women of God that aren't Apostolic so far as I know and have nevertheless done mighty works in the name of Jesus.

And Felicity, I never intended to suggest that you were refuting the early church. I only wanted to say that I have no embarrasment in hoping that others might be saved even though I fully believe that Acts 2:38 is the known way.

I can only agree with you. No argument here.