Signs and wonders

[Standing Up]

That is pure eisegesis. There is nothing in Acts 2 which suggests they were 'stumbling around' let alone falling. The only reason the locals accused them of being drunk was because they saw uneducated Galileans speaking what to them seemed like gibberish. It was only the multilingual Jews from the diaspora who understood they were speaking other languages.

So far, all I have seen is more eisegesis.

Why would they compare their behavior to someone who was drunk?

 

[HisSparkPlug]

No, I read that very carefully and noticed that it was the mockers who said that they were drunk. Mockers! People who made fun of them. People who dismissed them as drunk. People who had no respect for God. Like your post has no respect for the text.

Do you ever wonder why people rarely respond to your rude posts? lol
Waaay off base friend and without a leg to stand on.

 

[shturt678s]

There is nothing to say they weren't. Scripture is revealed by the Holy Spirit, not interpreted via the carnal mind which is at enmity with God.

And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit - Eph 5:18

Eph.5:18, "Be filled with the spirit" with a small "s" Paul would not combine "wine" that is used for the purpose of drunkenness with the Holy Spirit grammatically or contextually, the third Person of the Godhead. Translations, inferior, threw you off.

For every true gift and touch of God, the enemy has a counterfeit. We see in the above scripture that the counterfeit for being filled with the Spirit is worldly drunkeness. Being drunk with liquor is the opposite of being filled with the Spirit. Again, not something I've fully experienced, although I've certainly received strong touches from the Lord which caused me to shake and my knees have nearly buckled under His strong presence at times.

But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong - 1 Cor 1:27

My speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God - 1 Cor 2:4-5

Old Jack

 

[HisSparkPlug]

I see, so your interpretation, which adds to Scripture (something which is forbidden BTW), is led by the Holy Spirit, while my interpretation, because it doesn't agree with yours, is obviously carnal and not led by the Holy Spirit. Not only that, you imply that I am at emnity with God. I'm pretty sure you are violating some forum rules by doing that.

I'm in violation of no 'rule' nor was I speaking directly to you but generally. Good luck with that argument.
There is a HUGE difference between SPIRIT LED DEDUCTIONS and ADDING TO SCRIPTURE.. Merciful heavens how did you come up with that one?
Next people will be crying "stone her!" - Roflol!

Neither does this verse suggest that being filled with the Holy Spirit makes you appear drunk.

DISAGREE.

God forces nothing on us.

hmmm.. Did I say God forced something on me? This statement of yours has been pulled straight out of thin air

If your weakness was physical and not out of awe, then I would be very wary of attributing that to God. Usually we gain strength from God’s presence when we ourselves are physically weak.

So then it's your opinion that all the people who lost their strength in the bible, such as Daniel, were being afflicted by satan?

I am neither wise nor strong.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Do you ever wonder why people rarely respond to your rude posts? lol Waaay off base friend and without a leg to stand on.

The passage says it was mockers who ridiculed the disciples by saying they were drunk on new wine. Your posts simply ignore the text and substitute something more to your liking in the place of the scripture.

Acts 2:12-13 (12) And they were all astonished, and they wondered, saying to one another: "But what does this mean?" (13) But others mockingly said, "These men are full of new wine."​

They were mockers. Not impartial observers.

It isn't rude to stand against the errors in your posts. It is good so to do.

 

[HisSparkPlug]

Eph.5:18, "Be filled with the spirit" with a small "s" Paul would not combine "wine" that is used for the purpose of drunkenness with the Holy Spirit grammatically or contextually, the third Person of the Godhead. Translations, inferior, threw you off

Errr.. what? - small s ? - Sweet mother of Pearl... what are you talking about? What SPIRIT do you propose Paul was referring to?
.. oh Lord help us all..

New International Version
Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit,

New Living Translation
Don't be drunk with wine, because that will ruin your life. Instead, be filled with the Holy Spirit,

English Standard Version
And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit,

New American Standard Bible
And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit,

King James Bible
And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

Holman Christian Standard Bible
And don't get drunk with wine, which leads to reckless actions, but be filled by the Spirit:

International Standard Version
Stop getting drunk with wine, which leads to wild living, but keep on being filled with the Spirit.

NET Bible
And do not get drunk with wine, which is debauchery, but be filled by the Spirit,

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Neither be drunk with wine in which is debauchery, but be filled with The Spirit.

 

[HisSparkPlug]

The passage says it was mockers who ridiculed the disciples by saying they were drunk on new wine. Your posts simply ignore the text and substitute something more to your liking in the place of the scripture.

Acts 2:12-13 (12) And they were all astonished, and they wondered, saying to one another: "But what does this mean?" (13) But others mockingly said, "These men are full of new wine."​

They were mockers. Not impartial observers.

It isn't rude to stand against the errors in your posts. It is good so to do.

My dear friend, according to your argument, PETER was talking to the wind when he stood up and EXPLAINED to them that they were not drunk??

Your theory is busted wide open my friend.

Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them: “Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and give heed to my words. 15 For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only the third hour of the day - Acts 2

The mockers did indeed believe they were drunk.

Please check your facts before going around telling people they're in error - maybe reading the entire scripture would be useful to you and you could take your own advice.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Eph.5:18, "Be filled with the spirit" with a small "s" Paul would not combine "wine" that is used for the purpose of drunkenness with the Holy Spirit grammatically or contextually, the third Person of the Godhead. Translations, inferior, threw you off.

Old Jack

Errr.. what? - small s ? - Sweet mother of Pearl... what are you talking about? What SPIRIT do you propose Paul was referring to? .. oh Lord help us all..

Yep, good old polite replies such as yours are great!

 

[MoreCoffee]

My dear friend, according to your argument, PETER was talking to the wind when he stood up and EXPLAINED to them that they were not drunk??

Your theory is busted wide open my friend.

Your post really is utterly clueless isn't it? Peter was correcting the rumor, started by the mockers, that the disciples were drunken babblers when in fact they were speaking in the languages of the foreigners who were listening. Peter's correction lends absolutely no credibility to the mockers' remarks.

 

[Brad413]

I have not studied this view so maybe I'm wrong. However looking culturely at the town Pentecost took place at, It was a large area and we know at least 3000+ heard Peters first sermon. If everyone hears them in their own language their had to be a large percentage of forigener in the area or else it would not be recorded in the bible. It was not a first for everyone there to hear someone speak in a different language. To add everyone heard the message in their own language so if they were just speaking and everyone was hearing them in their own language their was no reason to accuse them as being drunk.

Another thing I would like to add it seems like everyone is referring to bring slain in the spirit as the only pentecostal manifisation of the spirit. The Baptism of the Holy spirit is so much more then that. Not everyone is going to experience falling. Some people fake it but what about those who claim to have been healed after they got up from being slain in the spirit? Of they were actually healed or we going to accuse them of spreading lies? Heaven is going to be full of those who have fell and who have not fallen in a church neither is more holy then the other I don't see why so many feel the need to judge each other about it.

 

[shturt678s]

Errr.. what? - small s ? - Sweet mother of Pearl... what are you talking about? What SPIRIT do you propose Paul was referring to?
.. oh Lord help us all..

New International Version
Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit,

New Living Translation
Don't be drunk with wine, because that will ruin your life. Instead, be filled with the Holy Spirit,

English Standard Version
And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit,

New American Standard Bible
And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit,

King James Bible
And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

Holman Christian Standard Bible
And don't get drunk with wine, which leads to reckless actions, but be filled by the Spirit:

International Standard Version
Stop getting drunk with wine, which leads to wild living, but keep on being filled with the Spirit.

NET Bible
And do not get drunk with wine, which is debauchery, but be filled by the Spirit,

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Neither be drunk with wine in which is debauchery, but be filled with The Spirit.

Eph.5:18, "spirit" I didn't want to go this direction however you forced my hand. en pneumati is grammatically and contextually not instrumental or think that, besides being construed with the gentive, the dative, or the accusative of that with which the filling is done, this verb may also use "in" with reference to the filler, and thus our versions fallaciously render, "Be filled with the Spirit."

en does not state "with" what we are to be filled. Paul is not stating with what we are to be filled, he has no opposite for "wine." He lets us gather what this filler is to be from the context: it's spiritual joy, happiness, enthusiasm, thanksfulness that overflow in the utterance of psalms, hymns, and odes even as the mouth speaks from the abundance of the heart. This statment does not deal with the unio mystica, but with the richness and the abundance of the spiritual life "in" our own "spirit." Our spirit is ever to be filled so that it overflows with spiritual expressions.

The fact that these expressions are due to God the Holy Spirit is sefl-evident.

btw in case you forgot, I'm the of the lowest of paygrades and at the bottom of the heap, and probably in error - however in case this waaaay out interpretation is somewhat valid, we can thank your Lord for those little priceless pearls.

Old long shot Jack

 

[prodromos]

Why would they compare their behavior to someone who was drunk?

The only behavior described is their speaking in tongues.

When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.​

Nothing is remotely suggested that they were affected in any way physically such as being weak at the knees.

Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven. And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language. They were amazed and astonished, saying, “Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born? Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs—we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God.” And they all continued in amazement and great perplexity, saying to one another, “What does this mean?”​

Amazement, perplexity, astonishment, this is not the response of people looking at a group of people staggering and falling on their faces, they were astonished at hearing the wonders of God, in their own foriegn tongues, from a group of uneducated Galileans.

But others were mocking and saying, “They are full of sweet wine.”

But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them: “Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and give heed to my words. For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only the third hour of the day; but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel: ​

Peter then refutes the mockers and provides the explanation for the others. Although thousands were converted that day, it is obvious that not all were resppnsive to the call. The mockers were those who were not aligned with God, else they would have had a positive response to the actions of the Holy Spirit. Nothing in the text suggests the disciples looked like they were drunk, the people were only trying to come to terms with what they were hearing and from whom. Everything in the text suggests the disciples were empowered, for up until that time they had been in fear of the Jews. Not anymore.

 

[tturt]

HisSparkPlug, thanks for posting that clip "How humbling to see God's presence manifest this way."

So true.

 

[sunlover1]

And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;


5 At that time there were devout Jews from every nation living in Jerusalem. 6 When they heard the loud noise, everyone came running, and they were bewildered to hear their own languages being spoken by the believers.
7 They were completely amazed. “How can this be?” they exclaimed. “These people are all from Galilee, 8 and yet we hear them speaking in our own native languages! 9 Here we are—Parthians, Medes, Elamites, people from Mesopotamia, Judea, Cappadocia, Pontus, the province of Asia, 10 Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt, and the areas of Libya around Cyrene, visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism), Cretans, and Arabs. And we all hear these people speaking in our own languages about the wonderful things God has done!” 12 They stood there amazed and perplexed. “What can this mean?” they asked each other.
13 But others in the crowd ridiculed them, saying, “They’re just drunk, that’s all!”


14 Then Peter stepped forward with the eleven other apostles and shouted to the crowd, “Listen carefully, all of you, fellow Jews and residents of Jerusalem! Make no mistake about this. 15 These people are not drunk, as some of you are assuming. Nine o’clock in the morning is much too early for that. 16 No, what you see was predicted long ago by the prophet Joel:
17 ‘In the last days,’ God says,
‘I will pour out my Spirit upon all people.

 

[Standing Up]

But others were mocking and saying, “They are full of sweet wine.”

But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them: “Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and give heed to my words. For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only the third hour of the day; but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel: ​

Peter then refutes the mockers and provides the explanation for the others. Although thousands were converted that day, it is obvious that not all were resppnsive to the call. The mockers were those who were not aligned with God, else they would have had a positive response to the actions of the Holy Spirit. Nothing in the text suggests the disciples looked like they were drunk, the people were only trying to come to terms with what they were hearing and from whom. Everything in the text suggests the disciples were empowered, for up until that time they had been in fear of the Jews. Not anymore.

You're deflecting. Why did the mockers think the believers were drunk? Why didn't they say the believers were crazy idiots (babbling like a lunatic)? Haven't you seen someone apparently talking to themselves and it turns out they have a Bluetooth stuck in their ear; but for a moment, you wonder, what is up with that person? Drunk? No. Why would they see them as drunk?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Occam's razor

And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; 5 At that time there were devout Jews from every nation living in Jerusalem. 6 When they heard the loud noise, everyone came running, and they were bewildered to hear their own languages being spoken by the believers. 7 They were completely amazed. “How can this be?” they exclaimed. “These people are all from Galilee, 8 and yet we hear them speaking in our own native languages! 9 Here we are—Parthians, Medes, Elamites, people from Mesopotamia, Judea, Cappadocia, Pontus, the province of Asia, 10 Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt, and the areas of Libya around Cyrene, visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism), Cretans, and Arabs. And we all hear these people speaking in our own languages about the wonderful things God has done!” 12 They stood there amazed and perplexed. “What can this mean?” they asked each other. 13 But others in the crowd ridiculed them, saying, “They’re just drunk, that’s all!” 14 Then Peter stepped forward with the eleven other apostles and shouted to the crowd, “Listen carefully, all of you, fellow Jews and residents of Jerusalem! Make no mistake about this. 15 These people are not drunk, as some of you are assuming. Nine o’clock in the morning is much too early for that. 16 No, what you see was predicted long ago by the prophet Joel: 17 ‘In the last days,’ God says, ‘I will pour out my Spirit upon all people.

Nice passage, what's your intended point. You gave your post a title "Occam's razor" is it your intention to assert that Occam's razor somehow makes the idea that the disciples acted as if they were drunk is true?

Occam's razor means that "among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better."

The competing hypotheses on the table are:

1. The disciples were drunk as the mockers said,
2. The disciples acted as if they were drunk even though they were not thus the mockers were making a legitimate observation about them,
3. The disciples were neither drunk nor acting as if they were drunk but speaking in foreign languages and some in the crowd mocked them as drunkards (presumably because the mockers couldn't understand a word that they were saying).

Which of the three hypotheses accounts for what is said in the passage, and which requires the least number of assumptions?

Peter says that they were not drunk so that knocks out #1 and Peter says that they are not drunk as "you suppose" which seems to knock out #2. Peter also points out that they are fulfilling the prediction of the prophet Joel who said "'It will come to pass in the last days,' God says, 'that I will pour out a portion of my spirit upon all flesh. Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your young men shall see visions, your old men shall dream dreams. Indeed, upon my servants and my handmaids I will pour out a portion of my spirit in those days, and they shall prophesy. And I will work wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below: blood, fire, and a cloud of smoke. The sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood, before the coming of the great and splendid day of the Lord, and it shall be that everyone shall be saved who calls on the name of the Lord.' " (Acts 2:17-21) which seems to support #3 as do the verses in the passage that reflect on the disciples speaking in the languages of the people from the places named in these verses: "Then how does each of us hear them in his own native language? We are Parthians, Medes, and Elamites, inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya near Cyrene, as well as travelers from Rome, both Jews and converts to Judaism, Cretans and Arabs, yet we hear them speaking in our own tongues of the mighty acts of God. " (Acts 2:8-11)

 

[shturt678s]

Good to hear your voice again my ol' sparring partner MoreCoffee. Kickstarted my day with your excellent posit - above my paygrade.

Old Jack that still agapes the ol' syllogismos.

btw your simple syllogistic logic was perfect (general to the specific).

 

[sunlover1]

Nice passage, what's your intended point. You gave your post a title "Occam's razor" is it your intention to assert that Occam's razor somehow makes the idea that the disciples acted as if they were drunk is true?

Just posting the bare Scriptures so the readers could see for
themselves in light of so many posters trying to "explain it
away".

 

[MoreCoffee]

Nice passage, what's your intended point. You gave your post a title "Occam's razor" is it your intention to assert that Occam's razor somehow makes the idea that the disciples acted as if they were drunk is true?

Occam's razor means that "among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better."

The competing hypotheses on the table are:

1. The disciples were drunk as the mockers said,
2. The disciples acted as if they were drunk even though they were not thus the mockers were making a legitimate observation about them,
3. The disciples were neither drunk nor acting as if they were drunk but speaking in foreign languages and some in the crowd mocked them as drunkards (presumably because the mockers couldn't understand a word that they were saying).

Which of the three hypotheses accounts for what is said in the passage, and which requires the least number of assumptions?

Peter says that they were not drunk so that knocks out #1 and Peter says that they are not drunk as "you suppose" which seems to knock out #2. Peter also points out that they are fulfilling the prediction of the prophet Joel who said "'It will come to pass in the last days,' God says, 'that I will pour out a portion of my spirit upon all flesh. Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your young men shall see visions, your old men shall dream dreams. Indeed, upon my servants and my handmaids I will pour out a portion of my spirit in those days, and they shall prophesy. And I will work wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below: blood, fire, and a cloud of smoke. The sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood, before the coming of the great and splendid day of the Lord, and it shall be that everyone shall be saved who calls on the name of the Lord.' " (Acts 2:17-21) which seems to support #3 as do the verses in the passage that reflect on the disciples speaking in the languages of the people from the places named in these verses: "Then how does each of us hear them in his own native language? We are Parthians, Medes, and Elamites, inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya near Cyrene, as well as travelers from Rome, both Jews and converts to Judaism, Cretans and Arabs, yet we hear them speaking in our own tongues of the mighty acts of God. " (Acts 2:8-11)

Just posting the bare Scriptures so the readers could see for themselves in light of so many posters trying to "explain it away".

Perish the thought. The passage speaks for itself and for two thousand years (or near enough) nobody claimed it was about the disciples acting drunk by stumbling and falling down.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I shall sing in spirit, and with understanding

What is more pleasing than a psalm? David expresses it well: Praise the Lord, for a song of praise is good: let there be praise of our God with gladness and grace. Yes, a psalm is a blessing on the lips of the people, a hymn in praise of God, the assembly’s homage, a general acclamation, a word that speaks for all, the voice of the Church, a confession of faith in song. It is the voice of complete assent, the joy of freedom, a cry of happiness, the echo of gladness. It soothes the temper, distracts from care, lightens the burden of sorrow. It is a source of security at night, a lesson in wisdom by day. It is a shield when we are afraid, a celebration of holiness, a vision of serenity, a promise of peace and harmony. It is like a lyre, evoking harmony from a blend of notes. Day begins to the music of a psalm. Day closes to the echo of a psalm.

In a psalm, instruction vies with beauty. We sing for pleasure. We learn for our profit. What experience is not covered by a reading of the psalms? I come across the words: A song for the beloved, and I am aflame with desire for God’s love. I go through God’s revelation in all its beauty, the intimations of resurrection, the gifts of his promise. I learn to avoid sin. I see my mistake in feeling ashamed of repentance for my sins.

What is a psalm but a musical instrument to give expression to all the virtues? The psalmist of old used it, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, to make earth re-echo the music of heaven. He used the dead gut of strings to create harmony from a variety of notes, in order to send up to heaven the song of God’s praise. In doing so he taught us that we must first die to sin, and then create in our lives on earth a harmony through virtuous deeds, if the grace of our devotion is to reach up to the Lord.

David thus taught us that we must sing an interior song of praise, like Saint Paul, who tells us: I shall pray in spirit, and also with understanding; I shall sing in spirit, and also with understanding. We must fashion our lives and shape our actions in the light of the things that are above. We must not allow pleasure to awaken bodily passions, which weigh our soul down instead of freeing it. The holy prophet told us that his songs of praise were to celebrate the freeing of his soul, when he said: I shall sing to you, God, on the Lyre, holy one of Israel; my lips will rejoice when I have sung to you, and my soul also, which you have set free.