The indwelling presence

[Guojing]

Same as Jesus and the disciples...

I interpret verses in the light of the whole of scripture.

I see, thanks for clarifying.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Philip was preaching the Gospel and healing - that was his focus.

Folks including Simon were saved - but none were baptised in the Holy Spirit.

When Peter and John came to Sumaria later, they noted the believers were not empowered and gifted so they laid hands on them to receive this additional blessing.

There is no reason to believe Philip could not have passed on this empowering himself. To single out Peter and John as somehow more empowered than Philip does not have scriptural support. All 12 were empowered with the Baptism in the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Isn't this Philip the Deacon, not Philip the Apostle?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Carl Emerson]

Isn't this Philip the Deacon, not Philip the Apostle?

-CryptoLutheran

Good question - I have always thought so...

 

[Guojing]

Isn't this Philip the Deacon, not Philip the Apostle?

-CryptoLutheran

From this and other discussions like this one, Discussion - Apostolic Power - what is it? What does it look like?, I realized people who want to believe that there is no difference between the 12 apostles, and those believers after them, will somehow want to believe that the Phillip in Acts 8 was one of the 12.

It certainly helps to strengthen their doctrine that whatever the 12 could do in early Acts, any "true believer" today can do the same.

 

[Carl Emerson]

From this and other discussions like this one, Discussion - Apostolic Power - what is it? What does it look like?, I realized people who want to believe that there is no difference between the 12 apostles, and those believers after them, will somehow want to believe that the Phillip in Acts 8 was one of the 12.

It certainly helps to strengthen their doctrine that whatever the 12 could do in early Acts, any "true believer" today can do the same.

Just maybe they are correct ?

It doesn't follow that today's gifted might do the same, because that is totally up to God's will and choosing.

However to make a theology demanding that they can't isn't scriptural.

We know that the two witnesses certainly will.

 

[Guojing]

Just maybe they are correct ?

It doesn't follow that today's gifted might do the same, because that is totally up to God's will and choosing.

However to make a theology demanding that they can't isn't scriptural.

We know that the two witnesses certainly will.

When you say correct, do you mean

Phillip in Acts 8 is one of the 12? Are you convinced now that he cannot be?

If its the other point, of course, I can agree that "maybe they are correct". I have no problem with that, I don't have to demand they cannot.

But Acts 8 does present evidence against that. What I find especially interesting is that some of them don't even want to acknowledge/concede that there is some evidence there.

Like yourself, they just pretend that Acts 8 says something else other than what it literally says.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

He said my gospel 3 times, and the phrase you used you are sealed by the holy spirit unto the day of redemption, came from Ephesians 4:30.

But as you can see from my explanation of the Acts 8 account, that was not correct sequence of events, before Paul was saved by the ascended Christ, so it cannot be the same gospel Christ gave to the 12.

And none of the 12 had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit promised by Jesus until the day of Pentecost.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

When you say correct, do you mean

Phillip in Acts 8 is one of the 12? Are you convinced now that he cannot be?

If its the other point, of course, I can agree that "maybe they are correct".

But Acts 8 do present evidence against that. Like yourself, they just pretend that Acts 8 says something else other than what it literally says.

Are you claiming Philip was not one of the original 12 disciples who are Jesus Apostles?

 

[Guojing]

Are you claiming Philip was not one of the original 12 disciples who are Jesus Apostles?

I find it fascinating that people actually insist on this.

Once you read Acts 8:1, isn't it pretty obvious that the Phillip in Acts 8 CANNOT be one of the 12?

I am really curious how do people form this particular doctrine of theirs, do share your reasoning

 

[Carl Emerson]

When you say correct, do you mean

Phillip in Acts 8 is one of the 12? Are you convinced now that he cannot be?

If its the other point, of course, I can agree that "maybe they are correct". I have no problem with that, I don't have to demand they cannot.

But Acts 8 does present evidence against that. What I find especially interesting is that some of them don't even want to acknowledge/concede that there is some evidence there.

Like yourself, they just pretend that Acts 8 says something else other than what it literally says.

You are the first I have heard to suggest Philip is not Philip the apostle.

I have not looked into it in depth.

Either way it does not challenge my personal take on things.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Once you read Acts 8:1, isn't t pretty obvious that the Phillip in Acts 8 CANNOT be one of the 12?

I was thinking what Philip was most famous for...

Being transported from place to place like no other...

 

[Guojing]

I was thinking what Philip was most famous for...

Being transported from place to place like no other...

You are willing to use your "interpret verses in the light of the whole of scripture" until it actually contradicts what Acts 8:1 literally states?

You don't draw any line there?

 

[Guojing]

You are the first I have heard to suggest Philip is not Philip the apostle.

No one else has showed you Acts 8:1 until now?

Fascinating indeed, I have to say.

 

[Carl Emerson]

No one else has showed you Acts 8:1 until now?

Fascinating indeed, I have to say.

Like everything else I send my questions upstairs...

Your personal criticisms are a bit sad really - You don't have a monopoly on biblical interpretation.

You have some interesting things to say but when you push it too far, and start putting others down, it turns folk off.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Once you read Acts 8:1, isn't it pretty obvious that the Phillip in Acts 8 CANNOT be one of the 12?

I believe Phillip is one of the twelve.

Jesus said to the Apostles, "8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

The first three baptisms are going to track geographically with Apostolic oversight in Jerusalem, Sameria and ends of the earth. After the first three geographical baptisms, there is never a mention of any of the Twelve baptizing again.

1. Jerusalem--12 Apostles (Apostolic baptizing)
2. Sameria -- Phillip, Peter and John (Apostolic baptizing)
3. Desert Road to Gaza--Phlllip (Apostolic baptizing)
----------
4. Paul's baptism Damascus by Ananias. (non-Apostolic baptizing)
5. Cornelius and the Gentile baptism (Peter present but didn't baptize) He ordered them to be baptized.

There is no normative way the Holy Spirit is given in baptism in the Book of Acts. The gift of the HS may come immediately before baptism (Cornelius, Acts 10) immediately after baptism (Acts 8 & 19) or during (Acts 2, 9:17)

The first baptisms had all 12 present. The second baptism had 3 apostles present. The third baptism had only one apostle present.

Why does the Scripture never record the Apostles baptizing after the third geographical area? Perhaps I Corinthians 1 gives us an answer. The division in the church in Corinth was over which teacher to follow. It is clear that some in the church were feeling superior to others because of who taught them the gospel and had baptized them. In fact, some were even claiming they were baptized in the name of their teacher. That's why Paul said he was glad that he baptized none of them, "so that no one would say you were baptized in my name" (1 Corinthians 1:15)

The apostles gained huge prominence in the early church. Paul understood this and after baptizing a couple households, quits baptizing because it caused problems within the church. People bragged that they were baptized by Paul.

Where does Paul get this idea leave the administration of baptism to others? In all probability he gets it from Peter (Acts 10:48) where Peter preaches and orders others to baptize. Peter may have had the same problem as Paul did. They were pillars of the newly formed church. Peter also face this problem with the Gentile baptisms. Therefore, Peter ordered the Gentiles to baptized by his associates.

Where does Peter get this idea to leave the administration of baptism to others. Probably Jesus. Jesus never baptized, but his disciples did (John 4:1-2). Peter followed Jesus' example.

 

[Guojing]

Like everything else I send my questions upstairs...

Your personal criticisms are a bit sad really - You don't have a monopoly on biblical interpretation.

You have some interesting things to say but when you push it too far, and start putting others down, it turns folk off.

I never regarded myself as having a "monopoly on biblical interpretation", in fact, I already stated once to you here The indwelling presence

of course, I can agree that "maybe they are correct". I have no problem with that, I don't have to demand they cannot.

If I did, I won't be genuinely fascinated by how different people come to different understanding of scripture.

How come you interpret my responses to you as "personal criticism"? Was there anything vicious or rude in those comments?

As you have stated to me, ever consider that "Just maybe you interpret people's intentions incorrectly"?

 

[Guojing]

I believe Phillip is one of the twelve.

Jesus said to the Apostles, "8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

The first three baptisms are going to track geographically with Apostolic oversight in Jerusalem, Sameria and ends of the earth. After the first three geographical baptisms, there is never a mention of any of the Twelve baptizing again.

1. Jerusalem--12 Apostles (Apostolic baptizing)
2. Sameria -- Phillip, Peter and John (Apostolic baptizing)
3. Desert Road to Gaza--Phlllip (Apostolic baptizing)
----------
4. Paul's baptism Damascus by Ananias. (non-Apostolic baptizing)
5. Cornelius and the Gentile baptism (Peter present but didn't baptize) He ordered them to be baptized.

There is no normative way the Holy Spirit is given in baptism in the Book of Acts. The gift of the HS may come immediately before baptism (Cornelius, Acts 10) immediately after baptism (Acts 8 & 19) or during (Acts 2, 9:17)

The first baptisms had all 12 present. The second baptism had 3 apostles present. The third baptism had only one apostle present.

Why does the Scripture never record the Apostles baptizing after the third geographical area? Perhaps I Corinthians 1 gives us an answer. The division in the church in Corinth was over which teacher to follow. It is clear that some in the church were feeling superior to others because of who taught them the gospel and had baptized them. In fact, some were even claiming they were baptized in the name of their teacher. That's why Paul said he was glad that he baptized none of them, "so that no one would say you were baptized in my name" (1 Corinthians 1:15)

The apostles gained huge prominence in the early church. Paul understood this and after baptizing a couple households, quits baptizing because it caused problems within the church. People bragged that they were baptized by Paul.

Where does Paul get this idea leave the administration of baptism to others? In all probability he gets it from Peter (Acts 10:48) where Peter preaches and orders others to baptize. Peter may have had the same problem as Paul did. They were pillars of the newly formed church. Peter also face this problem with the Gentile baptisms. Therefore, Peter ordered the Gentiles to baptized by his associates.

Where does Peter get this idea to leave the administration of baptism to others. Probably Jesus. Jesus never baptized, but his disciples did (John 4:1-2). Peter followed Jesus' example.

So out of curiosity, how would you fit Acts 8:1 into your view that the Phillips in Acts 8 was one of the 12?

As to your point using Acts' version of the GC, one simple way to reconcile is to link that to Luke's version of the GC, the latter spelt the order of movement.

47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Since Luke wrote both Luke and Acts, you can interpret this as stating a divine order:

1. Jerusalem (HQ Israel) need to accept the gospel of the kingdom first.
2. Once Israel the nation repented, then every Jew from Israel will become priests to reach the remaining nations for Christ (Zechariah 8:23).

Once you are able to recognize this, Acts 8:1 makes perfect sense. Israel has just shown the ultimate rebellion to God:

1. they rejected God the Father by rejecting all the OT prophets, including finally killing John the Baptist the final and the greatest of all of them (Matthew 11:11, Matthew 23:37, Matthew 21:33-36)
2. they rejected God the Son by putting him on the cross (Acts 2:36).
3. they rejected God the Holy Spirit by stoning Stephen who was full of the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51)

Since the entire Trinity was rejected by Israel, Israel is stuck in rebellion, how can the 12 leave Jerusalem to reach Judea, Samaria and the ends of the earth, as you stated?

So the conclusion remains, the Phillip in Acts 8 cannot be one of the 12.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

how can the 12 leave Jerusalem to reach Judea, Samaria and the ends of the earth, as you stated?

By walking.

 

[Guojing]

By walking.

You disagree with my interpretation of scripture events here?

1. they rejected God the Father by rejecting all the OT prophets, including finally killing John the Baptist the final and the greatest of all of them (Matthew 23:37, Matthew 21:33-36)
2. they rejected God the Son by putting him on the cross (Acts 2:36).
3. they rejected God the Holy Spirit by stoning Stephen who was full of the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51)

Since the entire Trinity was rejected by Israel, Israel is stuck in rebellion...

How else would you interpret what went down for national Israel all the way to the stoning of Stephen?

 

[Carl Emerson]

@Guojing you said.... No one else has showed you Acts 8:1 until now?

Not sure why you would say that to a brother who has been reading scripture for 60 years.