Plain Sense Syllogisms from Acts 2

[JackRUS]

Grasshopper wrote:

1. Who do the NT writers say pierced Jesus?
2. Acts 1 refers to "in like manner" not "as you see Him".
3. Perhaps you should read John 19:37 for the fulfillment of Zech 12:10.

Really? Then please explain why it says in Zech. 12:10 that the Jews would "mourn for Him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for Him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn."

Didn't they all mock Him at His crucifixion? You see Grasshopper, this is just another example of a prophesy with more than one fulfillment.

And you might also explain Rev. 1:7 which even Preterists must admit was written after the crucifixion.

And BTW, do you take these verses that I brought up literally about His visual appearing?

And Acts 1 has the angel saying that Jesus would come in like manner. He left visably in the clouds, just like Rev. 1:7 says that He will return. "and every eye will see Him.."

 

[Tim]

Pastor Larry,

You got to the bottom line when you said:

"If you don't take these prophecies literally, then why do you take anything else literally? And how do you know what to take literally and what not to take literally? What if that whole atonement thing was not to be taken literally? What if that whole Jesus deal was a figure of speech? How do you decide? It makes no sense."

This is the classic "slippery slope" argument--and believe me, I share your concern that the fundamentals of the gospel not be allowed to slip. I fought a long battle against liberal theology in a church I attended some years ago. But this argument about prophecy is not of that nature.

I have always believed that historical records in the Bible are completely literal. Nothing has ever shaken me from that belief. Thus I'm a six-day creationist. Many Christians have shared my basic views concerning literal Bible history and sometimes figurative Bible prophecy for generations. Then dispensationalism rose and has been largely intolerant of these historic beliefs.

But despite what Darby and Schofield, and all the rest say, prophecy in the Bible was never meant to be read as a predated newspaper. By design, God wrote in veiled language about many events yet to come. Isaiah 13 and Ezekiel 32 make it very clear that God sometimes used figurative language regarding future events.

The difference between your method of interpretation and mine, is that you insist on viewing ALL prophecy through a literal lens. By doing so, you need to twist clear NT statements that illustrate it was not to be understood that way. That is the ultimate point of this thread. Your premise constrains your interpretation so much that you cannot let the scripture speak for itself.

 

[TCassidy]

Premise #4. You don't understand what Peter was saying. He never said that the events of Pentecost were a fulfillment of Joel 2:28 and following. Read what he said again.

 

[TCassidy]

 

[Tim]

"My brother, I am a constant reader of my Bible, and I soon found that what I was taught to believe (by Darby's doctrine) did not always agree with what my Bible said. I came to see that I must either part company with John Darby, or my precious Bible, and I chose to cling to my Bible and part from Mr. Darby."
- George Müeller, a contemporary and one time supporter of Darby quoted by Robert Cameron, Scriptural Truth About the Lord's Return, pp.146-7.

 

[Grasshopper]

Huh??? That makes no sense. Preterists have a load of problems apart from this, but they certainly don't interpret Scripture as literally as dispensationalists do.

Here is what you said:

Who said it wasn't to be taken literally? The literal meaning is the illustrative use of it.

My point is things can still be literal yet be expressed using figurative, metaphoric or apocalyptic language. Perhaps you disagree.

When you hold up a picture of your daughter, do you say "This is my daughter" or "This is like my daughter"? I would be willing to bet you say the former, and no one ever questions you because they understand exactly what you mean. When Christ held up the bread and cup and said "This is ..." he clearly was using an illustration. Why didn't he say "This is like ..." For the same reason Peter didn't. It was obvious; it was the normal use of language.

The reason Jesus said “this is” is because that is exactly what He meant. The bread and the cup were His blood and body metaphorically speaking. To say “this is like my blood and body” would erase the very meaning of what Jesus was saying. Does your pastor say during the Lords Supper,”Take this bread cause it is kinda like Jesus’ body”?

quote:

So what “last days” was Paul speaking of 20-30 years after Christ?????

The last days is the church age. That is not under dispute. But look at what was happening. That is the key. And look at the context.

Here is what you said:

Tom, I think that Paul is a great comparison. When Paul talks of the last days, he is referring to things that are actually going on. Joel's comments on the last days also refer to things, but when we read Acts 2 we can see that they aren't going on. So comparing the uses of "last days" argues that my interpretation is correct.

I ask again, what “last days” was Paul referring to? Last days of what? Are you saying the “last days” of the Church Age were also happening at the very beginning of the Church Age?

Ah hah ... you are exposed ... You read the first part (language right out of the OT) as literal and then in the middle with no contextual reason at all. Your reason for switching is to support your position. This is the problem with your position. You take the same passage and read part of it literal and part of it figurative. That is problemmatic to a high degree.

You would never do this……….oh wait you already did. You said “this is” is figurative then say everything afterward is literal.

Lets take you picture analogy. You reach into your literal pocket pull out your literal wallet and show me your figurative daughter.

Read Is. 13 and tell me if it is all literal or all figurative of a combination of both.
I dare you to answer this.

Then perhaps you can show me in Revelation how you don’t mix literal with figurative.

The fact is that the things Joel prophesied of didn't happen. How can it be fulfilled if it didn't happen?

They did happen. That is the point. No need to re-word the inspired text to make it fit LaHaye’s Prophecy Study Bible notes.

Yes, but how long is that day? And what particular part of it are you referring to? The DOL is a long period of time, and the time preceding it is also.

Really? Do dispies such as Pentecost and Walvoord teach the “day of the Lord” is thousands of years long? Is this what you believe?

quote:

Act 2:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Are you saying this is still future? Sure sounds like a relevant New Covenant message.

It is the gospel message. It has always been true.

So Acts 2:21 was fulfilled, but not anything before it?

You never answered as to why would Peter quote this from Joel if it really had nothing to do with the events at Pentecost or any time soon thereafter?

My plea is for you to put aside your preconceived notions and take it for what it says.

You mean when it says "this is" take it for what it says?

Actually I already have put aside my preconceived notions. Every preterist I have read didn’t start out a preterist. They had to lay aside their pre-suppositions and denominational teaching and look to see if what they believed and were being taught was really based in scripture. How about you? Do you still believe basically the same thing you did when you first had any idea of eschatology? Probably like me, it was all you were ever taught.


TCassidy

Premise #4. You don't understand what Peter was saying. He never said that the events of Pentecost were a fulfillment of Joel 2:28 and following. Read what he said again.

Act 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

You know I keep reading it and it keeps saying "this is that". Perhaps I have a poor version what does yours say?

 

[Grasshopper]

Really? Then please explain why it says in Zech. 12:10 that the Jews would "mourn for Him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for Him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn."

Is this basically what you believe:

Zec 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, (2000 year and counting gap) and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

You separate the part John says was fulfilled at the Cross and the rest by a few centuries?

I believe they probably were mourning about Jesus when the Romans had them surrounded in Jerusalem for three and a half years. As they were starving to death, being killed by their fellow Jews or roasting their own children to eat they probably remembered the words of Jesus about this coming day and who He said He was. Just a guess though.

But don’t stop with just Zech 12, how about Zech 13:1? Still future? How about 13:7? What did Matthew have to say about that? Zech 14 speaks of the “day of the Lord” which Malachi also spoke of.

Didn't they all mock Him at His crucifixion? You see Grasshopper, this is just another example of a prophesy with more than one fulfillment.

More than one fulfillment? You were making the case that it hadn’t had its first fulfillment yet. Which is it?

If prophecies have more than one fulfillment, who gets to decide which one have more than one? Jack Van Impe?

If a prophecy can have two fulfillments why not three? Four? Five, etc…? Perhaps Jesus is only the first fulfillment of a yet greater Messiah who is still to come?
Where do we stop with this nonsense?

And you might also explain Rev. 1:7 which even Preterists must admit was written after the crucifixion

Rev 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Now who did John say were the ones who pierced Jesus? Remember? That was your homework for Zech 12:10. It seems to me those who pierced Him in Zech 12:10 are the same referred to in Rev 1:7 and whom John says were the ones there at the crucifixion. Is it your belief that is some future Jews who God accuses of piercing Jesus? But since your into literalism lets put Rev 1:7 in the time context which is given to us.

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass ; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Rev 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand .

This is where the re-wording/re-defining literalist do their best work.

And BTW, do you take these verses that I brought up literally about His visual appearing?

Here we go with the literal again. Read the first 9 verse of Zech 10, since this is where we are, and tell me if you take everything literally.

When Jesus appeared to Paul, did he see Him?

Act 9:17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

Since I believe His coming was in the destruction of Jerusalem then yes, I believe they saw His coming.

Partial-preterist would probably agree with you on Acts 1, referring to His final Coming. However I do not believe this coming is a different one than Matt 16:27-28 or Matt 26:64 or several other NT references.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Dear Brother Tim:
I looked up 'Syllogism" in my dictionary.
None of the three definitions there look much like what
you offered as a syllogism???

Major Premise:
Prophecy should always be interpreted literally.

Minor Premise:
Peter said that Joel's prophecy was fulfilled at Pentecost

Conclusion:
Joel's prophecy was literally fulfilled at Pentacost

BTW, the sun, moon, stars prophecy is also for the Second Coming,
which hasn't happened yet.

There is also a big difference between 'literal' and 'physical'.

Mystic Christians spiritualize everything.
Preterists spiritualize prophecy.
Futurists are waiting for a physical/literal fulfillment
of all prophecies which can be physically/literally fulfilled.

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by Grasshopper:
Act 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

You know I keep reading it and it keeps saying "this is that". Perhaps I have a poor version what does yours say?

No problem with your version, only with your understanding of English. Peter did not say "this is that which was spoken of by the prophet Joel." He said "this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel." In other words Peter said "This is what Joel said" then quoted Joel 2:28 and following, ending with "And whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

Peter simply said that the words he was quoting were first spoken by Joel. He never said the events were a fulfillment of Joel's prophecy, for it is obvious there were no "wonders in heaven above" nor "signs in the earth beneath" nor "blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke" and "the sun" was not "turned into darkness, and the moon into blood" so it is obvious that Peter did not say what you assume he said.

What Peter said was what every preacher says when he selects a text to preach from, "This is what John 3:16 says, . . . "

"This is what Joel said" does not equate to "this is what Joel was talking about."

 

[HankD]

Some have said that it was the beginning of the prophecy and the rest would have followed if Israel as a nation repented and were baptised

"Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost"

Although many were baptised, as a nation most did not turn (and particularly the leadership) and they sealed their fate in blood and murdered Stephen "recrucifying" as it were, Jesus Christ unto themsleves.

Later Luke says...

Acts 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

The conclusion : the remainder of the prophecy of Joel will happen at an undisclosed future time.

Luke 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Then
Joel 2
30 And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke.
31 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come.
32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.

Then:
Zechariah 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

HankD

 

[Tim]

Originally posted by TCassidy:
Peter simply said that the words he was quoting were first spoken by Joel. He never said the events were a fulfillment of Joel's prophecy, for it is obvious there were no "wonders in heaven above" nor "signs in the earth beneath" nor "blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke" and "the sun" was not "turned into darkness, and the moon into blood" so it is obvious that Peter did not say what you assume he said.

What Peter said was what every preacher says when he selects a text to preach from, "This is what John 3:16 says, . . . "

"This is what Joel said" does not equate to "this is what Joel was talking about."

TC,

Peter was not preaching a typical modern Sunday sermon in Acts 2. The long awaited pouring out of ther Holy Spirit had just happened. It was the "birth" of the church. There were miraculous signs. People were wondering, "What's going on here? These people must be drunk!"

Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit responds, saying, "You men of Judea, and all you that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: For these are not drunken, as you suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel. . . "

In other words, "This is not what you suppose it is, but this is what Joel prophesied." There is really no other sensible way to understand his introductory statements in context.

Your idea would be more like, "What's going on here?" With Peter not responding to the question, but instead launching into some devotional thoughts on an unrelated passage of scripture.

Don't insist that God fulfill prophecy in the way you think he should. It's the same mistake that many of the Jews made when Jesus came the first time.

 

[JackRUS]

Grasshopper.
You wrote:

Is this basically what you believe:

Zec 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, (2000 year and counting gap) and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

You separate the part John says was fulfilled at the Cross and the rest by a few centuries?

For off, do me a favor and not speculate on what I believe with what you put forth as a strawman argument.

And wha'st wrong with a 2,000 time-gap between prophecy and fulfillment? Have you ever read Gen. 3:15? What would you say is the time-gap there? And did you know that this prophesy has been only 1/2 fulfilled several thousand years after it's pronouncement?

And the ones who did pierce Him are the Jewish nation that also rejected Him. Of course if you want to go to a real literal end here the one's that pierced Him were a few Roman soldiers. Of course we both know that they were not killed in 70AD. I would also argue that many of the Jews present at His crucifixion never lived to see that day 40 years later.

And your guess, without any Scripture, that the Jews saw Jesus coming in 70AD is amazing due to the fact that the great Jewish historian Josephus, a contemporary of that time, wrote nothing of this great visual appearing. Why is that Grasshopper?

And doesn't Rev. 1:7 say that "every eye shall see Him, and they also which pierced Him, and that every kindred of the earth shall wail because of Him?

That hardly could be argued to have occurred in 70AD or any other time in history. And why then didn't the Roman troops see Him?

And BTW, I can hardly believe that you want me to take a lesson from Zechariah 12 when it is plain in verse 8 that the LORD says that He will "defend" the Jewish inhabitants of Jerusalem, and that in the next verse He would destroy all the nations (more than one Roman Empire BTW) that come up against them.

Tell me then if that's what really happened in 70AD, of did the LORD actually come to destroy and scatter the Jewish nation "until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled"? Rom. 11:25-27

So you remain in error. But at least your view is what's fashionable in these last days. 2 Pet.3:3

 

[ituttut]

Originally posted by Tim:
I recently heard a sermon which directly addressed the prickly issue of Peter citing Joel's prophesy as fulfilled at Pentecost. It inspired a few plain sense syllogisms. As the old saying goes, "if the plain sense makes common sense, seek no other sense." But if it doesn't . . .

#1
Premise:
Prophecy should always be interpreted literally.

Statement:
Peter said that Joel's prophecy was fulfilled at Pentecost.

Conclusion: (pick one option)

A Peter was wrong.
B It was fulfilled (except for those things about the sun, moon and stars because they're still there).
C It was fulfilled. (better re-examine the premise)

C: The prophecy was fulfilled at Pentecost, but the devil is in the details.

Acts 2:17-19, ”And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh:” The “town crier” in Jerusalem comes forth with news that the Jews are doing miracles, and are trying to get all Israel to accept their King. If they do then the Spirit will be poured out on all men. A year later – The “town crier” announces Israel REFUSES THE HOLY GHOST. THEY KILLED STEPHEN, of the Pentecostal church.

FLASH! An interruption in a program has occurred, and few seem to understand the reason at this time. We will continue where we left off when the cause is removed. RAPTURE. Folks, we are back and return you to the point of the interruption. ”and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:” HEAD LINE in the Jerusalem Paper – God is again dealing directly with His people, the Nation of Israel.

18. ”And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:” We interrupt this program just to let you folks know there are some “weirdo’s” running around these days. See right there. See them, those two freaks. You can tell they didn’t graduate from Stanford, or Harvard, and not even from SMU. We also know there are at least over one hundred thousand “kooks” on the loose all around the world, and they are not saying “loving” things. They are just so “opinionated”. Stay tuned, as we return you to your regular program of “she” makes love to “her”, and “he” to “him”.

19. ”And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:” Alert! Alert! Have we got something to show you. Some very “strange” things have just begun. My aunt Lucy told me stuff like this could happen, and “by golly she was right”. I’ve been trying to track her down, but she seems to have just disappeared……….Look at all of that blood, and stuff. Rembrandt could not have done any better. Listeners in all my life I have never seen anything like this, so you can take it from me that something strange is going on. Stay turned as we keep on this most recent story. My aunt said there would be more things to come. We’ll see.

20. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: 21. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.


#2
Premise:
We are living in the last days.

Statement:
Peter said Pentecost happened in the last days.

Conclusion: (pick one option)

A Peter was wrong.
B The last days are lasting more than 2000 years now, and counting.
C Peter was speaking of different last days, specifically pertaining to the nation of Israel. (re-examine premise)

B

#3
Premise:
A literal fulfillment of all of Joel's prophecy is obviously yet future.

Statement:
Peter said that after those events it would come to pass that whosoever called upon the name of the Lord would be saved.

Conclusionpick one option)

A. Peter was wrong.
B. He's talking about people being saved in the future tribulation or millenium.
C. Romans 10:13 "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."(Praise God! and . . . ahem re-examine premise)

B for Peter’s quote is to prophecy of Pentecost, and the Tribulation, and possibly beyond. The placement of "whosoever" comes within the time frame of either side of "that great and notable day of the Lord come". Peter, as did all men and angels, understood these things were in the future. The Gospel of Peter is shown as he speaks, just a few minutes later after these sayings, as he addresses “ye men of Israel”. The gospel of Peter is found in Acts 2:36-38, to the House of Israel.

We know after Damascus Road another gospel will began budding, as that Old gospel will be phased out. Peter saw and heard it with his own eyes and ears when he was sent to Cornelius. Peter and the Jews with him didn’t understand it at the time, but knew something New had just happened. In the mean time, Christ was tutoring Paul in an Arabian desert, so all would come to the knowledge of the gospel of Christ Jesus from heaven, the beginning of forming of the Body of Christ, and the Christian faith of the Grace of God, through faith, without a work/s.

So what was that gospel of Peter to the men of Israel? You crucified Jesus, and He is your Lord and Christ. These Israelites are “sick of heart”. They are guilty and know they must do something, but what. They ask Peter. Peter says for what you have done, Ye Men of Israel must ”Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” There was not a heathen within sight of this happening.

Paul in Acts 16:31 says the same as Joel, but in a different form to the Gentile’s, and this was not in prophecy, so Paul’s quote in Romans is to the here and now in this hidden dispensation that no one knew about. How do we know this is so? Joel didn’t know and Peter didn’t know about the Body of Christ Church, until Christ revealed it to Paul.

When the prophetic promise of ”whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved” is effective, those in the Body of Christ will be in heaven with our Lord Jesus Christ. Those saved when it “shall come to pass, are after the rapture. Christian faith, ituttut

 

[ituttut]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry pertaining to remarks by Tim and Grasshopper:

Don't you think it is a little early in the discussion to stoop to this? Why degenerate this so fast?

That terrible word “dispensation” of Paul's (by way of Christ Jesus) is distinctive in Paul’s gospel, as is “through faith” first found, really sets peoples teeth on edge. It never fails Pastor Larry for the inveterate nature to come forth with disparaging remarks against those that see a dispensation. Christian faith, ituttut

 

[Craigbythesea]

Pastor Larry wrote,

The common sense of Acts 2 is that PEter was using an analogy or illustration, a "this is like" scenario. This is common in speech and theology so it is not unexpected. And we know that Peter was not speaking of the true fulfillment of Joel because what Joel prophesied didn't happen. When we understand that both Joel and Peter told the truth, then we see that Peter was using Joel as an illustration of what was presently happening. There is nothing deep or confusing here.

Some people apparently spend more time watching the "Twilight Zone" reruns than they do reading their Bible!

If Pastor Larry is right—he is the only man that I know of who has any common sense! And anyone with any common sense can see that Pastor Larry is very much mistaken, so there most certainly is something confusing here!

Peter was a very young Christian on the day of Pentecost and there is no good reason to rule out the possibility that he got a little carried away. Common sense, however tells us very clearly that that the interpretation that Peter gave of Joel’s prophesy was not at all a literal interpretation. And, of course, Joel was a human being with Jewish expectations, and these Jewish expectations may have colored his prophesy. The bottom line here is that anyone with any common sense can see that there is a disparity between what Joel wrote and what Peter said about it. And that bottom line does not speak so very well of Pastor Larry’s comments.

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by Tim:
It was the "birth" of the church.

Nonsense! Read the gospels. The church was founded by Christ and existed in the gospels.

There were miraculous signs.

Yes, there were signs. We all know that.

People were wondering, "What's going on here? These people must be drunk!"

Yes, we all know that.

Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit responds, saying, "You men of Judea, and all you that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: For these are not drunken, as you suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel. . . "

Yes, we all know that.

In other words, "This is not what you suppose it is, but this is what Joel prophesied."

Yes, Peter said "this is what Joel prophesied" then he quoted Joel. Nowhere in the account does he ever say that the events of Pentecost were a fulfillment of Joel's prophecy. There is really no other sensible way to understand his statements in context.

Your idea would be more like, "What's going on here?" With Peter not responding to the question, but instead launching into some devotional thoughts on an unrelated passage of scripture.

You seem to have missed the point rather badly.

Don't insist that God fulfill prophecy in the way you think he should.

I don't, and I didn't. And you shouldn't insist that God change the bible to agree with your misconceptions.

It's the same mistake that many of the Jews made when Jesus came the first time.

Yes, your mistake is much the same as theirs. They didn't search the scriptures to understand these things either.

 

[Pastor Larry]

If Pastor Larry is right—he is the only man that I know of who has any common sense!

Then you need to get out more. For all your supposed studying, how in the world can you think that my position is unique to me? There are many who, right or wrong, say exactly what I have said. Therefore, if I am right, I am not the only one. And if I am wrong, I am still not the only one. Surely you should be familiar with this position already.

And anyone with any common sense can see that Pastor Larry is very much mistaken

Then take each line of Joel's prophecy (including all of it) and tell us when and where it happened. Don't leave anything out. If it was fulfilled in the way you claim, then surely you should have no trouble with that.

Of course, that will lead to a very short post (since it isn't in Scripture) or a very long post trying to circumvent what the text says and explain why it really happened without any record of it.

Peter was a very young Christian on the day of Pentecost and there is no good reason to rule out the possibility that he got a little carried away.

Wow ... That is unbelievable coming from someone who claims to be orthodox. Peter, under the inspiration of the Spirit, got carried away and said something taht wasn't exactly true. Count me out of such "scholarship."

Common sense, however tells us very clearly that that the interpretation that Peter gave of Joel’s prophesy was not at all a literal interpretation. And, of course, Joel was a human being with Jewish expectations, and these Jewish expectations may have colored his prophesy. The bottom line here is that anyone with any common sense can see that there is a disparity between what Joel wrote and what Peter said about it.

This disparity you mention, coupled with my commitment to the biblical teaching of inspiration is exactly why I reject your position. Your position is totally without merit; it is non-sensical even in a most rudimentary fashion. I can entertain the possibility Peter used Joel's prophecy in a different way that I am presently convinced. But to entertain the notion that Peter was carried away and that Joel was "too Jewish" to really be accurate is too much for this Christian to bear. God spare his church from this kind of false teaching.

And that bottom line does not speak so very well of Pastor Larry’s comments.

Given your "bottom line," you are correct. I see no reason to sink to your bottom line. It is way below the high view that God gives of his word and that God expects his followers to hold.

 

[JackRUS]

I'm glad that you addresed this Larry because I almost fell of my chair while reading Craig's quite liberal view on the inspiration of Scripture.

Maybe he meant to close his post with a

instead of his usual

and got somewhat.

 

[just-want-peace]

Some people apparently spend more time watching the "Twilight Zone" reruns than they do reading their Bible!

If Pastor Larry is right—he is the only man that I know of who has any common sense! And anyone with any common sense can see that Pastor Larry is very much mistaken, so there most certainly is something confusing here!

Peter was a very young Christian on the day of Pentecost and there is no good reason to rule out the possibility that he got a little carried away. Common sense, however tells us very clearly that that the interpretation that Peter gave of Joel’s prophesy was not at all a literal interpretation. And, of course, Joel was a human being with Jewish expectations, and these Jewish expectations may have colored his prophesy. The bottom line here is that anyone with any common sense can see that there is a disparity between what Joel wrote and what Peter said about it. And that bottom line does not speak so very well of Pastor Larry’s comments.

The more I read, the more I'm convinced that this "education"(?) came from a Sears catalog special!!

Whew!!!!

 

[canadyjd]

The context of Acts 2 is the coming of the Holy Spirit. Peter's focus is on explaining that the Holy Spirit has been poured out, per Joel's prophecy, which he quotes at length.

The "this is that" (this is what) which was spoken by Joel.....is referring directly to the coming of the Holy Spirit. That is what Peter is explaining to them. That is the context. That part of the prophecy was literally fulfilled.

This in no way implies that the whole prophecy had to be fulfilled at exactly that moment. The rest of the prophecy shall surely come to pass (which is why Peter mentions it at length) as well, much of which has and was covered by Tim earlier.

peace to you