VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 15:32:26 06/29/02 Sat
Author: Doug
Subject: Re: Acts 2 - "gift of the Holy Spirit"
In reply to: Jay Dee 's message, "Re: Acts 2 - "gift of the Holy Spirit"" on 15:23:52 06/24/02 Mon

Hi Jay Dee,

Hope things are well with you and yours.

As for you suggesting you are "thorough." If you truly wanted to be "thorough" then we would have gone through every passage dealign with the H.S., including those of the Old Testament. As it is, you are simply blowing smoke by bringing in references to the Holy Spirit as found in the early portions of Luke. Like I said, you may bring them, and you have, however, they add nothing to your argument or any argument. All they do is simply show that the miraculous work of the H.S. As for being "boring." It is obvious you do not know me or you would have concluded that I think it would be boring. Boring, No! Irrelevant, Yes! And, I think you know that! By the way, you have entered these passages but have given no explanation of them nor have you tied them in with the context (Acts 2/Joel 2) at all. So, if you truly wanted a "holistic" approach (which again is not truly the point) then "whole" of the subject would have to be discussed. As it stands, you pecked at a couple of passages that have no bearing on the matter at all, which is fine but you should know that and I do believe you are aware that :-) So I am not misunderstood, again, you may enter passage into the discussion, but you must first show how they are related and why they are related. It won't do just say they are, you must do something with them, Jay Dee! As for anachromism - you simply enamored with it and have continually used it as part of your exegesis. Leave it alone! It won't work :-)

As for the "ablative" case: Most Greek scholars promote the 5 case system as the best. There a few exceptions such as your trusty friend AT Robertson. :-) But he doesn't help your case either, no pun intended!

First, let me refer you to Acts 2:33; "Being therefore by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath poured forth this, which ye see and hear" (ASV).

Note again that what was poured out was both SEEN and heard. Since no man has seen God at anytime, and the H.S. is God, what was poured out was not God (NOT the H.S.). What was poured out was power, "out from" the Holy Spirit. There is the explanation of the context, which completely. and truthfully, explains Acts 2:16-18 (the "this" is the "that"). Jay Dee, there is the context, all of it, and not one part missing. Therefore, the context shows that "apo" is genitive, and it may not explain all of the passage (if ablative) by itself, but it is certainly clear now that it is coupled with the context, especially Peter's summary comments of Acts 2:33. Again, down goes your proposition because it fails miserably with the context.

Here is another reason why even your attempt with
the "ablative" fails, if indeed it is in the ablative case. First, the ablative, itself, is the case of separation. It uses the same form as the genitive but its function is distinct, and this is according to Summers. Second, the ablative is the "whence" case (origin or separation), expressed in English by "off, out, from, away, etc.," and this is according to Davis. The name "ablative" suggests the basal significance of the case: ablativus, that which is borne away, or separated. Its basal significance is point of departure. It is involved not only in the literal removal of one object from the vicinity of another, but in any idea which implies departure from antecedent relations, such as derivation, cause, origin, and the like (Dana & Mantey, Pg. 81). Moreover, if in the "ablative", then the verb (I will pour forth) as in Acts 2:33 is compounded with the preposition, "ek." As you know, verbs compounded with "apo", "ek", and "para", in the 8 case system, would take the ablative, where these prepositions bring to the ver the idea of separation (see Dana & Mantey). If introducing an ablative case noun (Spirit), OF ("apo" the prep. "apo" takes the ablative) My Spirit. The word "Spirit" is in the ablative or case of origin. Therefore, the the Spirit is the origin of what was poured forth. Again, your attempt with the ablative utterly fails!

As for the Septuagint. The brightest of the elite Jewish scholars (70 of them) were picked - chosen to translate. The Septuagint was considered the greatest translation of its day and was clearly used and accepted by Jews, including Jesus. Yes, Jay Dee, I'm well aware of the difference between the Greek/Jewish rendering of the Hebrew but that does not support anything at all as the whole, entire context of Joel bears the actual meaning out. Strike two, Jay Dee :-) As for the Spirit falling, being shed forth, out pouring, etc, all this is the use of metonymy and Acts 8:14-19 clearly demonstrates this. I have consistently said the use of metonymy is employed but you have not once commented on that, not once. Strike 3.

Asfor the asking of the Spirit; I believe Luke shows us his commentary on Luke 11:13 with Acts 8. That is what I said in my previous post.

When did the people of Acts 2 receive the Spirit - then and there? I think not. The Text does not say. I believe we learn later in Acts 8 and elsewhere how the people received the Spirit. What do you offer as proof that they (those on Pentecost) received the Spirit that moment? I can learn later from the same writer, Luke, how they received the Spirit but not from the immediate context of Acts 2.

Again, Acts 2 and Acts 10 are the only two times the expression "gift of the Holy Spirit" is used and both times it is dealing with the miraculous. I have discussed some of this already if you care to read what I have written.

Looking forward to your response and to the introduction of the John passages concerning the Holy Spirit. As it stands, the gift of the Holy Spirit was nothing more than the miraculous endowments that came out from the Holy Spirit. The grammar bears this out, the context bears this out, the evidence of Acts bears this out, the use of "apo" in the genitive or even in the ablative bears this out. The fact that the expression "gift of the Holy Spirit" as found in Acts 2 and Acts 10 shows conclusively that the expression was used both times in the context of the miraculous and not ever in the context of the non-miraculous.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-6
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.