Paul did not write Hebrews; we do not know who did
- Thread starter Right Divider
- Start date
What changed in Acts 2? Knowing it was and is a Jewish ceremonial festival. The position doesn't make any sense to me. So I have to ask.
Right Divider
Body part
Not only ceremonial, but lawfully required!
Bladerunner
Active member
These were the last days of Jesus on this earth. Up until this time, the apostles did not have the Holy Spirit dwelling within each of them yet in verse Acts 1:2"Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:"
yet in verse 4-5.."And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence."
In Acts 1:8.."But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth."
The next verses to the end of the chapter 1, is the ascension of Jesus Christ to Heaven. Next we look at Acts 2 and the coming of the Holy Spirit (The Day of Pentecost) in verses 2-4.....From verse 5-8 we find out that not only Galaleans (Jews) out of every nation. After Peter's sermon three thousand were saved and received the Holy Spirit.
Acts 2:47..."Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added TO THE CHURCH daily such as should be saved."
Now if the Church begins in Acts 8 where we find Saul persecuting the Church (those From Acts 2) even as they lay Stephen to rest. Yet, in Acts 10:45, "And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost."
The first Gentiles in the Church that Jesus Built.
There is no doubt as to the date of the Pentecost....The 50th day after the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Is Mid Acts addictive or not?
Why? What would one miss, if Mid Acts is wrong? I mean to say, if Mid Acts is wrong, then how could it be profitable to study a thing that's wrong? I mean, why study Marxism? You don't need to get really familiar with Marxism, because it's wrong. You're not going to miss anything, by not becoming intimately familiar with something that's wrong, like Marxism.
The only way I can think of why studying intimately wrong things, is for the benefit of others, not just yourself, so that you can preach and teach and encourage why it is wrong to believe in and practice Marxism. It's just wrong, and it's quasi-addictive apparently, because most everybody who tries smoking cigrits just to see, winds up a smoker, so that's like Marxism, so it makes you wonder, is this something I can even safely entertain trying to smoke cigrits.
If it's genuinely addictive, or highly likely to hook you, maybe entertaining trying to smoke cigrits, is not only not profitable, but maybe it's even unsafe.
Unless, again, you use your experience, like in the movie Super Size Me. As a warning for others.
So Lon, given the above, can you tell me which it is, that you mean? I mean is it profitable to try to smoke cigrits safely? That just sounds like threading a needle. It can't be done by everybody. Know that if you try to smoke cigrits, you're probably going to like them, because you're a human. Can you just try smoking cigrits? Or is this putatively temporary experiment, going to look more like falling into a pit that you can't get out of? And if you can't get out of it not because you're trying but the sides are too steep and tall, but it's because you're having a great time and relaxing and enjoying yourself, whether or not you're in a pit ... there is just more than one option here, is my point.
Which are you? Are you the one saying to us, "Don't worry about liking it, because you won't like it," meaning something like that smoking cigrits is like smoking wood or paper or hay, where you're getting all the downsides of smoking because smoking literally just wood or grass or dried spinach leaves, shockingly isn't particularly healthful, if one were to take that up; so there's an inherent health risk to smoking simpliciter, whatever smoke you're inhaling, is not healthful | but without any flavor (it's the flavor of the cigrit smoke which is pleasant, which distinguishes it, and with a proper carburetor technique it's very pleasant, and it would be just as unhealthy to smoke four or five packs a day of spinach or kale cigrits, as it would to smoke real cigrits that much, but spinach smoke and kale smoke and wood smoke and grass smoke has no flavor, but real cigrit smoke tastes interesting and good.
So are you saying, on the one hand to us, and I mean, those of us participating on the forum in the discourse. Are you saying Mid Acts doesn't taste interesting and good, so don't worry about liking it, and so you'll profit from entertaining Mid Acts by examining its logic and comparing it to what you know to be true, such as that twice two is four, and other trivial platitudes, and that you'll then easily be able to unplug and disengage in Mid Acts once you've gained from its entertainment, because it's not addicting, and it doesn't taste interesting or good–for those reasons?
Or are you saying Mid Acts is like falling into a pit? And it will lull you to sleep and make you blind to the change you've made in your mind? in your theology? in your heart? Such that it will take you a very long time to wake up, and to realize you're living in a pit, like a bum, voluntarily, not even trying to get out of it? But that once you do rouse yourself once more, that you dutifully get yourself up and out of the pit, and now having spent so much time in that pit, voluntarily, because it was pleasant but not pleasant like smoking cigrits is pleasant, but pleasant because it's more like doing drugs. Like opioids are physically somehow addictive. It's like your soul loses some of its freedom when you get your body hooked on opioids like heroine, morphine, oxycontin, etc. Percosets. Valium. I tried one of those once and the physical effect is real, if you want to artificially limit your freedom, go right ahead and start an opioid habit, you'll lay in a lawnchair at the bottom of that pit for years. Your soul in that case is united to a disabled body now. A body which used to be not disabled, but now it's disabled, because it started an opioid habit, thus disabling the body, meaning the soul isn't as capable of imposing itself on the World anymore. Physically.
But you get over it eventually, and it's all worth it. Is that what you mean by profitable?
Or do you mean, Mid Acts is true, so therefore it's obv profitable to entertain the truth? meaning is this as trivial as saying, it's worth entertaining Catholicism?
Because it's definitely profitable to entertain Roman or Papal Catholicism simpliciter. If you do get hooked, it'll be not because it's like doing drugs, but because cigrit smoke tastes interesting and good. You'll keep doing it because you like it, not because you've disabled your body with opioids.
Roman Catholicism is not wrong. But it's not physically addicting either. You can entertain it and stop later on. I just think it's right. But it's not addicting. Not like opioids or smoking cigrits. It's like ... smoking cigars or smoking a pipe. It's profitable to entertain smoking cigars or smoking a pipe. You can quit any time–cross my heart and hope to die. You'll only continue smoking cigars or smoking a pipe because you enjoy smoking cigars or smoking a pipe. It's not physically addictive. You have to like doing it to continue doing it, it's table stakes. If you don't like doing it, you don't have to keep doing it.
And this is your experience too Lon, correct? You didn't feel compelled to keep doing Roman Catholicism simpliciter, once you realized you didn't like it, weren't persuaded by it, didn't believe it, believed it was wrong simpliciter–you just stopped one day, right? It wasn't tough for you to quit, isn't that right?
So it's not addictive. idk if Mid Acts is addictive. We have seen some TOL users who putatively have reneged Mid Acts. If any of that's real, that's consistent with recovered addicts, but also of something not addictive, but just pleasant and nice, and they decided to quit because of some other thing going on in the background of their life, that just for some reason militates against particularly Mid Acts, for some unknown reason. I mean that's obv a possibility. Like maybe Mid Acts is like smoking cigars or smoking a pipe or chewing. You're only going to stay in it if you like it, and there's something there to like because the plant itself has pleasant and interesting flavor, unlike spinach and kale and collards.
But say in smoking cigars you accidently burn down your house, and now you just quit smoking cigars, but not because you didn't like cigars, but for some other reason, really unrelated, or only related incidentally. Certainly it makes sense to quit Mid Acts if somehow it's associated with your house burning down. Even if it was just an accident, I mean, not that somehow you deliberately set fire to your house when you smoked cigars, it was an accident. Even then, if you quit, that is at least within normality. But it's not because of the cigars. You liked cigars but now there's a black mark on cigars in your mind, and you forever walk away from smoking cigars.
It's not really rational when something like this happens, when somebody abandons ship, flies the coop, gets out of Dodge. Not when there's no good reason for it. Like, the boat's not going down. So you don't have to get in the lifeboat. But you are anyway, and it's because the ship or the coop or Dodge, became associated with some negative thing in your life. So out you go.
It doesn't seem that Mid Acts is addictive, is my guess, not anymore than Roman Catholicism simpliciter is, which it is not; but irl idk tbh.
What do you think? Is Mid Acts addictive?
Why? What would one miss, if Mid Acts is wrong? I mean to say, if Mid Acts is wrong, then how could it be profitable to study a thing that's wrong? I mean, why study Marxism? You don't need to get really familiar with Marxism, because it's wrong. You're not going to miss anything, by not becoming intimately familiar with something that's wrong, like Marxism.
The only way I can think of why studying intimately wrong things, is for the benefit of others, not just yourself, so that you can preach and teach and encourage why it is wrong to believe in and practice Marxism. It's just wrong, and it's quasi-addictive apparently, because most everybody who tries smoking cigrits just to see, winds up a smoker, so that's like Marxism, so it makes you wonder, is this something I can even safely entertain trying to smoke cigrits.
If it's genuinely addictive, or highly likely to hook you, maybe entertaining trying to smoke cigrits, is not only not profitable, but maybe it's even unsafe.
Unless, again, you use your experience, like in the movie Super Size Me. As a warning for others.
So Lon, given the above, can you tell me which it is, that you mean? I mean is it profitable to try to smoke cigrits safely? That just sounds like threading a needle. It can't be done by everybody. Know that if you try to smoke cigrits, you're probably going to like them, because you're a human. Can you just try smoking cigrits? Or is this putatively temporary experiment, going to look more like falling into a pit that you can't get out of? And if you can't get out of it not because you're trying but the sides are too steep and tall, but it's because you're having a great time and relaxing and enjoying yourself, whether or not you're in a pit ... there is just more than one option here, is my point.
Which are you? Are you the one saying to us, "Don't worry about liking it, because you won't like it," meaning something like that smoking cigrits is like smoking wood or paper or hay, where you're getting all the downsides of smoking because smoking literally just wood or grass or dried spinach leaves, shockingly isn't particularly healthful, if one were to take that up; so there's an inherent health risk to smoking simpliciter, whatever smoke you're inhaling, is not healthful | but without any flavor (it's the flavor of the cigrit smoke which is pleasant, which distinguishes it, and with a proper carburetor technique it's very pleasant, and it would be just as unhealthy to smoke four or five packs a day of spinach or kale cigrits, as it would to smoke real cigrits that much, but spinach smoke and kale smoke and wood smoke and grass smoke has no flavor, but real cigrit smoke tastes interesting and good.
So are you saying, on the one hand to us, and I mean, those of us participating on the forum in the discourse. Are you saying Mid Acts doesn't taste interesting and good, so don't worry about liking it, and so you'll profit from entertaining Mid Acts by examining its logic and comparing it to what you know to be true, such as that twice two is four, and other trivial platitudes, and that you'll then easily be able to unplug and disengage in Mid Acts once you've gained from its entertainment, because it's not addicting, and it doesn't taste interesting or good–for those reasons?
Or are you saying Mid Acts is like falling into a pit? And it will lull you to sleep and make you blind to the change you've made in your mind? in your theology? in your heart? Such that it will take you a very long time to wake up, and to realize you're living in a pit, like a bum, voluntarily, not even trying to get out of it? But that once you do rouse yourself once more, that you dutifully get yourself up and out of the pit, and now having spent so much time in that pit, voluntarily, because it was pleasant but not pleasant like smoking cigrits is pleasant, but pleasant because it's more like doing drugs. Like opioids are physically somehow addictive. It's like your soul loses some of its freedom when you get your body hooked on opioids like heroine, morphine, oxycontin, etc. Percosets. Valium. I tried one of those once and the physical effect is real, if you want to artificially limit your freedom, go right ahead and start an opioid habit, you'll lay in a lawnchair at the bottom of that pit for years. Your soul in that case is united to a disabled body now. A body which used to be not disabled, but now it's disabled, because it started an opioid habit, thus disabling the body, meaning the soul isn't as capable of imposing itself on the World anymore. Physically.
But you get over it eventually, and it's all worth it. Is that what you mean by profitable?
Or do you mean, Mid Acts is true, so therefore it's obv profitable to entertain the truth? meaning is this as trivial as saying, it's worth entertaining Catholicism?
Because it's definitely profitable to entertain Roman or Papal Catholicism simpliciter. If you do get hooked, it'll be not because it's like doing drugs, but because cigrit smoke tastes interesting and good. You'll keep doing it because you like it, not because you've disabled your body with opioids.
Roman Catholicism is not wrong. But it's not physically addicting either. You can entertain it and stop later on. I just think it's right. But it's not addicting. Not like opioids or smoking cigrits. It's like ... smoking cigars or smoking a pipe. It's profitable to entertain smoking cigars or smoking a pipe. You can quit any time–cross my heart and hope to die. You'll only continue smoking cigars or smoking a pipe because you enjoy smoking cigars or smoking a pipe. It's not physically addictive. You have to like doing it to continue doing it, it's table stakes. If you don't like doing it, you don't have to keep doing it.
And this is your experience too Lon, correct? You didn't feel compelled to keep doing Roman Catholicism simpliciter, once you realized you didn't like it, weren't persuaded by it, didn't believe it, believed it was wrong simpliciter–you just stopped one day, right? It wasn't tough for you to quit, isn't that right?
So it's not addictive. idk if Mid Acts is addictive. We have seen some TOL users who putatively have reneged Mid Acts. If any of that's real, that's consistent with recovered addicts, but also of something not addictive, but just pleasant and nice, and they decided to quit because of some other thing going on in the background of their life, that just for some reason militates against particularly Mid Acts, for some unknown reason. I mean that's obv a possibility. Like maybe Mid Acts is like smoking cigars or smoking a pipe or chewing. You're only going to stay in it if you like it, and there's something there to like because the plant itself has pleasant and interesting flavor, unlike spinach and kale and collards.
But say in smoking cigars you accidently burn down your house, and now you just quit smoking cigars, but not because you didn't like cigars, but for some other reason, really unrelated, or only related incidentally. Certainly it makes sense to quit Mid Acts if somehow it's associated with your house burning down. Even if it was just an accident, I mean, not that somehow you deliberately set fire to your house when you smoked cigars, it was an accident. Even then, if you quit, that is at least within normality. But it's not because of the cigars. You liked cigars but now there's a black mark on cigars in your mind, and you forever walk away from smoking cigars.
It's not really rational when something like this happens, when somebody abandons ship, flies the coop, gets out of Dodge. Not when there's no good reason for it. Like, the boat's not going down. So you don't have to get in the lifeboat. But you are anyway, and it's because the ship or the coop or Dodge, became associated with some negative thing in your life. So out you go.
It doesn't seem that Mid Acts is addictive, is my guess, not anymore than Roman Catholicism simpliciter is, which it is not; but irl idk tbh.
What do you think? Is Mid Acts addictive?
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
We celebrate Pentecost but I don't know without checking¹ if that's like Easter and always on a Sunday. I think it might be. It's 40 days from passover, right? No it's 50. Our Lord ascended in 40 days, and then at 50 days the Holy Spirit incited the Apostles (except for Paul–not yet, not till Mid Acts). It was a holiday of obligation for them, under the Old Law, yes. So that would have been the last Pentecost actually, under the Old Law. The last meaningful one, the last valid one.
Interesting.
Edit ¹ I checked, we've got Pentecost Sunday. So 50 days is seven weeks plus one day, so it should be a Sunday. Like Easter we satisfy the Mass obligation for the holiday of obligation Pentecost by simply satisfying the Mass obligation simpliciter. You don't have to do anything extra to celebrate Pentecost or Easter other than just satisfying your Mass obligation simpliciter.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
There is no "mass obligation" in the body of Christ.
The Bible never uses the terms "old law" or "new law"... there is just the Law.
So, AGAIN, the twelve Jewish (Israelite) apostles, and ALL of the other Jews there on Pentecost, were following the LAW! That day was NOT the "birthday of the church" or any other such nonsense.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
That's your opinion.
Is the "law of Christ", Galatians 6:2, just the Law, the "old law", the "new law", some third thing, or is "law of Christ" not even really law at all?
I said that.
That's your opinion.
Right Divider
Body part
No, it's a fact.
The "law of Christ" is a FIGURE OF SPEECH.
No, it's also a fact.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
How do you know it's a figure of speech? Can you prove it without presupposing Mid Acts Dispensationalism is true?
Right Divider
Body part
You don't have to presuppose anything to see that Paul is using a figure of speech.
Perhaps this can help (but probably not):
https://graceambassadors.com/life/the-law-of-christ
Your conclusion does not match what you posted. The Holy Spirit was put upon the gentiles as witness to their end. Because it is not prophetic. It is not supposed to happen. Paul was preaching nonsense in their mind. Blasphemy in fact.
Lon
Well-known member
Okay, let me do analogy: "I don't like Tesla." "You should drive one." Does it mean go out and buy it? No. It does mean you'll appreciate a quiet ride. It does mean you'll appreciate not buying gas. It does mean you'll see all the luxuries. Is it 'bad' to drive a Tesla? No, not at all. You may like gas-driven incredibly better but that is beside the point. For having driven a Tesla, you'll appreciate it. In our theologies, whenever we compare to another's theology, we find 'they way they built their house.' You may not like it for yourself (but you might). Mid Acts is like modular homes: You can move parts around very easily and restack them. They are just compartments in theology that work very well. You'll see me asking all kinds of questions, but they have simplified how they read the whole Bible and make it very manageable that even one of their children can 'drive it.' It is worth a test drive.
Derf
Well-known member
The Holy Spirit filled the temple.
That isn’t a new church.
Bladerunner
Active member
Formally known as Feast of Weeks, Shavuot. Ok, lets get down and dirty....."The Feast of Weeks is associated with the giving of the Law in Exodus 19, which can be rationalized as occurring on the 6th of Sivan. This feast is also called the Feast of Revelation.3 There is also a tradition that David died on the 6th of Sivan." (Feast of Weeks, Koinonia House), The name Pentecost is because of the 50 days from "the feast of First Fruits (in the future Resurrection of Jesus)" which is the date the doors opened on the Church that Jesus built (Acts 2:1-47). In John 14:25,26 Paul is speaking to the Apostles and gives them a prophecy of Pentecost."These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (John 14:25-26)
This was fulfilled on the fiftieth day after Jesus' Resurrection on the "Feast of First fruits" The Bottom line God gave Israel all the feast days back in Leviticus. and originally The Feast of Weeks is associated with the giving of the Law in Exodus 19.
Rem this, the first three feast days are predictive of the first coming of the Lord Jesus. The last three feast days are predictive of the Second coming of Jesus Christ. and the One in between "Feast of Weeks, Shavuot, Pentecost is the beginning of Jesus' Church He built.
50 days after His resurrection, it was predictied the church would be built....Acts 1:1-47.
Hope this helps......Have a great evening.
Correct. It is not a new church or change in administration. It is following the script. The dispensation of grace given to Paul for us is the only place it happens in the "New Testament".
Derf
Well-known member
Matthew 16:18 KJV — And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Surely Peter was involved in a church that was not yet built when Jesus said that. When was the new church built that Peter was a part of?