Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: logix Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Acts 2:33 (*Promise*) | Acts 2:33 | logix | 72825 | ||
You have made a valid argument. In view of what we have both said, could this verse not be rendered as, The Two Promises of Acts 2:33? Something like; The promise of the Father to Jesus, and the promise of Jesus to his disciples. We both agree that Peter is refering to the promised Holy Spirit in the last phrase of Acts 2:33. But, we disagree about the usage of the term *promise in the first line of the verse. I believe you properly defined the promise in Acts 2:38 as being Jesus's promise to the disciples. But what of the exaltation? Jesus could not send the Holy Spirit until He had been exalted. I think Peter is saying that Jesus has recieved the promise of the Father [the Holy Spirit], and is now giving to his followers, his promise; the gift of the Holy Spirit. I think one argument which may be a solid refutation to my idea is, that here Peter is qouted in the Aorist tense. Therefore it appears he is not concerned with the order of events; Peter simply knows the promises are fulfilled. This may be why the translators placed the emphesis of the *promise in Acts 2:33 on the Holy Spirit. If Peter was not concerned with order, and the rest of his sermon deals with the gift of the Holy Spirit, then the emphesis of promise in Acts 2:33 should be on (that) promise, the promised Holy Spirit. This may have been their line of reasoning. However, I think that the Dual Promises of Acts 2:33 best captures what Peter was trying to say. I believe this (for now) because of a strong Hebrew idiom, (I think) is at the root of what Peter is saying. Even with the book of Acts being written in Greek, we cannot remove from its message the Hebrew mindest of its characters. So much to learn, so little time..... God Bless, logix ****Bless****means, speak well of! May God speak well of you! Spoke the world into existence...imagine when He speaks of you? :) |
||||||
2 | Acts 2:33 (*Promise*) | Acts 2:33 | logix | 72755 | ||
I agree with what you have said. My only contention then is that in "this" verse Peter refers to the promise, in my view, as the exaltation. This is not to say that also here Peter does not refer to the promised Holy Spirit, he most definitley does; it is what causes the people to see and hear what they do. I am saying that the time line of this verse appears to be wrong. Jesus "recieved" the Holy Spirit at batism. He ascended and was exalted after raising from the dead and speaking with the disciples. So it appears there are at least two promises made to Jesus, who for a time humbled himself, even below the angels. My view is best summed as: Jesus who was promised both the Holy Spirit, which he recieved at baptism, and the Exaltation, has now recieved the second promise, the exaltation, and therefore now gives to us his promise, that being, the Holy Spirit. Shalom |
||||||
3 | Will you join me? | Acts 2:33 | logix | 72734 | ||
I should clarify myself. In fairness of your argument, I am here saying that Peter refers to the Father and Holy Spirit as one being. This is not to say that you yourself may not find in other scripture the seperation of both the Father and Holy Spirit, I simply believe Peter here refers to them as one. And as I mentioned before I can be wrong....would not be the first time. I come into these forums for one reason, I enjoy fellowship. (and healthy debate!) The Rabbi used to say that if one had turned from Gods precepts, he could study the Torah and its leaven(force) would bring him back to God. That is what I seek. God bless |
||||||
4 | Will you join me? | Acts 2:33 | logix | 72730 | ||
Shalom, My post in no way disputed your belief in the Trinity. I am sorry you feel the need to shut out my questions. Here is what my whole note says in a nutshell; Peter is telling us that Jesus has recieved as a promise the EXALTATION, now that he has been exalted he freely gives to the believers his spirit. Now tell me, brother, what is it exaclty about this statement that offends you? |
||||||
5 | Acts 2:33 (*Promise*) | Acts 2:33 | logix | 72698 | ||
Shalom, I have breifly considered the rendering of Acts 2:33, in both the KJV and the NASB, and have come to believe that perhaps a better translation of this verse is needed. There are three reasons I believe a better translation could be needed. I will explain each seperatley. But first, the verse, as it is written in the NASB. "Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear." Acts 2:33 The three reasons for changing this verse would be, 1) Hebrew idiom (concerning Father and Holy Spirit) 2) Emphesis of the *promise* in English is on the Holy Spirit. 3) The translation is incorrectly written in past tense. I will briefly cover each of these subjects, begining with: 1) Hebrew idiom- The jews believe that the Holy Spirit is non other than God himself. They do not associate another person with the Holy Spirit, instead they believe Holy Spirit simply refers to the empowering aspect of God, or the Father. Therefore it would not be uncommon for a jew to say something along the lines of, God the Father, that Holy Spirit! This becomes important in view of: 2) Emphesis of the *promise* in English is on the Holy Spirit-An english reader of this verse has the impression that the "promise" spoken about here, by Peter, refers to the Holy Spirit. This is because the translators of this verse did not take into account the Hebrew mindset, which would have been comfortable saying, Father, Holy Spirit! I believe the emphesis of *promise* here does not refer to the Holy Spirit, but instead to the EXALTATION of Jesus. My 'prof' for this is, that Jesus recieved the promise of the Holy Spirit at baptism and later, promised the Holy Spirit to his disciples, after he had been exalted. Peter here refers to the promised exaltation of Jesus, which the Father, that Holy Spirit, had promised him. 3) The translation is incorrectly written in past tense- Usually if in Greek the Aorist tense (which is neither past nor present) is used, then in English it is translated as past tense; this most often does not cause a problem. Here it may cause a problem. It may cause a problem because the first two lines of the verse are written in the Aorist tense, while the last phrase, "He has poured forth what you see and hear" is written in the Greek present. But in English the whole verse is rendered in the past tense. Therefore Peter apears to be saying that Jesus has poured forth the Holy Spirit, when infact Jesus has not poured, but is pouring forth his spirit; he pours his spirit even as we speak! With these things in mind I believe a better transliteration might be, Being exalted to the honor (or title of) of God, recieving the promise (or promised exaltation) of the [Father, Holy Spirit!], He now pours (or is pouring) forth these things which you see and hear. With the commentary it is rendered: Being exalted to the title of God, recieving the promised exaltation of the [Father, Holy Spirit!], He is now pouring forth these things which you see and hear. I believe Acts 2 verses 34 and 36 also go to verifying my hypothesis, as both these verses speak of the exaltation. "For David himself never ASCENDED into heaven........." first part of Acts 2:34 (Emphesis added) "So let it be clearly known by everyone in Israel that God has made this Jesus whom you crucified to be both LORD (right hand of God) and Messiah!" Acts 2:36 (comentary and Emphesis added) This idea is not with out its faults, I do not pretend to know 'the' answer. All of my statements are subject to error, may God guide us in truth. Amen. |
||||||