Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Luke 23:43 And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise." |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Luke 23:43 Jesus said to him, "I assure you and most solemnly say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise." [2 Cor 12:4; Rev 2:7] |
Subject: why was the thief saved without baptism? |
Bible Note: J. Elkins, Welcome to the forum! In reading your posts I thought a response I had drafted earlier regarding whether just the Apostles or the 120 received the baptism of the HS, as evidenced by the miraculous gift of speaking in tongues, might be of interest. Here goes: "Remember that the chapter and verses we have in our translations today were not in the original letter. Keeping that in mind, Acts 1:26 specifically identifies the apostles. Acts 2:1-15 continues the narrative concerning the same people (and not necessarily the same or next day). How do we know the "they" in Acts 2:4 were not the 120? Aside from using proper grammatical rules, we must acknowledge that Jesus had disciples from all of the various regions He visited during His ministry. Acts 1:14 also tells us some of the 120 disciples present were women. With these points in mind consider Acts 2:7 and Acts 2:14-15. One tells us those speaking in tongues were "all" Galileans. Would all of the 120 been Galileans? We know the apostles were. Were only Galilean disciples faithful to Jesus or would the 120 include Judean and Perean Jews, as well? Secondly, Peter acknowledges those mocked in verse 13 were all "men". If 120 people spoke in tongues, might it been unusual to separate the 12 from them so quickly and at the same time identify the group displaying this miraculous gift as consisting solely of men? Why would Peter leave out the other 108? Was he a male chauvinist? Maybe he desired public attention only be focused on the apostles? Could it be that 108 of the disciples did not receive the HS baptism?" This may be "old hat" to you as your argument is more than adequate, but I though it might be something to add to your arsenal! AO |