[George]

Aloha brother Winman,

You said:

"I am also amazed at your beliefs. I could very well also accuse you of going to lengths to prove your own personal interpretation. For instance, you say the signs and miracles were only for the Jews. There are exceptions to this that argue against you."

You could accuse me of ANYTHING (accusations are EASY); but can you PROVE your accusations - as I just have in my Posts #25, #35, and #36; most of which you have completely IGNORED. (see Post #35 on your "claims" and Ruckman's actual teachings. What NO Comment?)

Could you point out where I said: "signs and miracles were only for the Jews"? I said "the Jews REQUIRE A SIGN"; because that's what it says in 1Corinthians 1:22. In my Thread on "Rightly Dividing the Book of Acts" > Post #65 I said:

Paul truly had “the SIGNS of an Apostle” [2Corinthians 12:12] for several reasons:

1. To convince the other Apostles and the Lord’s Disciples that he (Paul) was a genuine Apostle.

2. To prove his “Apostleship” to unbelievers {Apostles were supposed to have “signs”.}.

3. To prove he was a genuine Hebrew Apostle to the Jews who were “scattered abroad” in the various cities where Paul preached (always “to the Jew FIRST, and also to the Greek” i.e. Gentile) [Romans 1:16; 2:10]. You see, the Jews “require a sign” [1Corinthians 1:22] and God was obligated to give them signs. So as Paul went from town to town and city to city, he always went to the Jews’ synagogues FIRST. God’s “commission” to Paul was that he was to go “to the Jew FIRST”, and so God gave Paul the “signs of an apostle” to PROVE to those Jews (that were scattered abroad) that he was, indeed, truly an Apostle from God.

Does my "reason" Number 2: {"To prove his “Apostleship” to unbelievers {Apostles were supposed to have “signs”.} LIMIT Paul's "SIGNS" to just the Jewish UNBELIEVERS? Did I say that or even "intimate" it? This is what bothers me with how you "handle" words; both God's "WORDS" and my words. I NEVER said that the "signs and miracles were only for the Jews". And yet you say that I did. You should be able to cite "Thread" & Post Number - IF I said it. WHERE IS IT?

"The Jews require a sign" - the Gentiles DON'T "require" a sign. It's that simple. The Apostles (and some of the Disciples) had "Signs" and extraordinary "Gifts". Were these Signs, Miracles, and Healings ONLY for the Jews, anyone familiar with the Scriptures knows the answer is NO they were NOT! BUT the Jews legitimately REQUIRED "SIGNS" (to Believe), whereas the Gentiles DID NOT!

Winman said:

"And you completely misrepresented what I said here;

For you to say:
George's quote:

Winman said:
"You left out the most important part of this statement I made. Here is what I said.
I can't be dogmatic about this, but I believe this is a strong argument that the Jews in early Acts received the Holy Ghost by hearing and believeing the word of God, and were baptized afterward, just as these Gentiles.

So, Bro George, you completely misrepresented what I said. I said I believed these verses to be a strong argument that the Jews in early Acts received the Holy Ghost by hearing the word of God and were baptized later, but I made it perfectly clear that I was not absolutely certain."

If your "not absolutely certain" about "a strong argument" in favor of your "private interpretation" - then WHY did you bring it up in the first place? I didn't "misrepresent" anything. I included your complete Post #33, which included the complete quote, in my Post #36. The most important part of your statement was NOT where you said: "I can't be dogmatic about this"; it was WHAT you said thereafter: "I believe this is a strong argument that the Jews in early Acts received the Holy Ghost by hearing and believeing the word of God, and were baptized afterward, just as these Gentiles." The most important part of your statement was NOT the fact that you couldn't be "dogmatic" about it - it was the fact that in SPECULATING about a private interpretation of Scripture, you IGNORED the very "words" of God, and MADE THEM SAY SOMETHING OTHER THAN WHAT THEY ACTUALLY SAID!

Whether you were being "DOGMATIC" or not, was NOT nearly as important as the fact that you twisted and wrested the Holy words of God to "FIT" your preconceived beliefs. IF you were not sure of what you believe WHY propose it as: "a strong argument" in favor of your private interpretation? WHY not leave all "SPECULATION" out of your defense of your personal beliefs, instead of stating that you believe you have "a strong argument" in favor of them; and when someone points out your fallacious thinking and your misuse of the Holy words of God - you suddenly "Crawfish" out of it by emphasizing the fact that you weren't being "dogmatic" about it in the first place?

You did say: "I believe this is a strong argument that the Jews in early Acts received the Holy Ghost by hearing and believeing the word of God, and were baptized afterward, just as these Gentiles." Didn't you? I clearly demonstrated in my Post #36 that what you said is absolutely FALSE - that is if you believe the Scriptures AS THEY ARE WRITTEN, and NOT AS YOU "PRIVATELY INTERPRET" THEM!

Winman said:

"Bro George, I am not going to keep debating this subject. I have presented my case with scriptures for all to see and decide for themselves. It is obvious we are not going to agree, so there is not much sense in going further."

I'm happy for that. Maybe I can now proceed without you naysaying, nitpicking, and straining at gnats every time I make a Post on this issue.