Speaking in Tongues

[sheep wrecked]

I'm back again to torture you

Let's go back and look at the text again and the previous chapter.

Act 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
Act 1:8 But you shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come on you: and you shall be witnesses to me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and to the uttermost part of the earth.

Act 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
Act 2:2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
Act 2:3 And there appeared to them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat on each of them.
Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.


Please note some things. ALL of the disciples were to receive power after the Holy Ghost came upon them. So ALL the disciples, including Peter, would be receiving that power.

The power came rushing into the room where they ALL were, like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled ALL the house. It did not "miss" Peter. As evidence of this power - ALL aka EACH ONE of them had tongues like fire that sat upon them. Then the power of the Holy Spirit FILLED ALL of them AND they spoke in tongues. Peter was not missed.

You are basing your "doctrine" on one word in the whole passage which does not imply or hint that Peter was not speaking in tongues. As a matter of fact, the text states that Peter stood up with THE REST OF the disciples. The mocking was directed at THESE, including Peter. Peter simply restated their words: "these" are not drunk, including himself .....

If a speaker points at several people of whom he is part of and says "these", it is inclusive of himself. One does not need to say "we" to make statements inclusive. This would be similar to someone saying "we" when referring to ones self - I think they call it the "royal" pronoun. You are forcing something that is not in the text in the least.

This is my last response in this matter.