First I'll answer your question.
Yes, Ananias was given instructions from Christ himself.
Back to your two conclusions. Here they are again:
But you didnt answer the 2nd quesiton.
Is the definition of Apostle on sent/commissioned by Christ/God?
1. ONLY apostles can impart the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands.
2. Ananias was an apostle.
I notice you really did not read my post. I presented 3 arguemnts.
1. you cannot prove annias was not an Apostle according to the defintion.
2. His laying on of hands does not mean it was HS impartation.
I told you I believe his laying on of hands had nothign to do with Paul receiving the HS, because I believe Paul received him the same way the Apostles did in Acts 2.
But sense you want to force this one to be my position, I will take it for the sake of argument.
Neither of your statements can be demonstrated by scripture alone, they are conclusions you have to reach.
Wrong agian.
Acts 8 - Demonstrates without a doubt ONLY the Apsotles could lay their hands on the Samaritians, which even simon said plainly.
The defintion of the word supports my conclusion.
Now, where are your scriptural support that one could lay hands and not be an Apostle.
If Still Annias, then either prove:
1. He was not an Apostle, though he meets the definition of the word.
2. His laying on of hands gave teh HS, and was not a common gesture that Jews did.
You conclude statement 1, but in order to do so, you have to assume that statement 2 is true.
Statement 1 - Annias fit the definition of an Apsotle? see the defintion - NOT STATEMENT 2
Statement 2 - Only the Apostles could impart gifts - See Acts 8 - NOT statemnt 1
Sorry, that did not fly, sounded good though.
You conclude statement 2, but in order to do so, you have to assume that statement 1 is true. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.
Just proved that wrong, your trying to get me a logic flaw, but you cant, because your trying to force it.
About your definition of an apostle:
[/b]
You say that ONLY apostles can impart the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands, but yet your definition mentions nothing of the sort.
I never said the definition says only the Apostles can impart. I conclude that from Acts 8, not the definition.
Your crossing things here, maybe trying to force that circular reasoning. I am spending alot of time batting down the straw men, please stick to what I am saying.
The definition says an Apostle is one sent by Christ/God.
Acts 8 shows only the Apostles could impart.
Neither need the other for the conclusion, nor to interpret.
This is getting comical.
Stop trying to force things that are not there.
If laying on hands to impart the Holy Spirit is something that sets the apostles apart from non-apostles, why is that not in your definition?
Lol, wow.
Talk about straw men. Mega, ACTS 8 SHOWS ONLY THE APOSTLES COULD DO SO.
THE DEFINTION SHOWS WHAT AN APOSTLE WAS/IS.
Here:
Go to Acts 8 to disprove only Apostles could impart
Go to the definition to disprove an Apostle is one sent by Christ.
Your tying to go to the definition to disprove acts 8
They have ntohging to do with one another it makes no sense.
It's such a big focus for you, but yet it's conspicuously absent in your definition of an apostle.
So your saying the definition should tell us what an Apostle is, and what his abilities were?
It tells us one sent. Why would it go into details about imparting the HS, it is a dictionary not a commentary.
This really was just a bunch of unnecessary writing. You asked me 2 quesiton, I answer them both, gave you two, and you answered 1.
Here they are again.
Was Ananias commissioned by Christ? - Answered
is the definition of an Apostle "one sent", "one commissioned by Christ" - unanswered.
Are you going to deal with the other 2 aruements I presented as well?
