Did Elisabeth Receive the Holy Ghost pre-Acts?

[Margies3]

I realize that this is off topic, but I was just reading thru here and caught what Sam said in an earlier post:

"I think we should endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit until we all come into the unity of the faith (I don't think that will happen until the Rapture),"

Just had to point that out. Excellent, Sam. Excellent!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne

How does one become filled with the Holy Ghost but not really have it, only as a special anointing? Where is scripture for that?

Here is the reasoning:

In both cases people are filled with the Holy Ghost -- before or after the cross. But there is a difference between those filled before and those after, because John 7 explicitly stated that the Holy Ghost was not yet given because Jesus was not yet glorified.

Joh 7:37-39 KJV In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. (38) He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (39) (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

So the only conclusion we can arrive at, since the bible has no contradictions, is to realize the form of the Holy Ghost that was not yet given before the cross was the one associated with "out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water," because that is what Jesus said before we read the Spirit was not yet given. So this can only mean that Elizabeth and others did not receive the Spirit in the sense that it was rivers of living water as John said would be the case for those receiving the Spirit after the Lord was glorified.

In short, MEASURES of the Spirit had always been given to people, even in Old Testament times. But they did not experience the fullness that would occur after the cross.

Spirit Baptism is associated with new birth. No one could be born again until the work of the cross had been accomplished. You had to get "into Christ" in order to leave Adam's race. "IN ADAM" all would die, but "IN CHRIST" folks would be made alive. And it is only through Christ's death that we could come to a place of being "in Christ", by identifying in faith with His death, burial and resurrection. The cross is integral for this to occur. Nobodies sins could be remitted without the work of the cross. This had to do with what degree of Spirit infilling could occur. Nobody before those in Acts experienced ANYTHING like the Spirit Baptism that occurred in Acts 2, since Jesus had been made both Lord and Christ and had entered the most holy place as High Priest in order to "shed forth" the Spirit baptism of Acts 2.

In answer to the questions people had about the Spirit Baptism, that initiated tongue-talking in Acts 2, we read this explanation:

Act 2:32-33 KJV This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. (33) Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

The entire sermon in Acts 2 preached by Peter was solely due to the questions regarding TONGUES in Acts 2, remember.

Act 2:8 KJV And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

Act 2:12-13 KJV And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? (13) Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

Those specific questions were answered by Peter's sermon. And Peter climaxed the sermon by explaining that what they saw and heard (speaking in tongues) was all due to the Lord Jesus being exalted to SHED FORTH what they saw and heard.

NONE OF THIS applies to the Spirit infilling of anyone before the cross. Peter explained that this infilling in Acts 2 was solely due to the work of Christ as explained in verses 32-33. That, in itself, shows it is a different infilling than Elizabeth or anyone else before the cross experienced.

Since the work of the cross was required for any new births to occur, that is why I said the infillings before the cross were only in specific anointings for specific purposes in those people's lives, rather than a general new birth so the Spirit can indwell people and rebirth them. Otherwise, WE DID NOT NEED THE CROSS for new birth.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Anyone who received the Spirit before the cross only received it for for a specific anointing, and not the indwelling of His Spirit like folks did since Acts 2.

...my opinion

Oh my .... this is troublesome indeed. There is only one Holy Spirit.

The writer of the Gospel of Luke and Acts is the same writer .... he uses the same language to describe the filling of Elizabeth and those in Acts ....

Either a Holy God makes union w/ a sanctified and clean vessel or by nature He cannot dwell and make residence in it...

Either one is filled by His presence or not filled.

Very troubling.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Oh my .... this is troublesome indeed. There is only one Holy Spirit.

The writer of the Gospel of Luke and Acts is the same writer .... he uses the same language to describe the filling of Elizabeth and those in Acts ....

Either a Holy God makes union w/ a sanctified and clean vessel or by nature He cannot dwell and make residence in it...

Either one is filled by His presence or not filled.

Very troubling.

Why did the Holy Spirit fill Elizabeth if she was not a clean vessel ie: her sins were not remitted? For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins Elizabeth was under the law. Maybe your premise is faulty.

What happened to King David when he sinned? Did the Holy Ghost leave him?
and then come back to him after he repented and offered the correct sacrifice? Your premise is faulty.

What makes you think the Holy Ghost will not be pleased to dwell in a vessel that has totally turned from their sinful ways by faith, by dying to sin in repentance, and is seeking to live according to the word of God?

If someone is ACCEPTED by God, what is to prevent God from filling that person with His Spirit? Acts 10:35 Otherwise every time a born again Christian sins, then according to your logic, the Holy Spirit must leave that unclean vessel until repentance and confession happens.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

But's here the deal what is the difference in receiving ,being baptized filled with The Holy Ghost after Calvary ?
If the disciples were a -ok why did they have tarry in the upper room before they could even preach or teach in NT. church ?

It is simple Bro. Scott, men leak and have to be refilled. We are mistaken to see the HGB as salvation, when it fact it is the empowerment of the believer.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Oh my .... this is troublesome indeed. There is only one Holy Spirit.

The writer of the Gospel of Luke and Acts is the same writer .... he uses the same language to describe the filling of Elizabeth and those in Acts ....

Either a Holy God makes union w/ a sanctified and clean vessel or by nature He cannot dwell and make residence in it...

Either one is filled by His presence or not filled.

Very troubling.

No trouble at all, unless Peter and John lied. lol

Why think there cannot be One Spirit if we read that the Spirit can perform differing functions at different times in relation to the time surrounding the event of all events, the cross?

Dan, why did John write this:

Joh 7:39 KJV (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Okay...I know you're probably at your game...but...here are my questions:


1. I'm still not really clear on your point of view (after skimming through the thread)...is it your consensus that some folks in the OT, and John, Elisabeth, etc., were filled with the Holy Ghost, the same as we are, and since they didn't speak in tongues, then that proves that tongues aren't necessary evidence? And, is your explanation simply that the Holy Ghost wasn't available freely to everyone, until the Day of Pentecost, but was more like God just filled whomever He pleased? Something like that?

2. With or without tongues, do you believe being filled with the Holy Ghost is necessary to salvation?

3. You did mention that no one needed to be filled with the Holy Ghost while Jesus was with them in the flesh...but what about the thief? Wasn't he saved while Jesus was there? Do you believe the thief was filled with the Holy Ghost?

BUMP for Daniel

I do not have any scriptures for this, as they are just thoughts right now. But could it be that those within the old Testament received Gods Spirit as being anointed for a purpose, but for the New Testament Church, that same Spirit comes to "reside" within us.

Theirs was a one time shot, whereas we receive a continual flow of the river of life.

[MissBrattified]

To me, this is the reasonable explanation. God had "chosen" ones in the Old Testament, but in the New Testament, His Spirit was/is poured out on ALL FLESH.

Kind of like...not everyone could go into God's presence in the OT, but now anyone can. But there were folks in the OT, not priests, who God dealt with directly. I guess He can make exceptions to His own rules...but that doesn't mean we can.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

To me, this is the reasonable explanation. God had "chosen" ones in the Old Testament, but in the New Testament, His Spirit was/is poured out on ALL FLESH.

Kind of like...not everyone could go into God's presence in the OT, but now anyone can. But there were folks in the OT, not priests, who God dealt with directly. I guess He can make exceptions to His own rules...but that doesn't mean we can.

I can accept this explanation. But those that say that the Holy Spirit did not reside in some ... like the psalmist who asked God not to take his Holy Spirit from him ....

Luke the same writer of the Gospel of Luke and Acts .... uses the same Greek phaseology to describe the filling of Elizabeth ... Zacharias ... and those in the upper room ... no difference ....


Luke 1:41 When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

Greek:

kai egeneto (5633) wv hkousen (5656) ton aspasmon thv Mariav h Elisabet, eskirthsen (5656) to brefov en th koilia authv, kai eplhsqh(5681) pneumatov agiou h Elisabet,

Acts 2:4And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.

Greek:

kai eplhsqhsan (5681) pantev pneumatov agiou, kai hrcanto lalein (5721) eteraiv glwssaiv kaqwv to pneuma edidou (5707) apofqeggesqai (5738) autoiv.

Luke 1:67

And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied, saying:

Kai Zaxariav o pathr autou eplhsqh (5681) pneumatov agiou kai eprofhteusen (5656) legwn, (5723)

__________________