HO,
how can you make the assertion that John the Baptist being recorded as being filled with the spirit is equvilance to the new birth. Jesus testified of this not being the case by using a most contrary bit of understanding: "Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. "[Mt 11:11]
Please provide how you reconcile your understandings with Jesus' proclamation concerning John and those in the Kingdom of God?
All the old testament prophets spoke under the anointing of God's spirit. "Christos" was in operation but this operation was apparently "upon" rather than "in". You are attempting to make a comparison of two things that are not appropriate for use in such a manner.
Whatever anointing/unction/inspiration/stirring that John, Elizabeth, and all the prophets of old had, it was not the gift of the Holy Ghost, God promise to write his laws on our heart. The scriptures plainly state that the HOLY GHOST was not yet given:
Why?....because he was not yet glorified.
(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.)
Even after Jesus was glorified, he breathed on his disciples that they should receive the Holy Ghost and it was STILL 40 days or more until they were endued with power from on high.
What happened to John and what happened to Elizabeth is fully consistent with what happened throughout all the OT prophetic manifestations, all of which make no assertion of the Spirit residing, making its abode, within the vessel. Again, I would say that the Spirit was UPON the prophet.
Nowhere in the OT is anyone mentioned as being filled with the Holy Ghost. Speaking by the Holy Ghost, being anointed by the Holy Ghost, having the Holy Ghost upon them, yes, but not being FILLED with the Holy Ghost.
However, those who received the Holy Ghost in Acts are said to be FILLED with the Holy Ghost, just like John, Elisabeth, and Zacharias.
If scripture writers meant the Spirit was upon them, they would have said so, just like they did of others they wrote about.
__________________
I've gone and done it now! I'm on Facebook!!!
HO,
how can you make the assertion that John the Baptist being recorded as being filled with the spirit is equvilance to the new birth. Jesus testified of this not being the case by using a most contrary bit of understanding: "Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. "[Mt 11:11]
Please provide how you reconcile your understandings with Jesus' proclamation concerning John and those in the Kingdom of God?
All the old testament prophets spoke under the anointing of God's spirit. "Christos" was in operation but this operation was apparently "upon" rather than "in". You are attempting to make a comparison of two things that are not appropriate for use in such a manner.
Whatever anointing/unction/inspiration/stirring that John, Elizabeth, and all the prophets of old had, it was not the gift of the Holy Ghost, God promise to write his laws on our heart. The scriptures plainly state that the HOLY GHOST was not yet given:
Why?....because he was not yet glorified.
(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.)
Even after Jesus was glorified, he breathed on his disciples that they should receive the Holy Ghost and it was STILL 40 days or more until they were endued with power from on high.
What happened to John and what happened to Elizabeth is fully consistent with what happened throughout all the OT prophetic manifestations, all of which make no assertion of the Spirit residing, making its abode, within the vessel. Again, I would say that the Spirit was UPON the prophet.
There is a big hole in your theory .... the NT we have is translated from the Greek .... Luke the same writer of the Gospel of Luke and Acts .... uses the same Greek phaseology to describe the filling of Elizabeth ... Zecharias ... and those in the upper room ... no difference ....
There is a big hole in your theory .... the NT is translated from the Greek .... Luke the same writer of the Gospel of Luke and Acts .... uses the same Greek phaseology to describe the filling of Elizabeth ... Zecharias ... and those in the upper room ... no difference ....
Excellent point, Dan! I didn't realize it was the same writer, although I had that knowledge. I just didn't put them together.
__________________
I've gone and done it now! I'm on Facebook!!!
Excellent point, Dan! I didn't realize it was the same writer, although I had that knowledge. I just didn't put them together.
There's more ... HO .... I always had read this verse in Spanish ... which in the Reina Valera does not say the that the Holy Ghost was not given ... but that the Holy Ghost had not come ... of course this is true because Jesus still dwelt among them in his fleshly form.
After trying to find the word given in the orginal Greek text ... I could not find it for John 7:39
After futher research .... I found this:
The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible
for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given];
the word "given" is not in the original text; but is very properly supplied, as it is in the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Persic versions. The Arabic version renders it, "for the Holy Ghost was not yet come";
he was; he was in being as a divine person, equal with the Father and Son, so he was from everlasting; and he had been bestowed in his grace upon the Old Testament saints, and rested in his gifts upon the prophets of that dispensation; but, as the Jews themselves confess F6,
``after the death of the latter prophets, Haggai, Zachariah, and Malachi, the Holy Ghost removed from Israel.''
And they expressly say, be was not there in the time of the second temple. Maimonides says F7,
``they made the Urim and Thummim in the second temple, to complete the eight garments (of the priests) though they did not inquire by them; and why did they not inquire by them? because the Holy Ghost was not there; and every priest that does not speak by the Holy Ghost, and the Shekinah, does not dwell upon him, they do not inquire by him.''
They observe F8 there were five things in the first temple which were not in the second, and they are these,
``the ark with the mercy seat, and cherubim, the fire (from heaven), and the Shekinah, (vdwqh xwrw) , "and the Holy Ghost", and the Urim and Thummim.''
Now, though he had removed, he was to return again; but as yet the time was not come, at least for the more plentiful donation of him: the reason of which was,
Linear Mode
