When do you believe Paul recieved the Holy Ghost?

jfrog · #1 03-31-2011, 11:05 AM

What is your opinion?

Digging4Truth · #2 03-31-2011, 11:13 AM

"And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto you in the way as you came, has sent me, that you might receive your sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized."--Acts 9:17,18.

onefaith2 · #3 03-31-2011, 12:29 PM

The text doesn't mention his filling with the Holy Ghost, only says that ye might be filled. Then it simply describes scales falling from his eyes which was the other thing Ananias said that Jesus sent him to do. Why do you think the Scripture doesn't say, and he was filled with the Holy Ghost, like it does in other places?

This is one place in the scripture where silence is obvious that he did get the Holy Ghost. Otherwise Ananias mission was only half productive. One preacher used this scripture as proof against initial evidence, when he said some people like Paul, when they got the Holy Ghost, their eyes were opened.

I don't buy the argument because the scripture never describes him being filled with the HG.

wittenberg · #4 03-31-2011, 12:39 PM

Can I jump in here and just say: Paul obviously received the Holy Ghost on the road to Damascus. He was travelling with the intent on prosecuting Christians and saw and heard a voice (God): Saul, why do you persecute me? Saul said: Who art thou LORD? Please keep in mind: No man can call Jesus LORD but by the Holy Ghost. It is therefore my conclusion that he was able to call Jesus Lord because he was instantly filled with the Holy Ghost at the moment the light and voice came...a divine encounter with God!

mfblume · #5 03-31-2011, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wittenberg

Can I jump in here and just say: Paul obviously received the Holy Ghost on the road to Damascus. He was travelling with the intent on prosecuting Christians and saw and heard a voice (God): Saul, why do you persecute me? Saul said: Who art thou LORD? Please keep in mind: No man can call Jesus LORD but by the Holy Ghost. It is therefore my conclusion that he was able to call Jesus Lord because he was instantly filled with the Holy Ghost at the moment the light and voice came...a divine encounter with God!

If he received the Holy Ghost on the road to Damascus, why do we read Ananias told him after that experience on the road that he was, future tense, to receive the Holy Ghost?

Acts 9:17 KJV And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

Calling Jesus by the influence of the Holy Ghost does not mean one is baptized with the Holy Ghost to know He is Lord.

onefaith2 · #6 03-31-2011, 12:50 PM

I agree Mike, Ananias would have never said he was there for him to be filled with the Holy Ghost if he already had been.

mfblume · #7 03-31-2011, 12:53 PM

I believe Paul received the Holy Ghost when Ananias laid hands on him. And I believe he spoke with tongues. I do not think tongues had to be mentioned every time people received the Spirit and spoke in tongues. Acts is a historical account. We read the Jews spoke in tongues in Acts 2 and Gentiles in Acts 10 and John's disciples in Acts 19. Many non-pentecostal Scholars agree that Acts 8 and the Samaritans involved speaking in tongues as well since they saw miracles and devils cast out, but something apart from that caused Simon to "SEE" that laying on of hands caused the people to receive the Holy Ghost. Once this has been established amongst the various ethnic and distinct groups of people, it need not be mentioned again every time someone is said to have received the Spirit.

And the bottom line is, as jfrog and I already discussed months ago, that it is not plainly explicit anywhere in the Bible that Acts 2 had people receive both Spirit Baptism as well indwelling of the Spirit (as though they were two different experiences), any more than it is plainly explicit that everyone who is Spirit baptized speaks in tongues. To me, the principle of Occam's razor makes it more sensible to conclude that Spirit indwelling and Spirit Baptism are one and the same experience.

So the bottom line is one will find what one WANTS to find in order to confirm one's bent on the issue in all these accounts, including Paul's experience

Digging4Truth · #8 03-31-2011, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onefaith2

The text doesn't mention his filling with the Holy Ghost, only says that ye might be filled. Then it simply describes scales falling from his eyes which was the other thing Ananias said that Jesus sent him to do. Why do you think the Scripture doesn't say, and he was filled with the Holy Ghost, like it does in other places?

This is one place in the scripture where silence is obvious that he did get the Holy Ghost. Otherwise Ananias mission was only half productive. One preacher used this scripture as proof against initial evidence, when he said some people like Paul, when they got the Holy Ghost, their eyes were opened.

I don't buy the argument because the scripture never describes him being filled with the HG.

Actually he said that Paul MIGHT received his sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost. Do you take the term might to mean... maybe you will... maybe you won't?

Quote:

Acts 9:17 KJV - And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, [even] Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.
Acts 9:18 KJV - And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.

And the term below is one word that was translated into the entire phrase "thou mightest receive thy sight". It simply means... to receive one sight. it has no connotation of "iffyness". Also... that you "might" do something, in biblical terms, is saying... that you will do something.

Quote:

ἀναβλέπω

Transliteration
anablepō

Pronunciation
ä-nä-ble'-pō

Part of Speech
verb

Root Word (Etymology)
From ἀνά (G303) and βλέπω (G991)

View Entry
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) to look up
2) to recover (lost) sight

Digging4Truth · #9 03-31-2011, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wittenberg

Can I jump in here and just say: Paul obviously received the Holy Ghost on the road to Damascus. He was travelling with the intent on prosecuting Christians and saw and heard a voice (God): Saul, why do you persecute me? Saul said: Who art thou LORD? Please keep in mind: No man can call Jesus LORD but by the Holy Ghost. It is therefore my conclusion that he was able to call Jesus Lord because he was instantly filled with the Holy Ghost at the moment the light and voice came...a divine encounter with God!

Then for what purpose would he be told that he was going to receive his sight and receive the Holy Ghost?

mfblume · #10 03-31-2011, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

Actually he said that Paul MIGHT received his sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost. Do you take the term might to mean... maybe you will... maybe you won't?

MIGHT in the KJV means it will happen.

Quote:

And the term below is one word that was translated into the entire phrase "thou mightest receive thy sight". It simply means... to receive one sight. it has no connotation of "iffyness". Also... that you "might" do something, in biblical terms, is saying... that you will do something.

Right.