Saved WithOut The Holy Ghost ?

[SDG]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Well, the scripture states explicitly that the Holy Ghost was not yet given.

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.)

There's no contradiction with the rest of the scriptures on this because...

...What John received was not the same experience we now know as the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost (Luke 1:21) . Zechariah, Johns father was filled with the Holy Ghost (Luke 1:67), and Bezalel, who worked on the tabernacle in the Old Testament was filled with the spirit of God (Ex 31:3) but still this was not the same experience as what believers receive in the church age.

John spoke of the experience to come, and he was the first to use the term "baptized with" the Holy Ghost. Matt 3:11

" I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire"

Jesus referred to this same experience shortly before Pentecost when he said

" For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." (Acts 1:5)

So although, its the same Holy Ghost, experientially it is still a different impartation from what had ever been given before. That is why John wrote that the Holy Ghost had not yet been given because Jesus had not yet been glorified. (John 7:39)

The promise Joel speaks of is not a different experience, as alluded to by Peter in his Acts 2 sermon, but that His Spirit would poured out ON ALL FLESH ....

Why because through faith on the Lord Jesus Christ he would immerse us ... all ... into his Church.

The Baptism of the Holy Ghost w/ the evidence of tongues is indeed a manifestation of an enduement of power/filling given to the Church to testify to the world ... but does not mean one has not be indwelt by the Spirit of God ... or that one is not born of the Spirit, at the point of faith .

As for those W & S adherents that misuse John 7:9

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 ... changing the context of what is being expressed by Christ ...

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:


Others suggest another plausible interpretation .... of John 7:9 ....

One should conside this text referring to Jesus' remarks to his disciples in John 16:8.

8And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.

Most people tend to view the gospels as a chronological account of what transpired written in real time, when in actuality the Gospels were written years later. The comment...the Holy Ghost had not been given was written as an after thought.

And as a tangent ... let's accept your premise .... when was Jesus glorified??? At the ascension??? ... don't we believe he had a glorified body post resurrection?

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

The promise Joel speaks of is not a different experience, as alluded to by Peter in his Acts 2 sermon, but that His Spirit would poured out ON ALL FLESH ....

Why because through faith on the Lord Jesus Christ he would immerse us ... all ... into his Church.

The Baptism of the Holy Ghost w/ the evidence of tongues is indeed a manifestation of an enduement of power/filling given to the Church to testify to the world ... but does not mean one has not be indwelt by the Spirit of God ... or that one is not born of the Spirit, at the point of faith .

As for those W & S adherents that misuse John 7:9

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 ... changing the context of what is being expressed by Christ ...

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:


Others suggest another plausible interpretation .... of John 7:9 ....

One should conside this text referring to Jesus' remarks to his disciples in John 16:8.

8And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.

Most people tend to view the gospels as a chronological account of what transpired written in real time, when in actuality the Gospels were written years later. The comment...the Holy Ghost had not been given was written as an after thought.

Daniel, what are you even talking about? Stop the madness, please.
Your ranting (above) is irrelevant here.
Pay close attention, sir. The question was asked:

Originally Posted by Revelationist

The Holy Ghost had not been given, how was John filled with the Holy Ghost?

So..

Are you telling me that:

1-- Bezalel being filled with the Spirit of God (Exodus 31:3)

2- Zechariah being filled with the Holy Ghost (Luke 1:67)

3- Elizabeth being filled with the Holy Ghost (Luke 1:21)

4- John being filled with the Holy Ghost in his mother's womb (Luke 1:15)

...are the same experience as the infilling of the Holy Ghost that happened to Christians in the church age beginning with Pentecost?

If they were the same, John wouldnt have said:

John 7:39(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.)

Spiritually, experientially, and ontologically, these experiences (pre-Pentecost/post-Pentecost) are very different entities, and served different purposes.

.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Daniel, what are you even talking about? Stop the madness, please.
Your ranting (above) is irrelevant here.
Pay close attention, sir. The question was asked:

So..

Are you telling me that
1-- Bezalel being filled with the Spirit of God (Exodus 31:3)

2- Zechariah being filled with the Holy Ghost (Luke 1:67)

3- Elizabeth being filled with the Holy Ghost (Luke 1:21)

4- John being filled with the Holy Ghost in his mother's womb (Luke 1:15)

...are the same experience as the infilling of the Holy Ghost that happened to Christians in the church age beginning with Pentecost?

If they were the same, John wouldnt have said:

John 7:39(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.)

Spiritually, experientially, and ontologically, they are very different entities, and served different purposes.

.

Different entities ...??? Spiritually different???? Now there are 2 HOLY GHOSTS???

Stop the madness ... you use a verse that is not translated as you want to make it fit ... and I've gone mad??? Furthermore, when was Jesus glorified? Ascension or post resurrection? Did he not blow on them and tell his disciples receive ye the Holy Ghost post resurrection?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Different entities ...??? Spiritually different???? Now there are 2 HOLY GHOSTS???

Stop the madness ... you use a verse that is not translated as you want to make it fit ... and I've gone mad??? Furthermore, when was Jesus glorified? Ascension or post resurrection? Did he not blow on them and tell his disciples receive ye the Holy Ghost post resurrection?

Jesus was glorified when he ascended into heaven to sit on the right hand of God. It was at this time that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to infill/indwell/baptize all believers, not post resurrection.

Acts 2:33 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.
34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

[/INDENT]Spiritually, experientially, and ontologically, these experiences (pre-Pentecost/post-Pentecost) are very different entities, and served different purposes.

.

Ontologically different? How's that?