When did the disciples receive the Holy Spirit?

[Twilight]

Mark,

Your opinion is well intended but doesn't play to me, given what Jesus said to his disciples in John 20. Read the text again:

Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. John 20:21-22.

In this one text I see Jesus giving them their commission, sending His disciples to teach to the world what He taught; and then allowing them to receive the Holy Spirit directly from Him to help them and guide them in this purpose. This is the equivalent to their graduation ceremony from the college of Truth. It is not that they had acquired all the truth, but what they had received to date was the whole truth. Jesus told His disciples that when they received the Holy Spirit He/She would continue to lead them into ALL truth.

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. John 16:13.

I know that considering that Pentecost was a deception of Satan to misdirect and confuse the disciples and the budding Christian church into thinking that the manifestations of the Holy Spirit were/needed to be overt, dynamic and spectacular seems impossible or improbable at best. But I believe if look back at the evidence given by Jesus Christ Himself about the Holy Spirit and how that Spirit works matches what came later, I think you will see a disconnect that is worth investigating.

But to accept this view would then lead one to the position that Peter and John were both deceived.

And if there was no indication from them that they were ever deceived (the epistles of John and Peter do not indicate that) then this argument holds no water.

Because for your position to be correct, you are in effect saying that Peter and John apostasised...

They came under the leading of "another" spirit in other words.

Have you considered that?

Have you considered that once you take this position, you have to throw out the epistles of Peter, John and the Gospel of John as inspired?

Because they were written under the "unction" of the false "spirit" in this theory.

Mark

[pnattmbtc]

I would ask all to consider that they try to stick to the bible on this one please.

Otherwise it will just turn into another "my quote is better than your quote" argument, whilst using quotes out of specific context just to prove a personal view.

This isn't directly addressing the topic, but I found this comment very interesting. It supposes, apparently, that quoting from the SOP is less clear than quoting from Scripture, as if we quote from the SOP this will lead to a "my quote is better than your quote," while, presumably, quoting only from Scripture will avoid this, as if this sort of "my quote is better than your quote" exchange doesn't happen when only Scripture is considered.

It seems to me that Scripture is less specific on many of these matters than the SOP is, so these sort of exchanges would be more likely, not less, by limiting ourselves to Scripture.

I'm not saying having a study limited to Scripture is a bad thing. Not at all, as the Scriptures are what we have available to persuade others not of our faith. It's just I found the reason to do so thought provoking.

[Twilight]

Notice this MM:

Act 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

The power was given to them to witness.

But they already had the Holy Spirit within, as we saw in John...

Mark

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

I would ask all to consider that they try to stick to the bible on this one please.

Otherwise it will just turn into another "my quote is better than your quote" argument, whilst using quotes out of specific context just to prove a personal view.

This isn't directly addressing the topic, but I found this comment very interesting. It supposes, apparently, that quoting from the SOP is less clear than quoting from Scripture, as if we quote from the SOP this will lead to a "my quote is better than your quote," while, presumably, quoting only from Scripture will avoid this, as if this sort of "my quote is better than your quote" exchange doesn't happen when only Scripture is considered.

It seems to me that Scripture is less specific on many of these matters than the SOP is, so these sort of exchanges would be more likely, not less, by limiting ourselves to Scripture.

I'm not saying having a study limited to Scripture is a bad thing. Not at all, as the Scriptures are what we have available to persuade others not of our faith. It's just I found the reason to do so thought provoking.

The point I am trying to make Pnat, is that the bible is the basis of our doctrine, not the SOP and there is a reason for that.

The danger is that sometimes people hold a "view" that has not been derived from the bible, then they try to defend that view by sidestepping the bible verses that call that into question and end up quoting a statement from Ellen White, that usually has nothing to do with the verse in question.

There is absolutly nothing wrong with the SOP.

But there is a great deal wrong when someone needs the SOP to "override" a plain statement of the bible.

In other words, it is how the SOP is used that is the issue, not the SOP itelf.

This discussion does not need us to go into SOP yet, as we have not really even discussed what the bible says.

I always get concerned when an Adventist brother or sister rushes to the SOP on a subject before even studying what the bible states.

It usually means that the bible text does not fit their understanding so they have to go somewhere else, use that "evidence" and try to apply it to the bible text in retrospect.

I noticed this (respectfully), with both yours and anothers initial responses to this discussion.

You did not really consider the discussion of the text.

Rather you said:

I think it means this: "SOP quote".

And left the bible in the background.

That is an extremely dangerous way to study the bible.

Why?

It just leads to us going to the SOP to justify "our" position, without examining what the bible actually says...

We end up just proof texting our position.

This is happening here with the indwelling of the Spirit and it happened with the discussion on "does God destroy".

Scripture takes second place to "proof quotes" from SOP, and very narrow quotes in most instances, that are not balanced with other statements.

Hence my insistence here to stick to the bible.

After all, we are the champions of the bible are we not?

Mark :-)

[Woody]

Sounds like you and Robert are on the same page here Mark.

[Twilight]

Sounds like you and Robert are on the same page here Mark.

I do agree with Robert on some things.

But do not reject SOP like Robert does.

Where is he by the way?

[Woody]

Robert does not reject the SOP. I have noticed that he agrees and quotes it frequently. I know of no one who accepts every word of the SOP. And our prophet warned us of doing this. She told us to check all of it with scripture.

Some will make many excuses for not believing the SOP. They will twist and excuse it away so that they don't have to do what she is saying. It all comes down to a matter of interpretation. And each of us have a different interpretation.

[pnattmbtc]

The point I am trying to make Pnat, is that the bible is the basis of our doctrine, not the SOP and there is a reason for that.

[oldsailor29]

anyway, the Holy Spirit prompted the disciples to follow the Lord. So one could say they received the Holy Spirit at that time.

[Twilight]

Robert does not reject the SOP. I have noticed that he agrees and quotes it frequently. I know of no one who accepts every word of the SOP. And our prophet warned us of doing this. She told us to check all of it with scripture.

Some will make many excuses for not believing the SOP. They will twist and excuse it away so that they don't have to do what she is saying. It all comes down to a matter of interpretation. And each of us have a different interpretation.

I do believe that Robert has outright stated he does not accept the SOP.

That he only quotes it for those that do believe in it.

Mark

PS.

Where is he?

[Twilight]

anyway, the Holy Spirit prompted the disciples to follow the Lord. So one could say they received the Holy Spirit at that time.

The bible states that they did not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit:

Jhn 14:17 [Even] the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

It was yet a future event.

They had the Spirit with them, but not in them.

It was given in the upper room as a fulfillment of the above promise:

Jhn 20:21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace [be] unto you: as [my] Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

Jhn 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on [them], and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

Then their was the later outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

The point I am trying to make Pnat, is that the bible is the basis of our doctrine, not the SOP and there is a reason for that.

If this was your point, you should have written something to that effect. Instead you wrote:

Quote:

I would ask all to consider that they try to stick to the bible on this one please.

Otherwise it will just turn into another "my quote is better than your quote" argument, whilst using quotes out of specific context just to prove a personal view.

which is what prompted my comments.

Do you wish to engage in a sciptural discussion of the topic Pnat?

Mark :-)

[Musicman1228]

Concerning the Acts 1:8 quote above: Luke was the writer of Acts and never met Jesus Christ, he was not a disciple, and was an apostle only on the strength of the word of another man who never met Jesus Christ personally (in the flesh) and was not a disciple or apostle according to the words of Jesus Christ. In fact, Paul declared himself to be an apostle of Christ by his own words. This would be like me declaring myself to be an M.D. (I am not) and have people believe that only on the strength of my own testimony, without seeing a diploma. Given this I have strong doubts as to the legitimacy and accuracy that Jesus Christ ever said what He is purported to have said in Acts.

Luke states in his gospel that Jesus said for His disciples to go to Jerusalem and wait for the power of the Holy Spirit to come upon them. This is a very convenient statement that sets up the events of the day or Pentecost as seen later in Acts. Luke got his information about this from Paul, who did not get this information from any of the eyewitness disciples; Paul considered these 'so-called pillars' as being inferior to himself, and did not seek information from them in any regard. Neither Matthew, Peter or John say anything about this incident in their gospels. Again my question is, "Why would Jesus say (Acts 1:8) this when in fact He had ALREADY give the disciples the Holy Spirit in the upper room as described in John 20:20-21. It seems improbable that Jesus would make this kind of error in judgment in the duplication of effort that is indicated by the giving of the Holy Spirit two different time and in two entirely different ways.

As I have previously stated in other posts just because Matthew, Peter and John were Disciples of Jesus Christ did not guarantee that they could not or would not be deceived. Jesus specifically addressed this when He told His disciples that it was up to them to see to it that they were not fooled;

And Jesus answered them, “See that no one leads you astray. Matt.24:4.

If it was impossible for the Disciples to not be deceived then why did Jesus make this statement. Yes, certainly the Disciples were deceived from time to time. You can see this when they start making statement of their own, and applying interpretations to prophecy that come from their own perspectives and not that of the prophecy itself. Ex. On the day of Pentecost Peter misinterpreted the prophecy in Joel 2, calling the spectacular events of that day a fulfillment of the Joel 2 prophecy concerning the end of time. This is clearly not the case. Peter made a mistake; did the Holy Spirit guide him to this mistake? No! He came up with that interpretation either on his own, or having been influence by the spirit of the day of Pentecost, which could not have been the true Holy Spirit.

This is just the kind of thing Jesus Christ warned His disciples about when He was with them. Hubris would suggest that we cannot be fooled just because we believe in Jesus Christ as our personal savior. This is wildly optimistic and unfounded in practice for all of us.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

I would ask all to consider that they try to stick to the bible on this one please.

Otherwise it will just turn into another "my quote is better than your quote" argument, whilst using quotes out of specific context just to prove a personal view.

The danger is that sometimes people hold a "view" that has not been derived from the bible, then they try to defend that view by sidestepping the bible verses that call that into question and end up quoting a statement from Ellen White, that usually has nothing to do with the verse in question.

There is absolutly nothing wrong with the SOP.

But there is a great deal wrong when someone needs the SOP to "override" a plain statement of the bible.

In other words, it is how the SOP is used that is the issue, not the SOP itelf.

This discussion does not need us to go into SOP yet, as we have not really even discussed what the bible says.

I always get concerned when an Adventist brother or sister rushes to the SOP on a subject before even studying what the bible states.

It usually means that the bible text does not fit their understanding so they have to go somewhere else, use that "evidence" and try to apply it to the bible text in retrospect.

I noticed this (respectfully), with both yours and anothers initial responses to this discussion.

You did not really consider the discussion of the text.

Rather you said:

I think it means this: "SOP quote".

And left the bible in the background.

That is an extremely dangerous way to study the bible.

Why?

It just leads to us going to the SOP to justify "our" position, without examining what the bible actually says...

We end up just proof texting our position.

This is happening here with the indwelling of the Spirit and it happened with the discussion on "does God destroy".

Scripture takes second place to "proof quotes" from SOP, and very narrow quotes in most instances, that are not balanced with other statements.

Hence my insistence here to stick to the bible.

After all, we are the champions of the bible are we not?

[Twilight]

Concerning the Acts 1:8 quote above: Luke was the writer of Acts and never met Jesus Christ, he was not a disciple, and was an apostle only on the strength of the word of another man who never met Jesus Christ personally (in the flesh) and was not a disciple or apostle according to the words of Jesus Christ. In fact, Paul declared himself to be an apostle of Christ by his own words. This would be like me declaring myself to be an M.D. (I am not) and have people believe that only on the strength of my own testimony, without seeing a diploma. Given this I have strong doubts as to the legitimacy and accuracy that Jesus Christ ever said what He is purported to have said in Acts.

Luke states in his gospel that Jesus said for His disciples to go to Jerusalem and wait for the power of the Holy Spirit to come upon them. This is a very convenient statement that sets up the events of the day or Pentecost as seen later in Acts. Luke got his information about this from Paul, who did not get this information from any of the eyewitness disciples; Paul considered these 'so-called pillars' as being inferior to himself, and did not seek information from them in any regard. Neither Matthew, Peter or John say anything about this incident in their gospels. Again my question is, "Why would Jesus say (Acts 1:8) this when in fact He had ALREADY give the disciples the Holy Spirit in the upper room as described in John 20:20-21. It seems improbable that Jesus would make this kind of error in judgment in the duplication of effort that is indicated by the giving of the Holy Spirit two different time and in two entirely different ways.

As I have previously stated in other posts just because Matthew, Peter and John were Disciples of Jesus Christ did not guarantee that they could not or would not be deceived. Jesus specifically addressed this when He told His disciples that it was up to them to see to it that they were not fooled;

And Jesus answered them, “See that no one leads you astray. Matt.24:4.

If it was impossible for the Disciples to not be deceived then why did Jesus make this statement. Yes, certainly the Disciples were deceived from time to time. You can see this when they start making statement of their own, and applying interpretations to prophecy that come from their own perspectives and not that of the prophecy itself. Ex. On the day of Pentecost Peter misinterpreted the prophecy in Joel 2, calling the spectacular events of that day a fulfillment of the Joel 2 prophecy concerning the end of time. This is clearly not the case. Peter made a mistake; did the Holy Spirit guide him to this mistake? No! He came up with that interpretation either on his own, or having been influence by the spirit of the day of Pentecost, which could not have been the true Holy Spirit.

This is just the kind of thing Jesus Christ warned His disciples about when He was with them. Hubris would suggest that we cannot be fooled just because we believe in Jesus Christ as our personal savior. This is wildly optimistic and unfounded in practice for all of us.

What concerns me here MM, is the hidden implication that you have more light than John and Peter did.

That they were decieved, but you have not been?

Mark

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

[pnattmbtc]

We receive that by faith, they received it in person.

[Musicman1228]

There is always the possibility of my being deceived, which is why I do not automatically eliminate ANYTHING from consideration, vis a vis truth. It is only when a person refuses to look at everything that involves their belief system that the potential to be fooled goes to near 100%. It is for the very reason that I don't want to be fooled that I look at all these things.

As to which of the Disciples/Apostles/Prophets might have been deceived: Paul, certainly; Peter and Matthew, probably; John, not likely (which is why he is my favorite, and seemed to be the favorite of Jesus); anyone else, including 'modern' prophets, absolutely. It is our job as individuals to filter out the lies from the truth in every situation, this is why we must trust only the words of Jesus Christ as the filter.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

We receive that by faith, they received it in person.

That they didn't receive the Holy Spirit by faith would be a fair inference from what you're written, right?

Quote:

But the important point here, is that we can see from the above texts that the "individual/person" of the Godhead dwells in us, literally.

Your idea is that the Holy Spirit was the literal breath of Christ? So when Christ breathed upon them, they sucked in His breath, and thus received the Holy Spirit?

No.

It is not my idea pnat.

That is what the bible says.

Why do you want to move this to "personal interpretation"?

---------------

Let us look at the sequence:

First we note that the disciples had not been given the Holy Spirit, because it would only be given after Jesus was glorified:

Jhn 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.)

Then we notice that the Holy Spirit was with them (in Christ), but not in them:

Jhn 14:17 [Even] the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

Then after His ascencion, we notice that the Holy Spirit is given in the upper room:

Jhn 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on [them], and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

So there we have the sequence of the giving of the Holy Spirit.

----------------

Then let us compare that scripture with another instance of Jesus "breathing":

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

This describes the giving of life, the giving of mans "spirit".

The giving of the Holy Spirit is given in the same manner.

---------------

My concern here Pnat, is that you want to put this sequence of events down as "opinion".

Is that because you have a different view perhaps that the above scripture does not fit into?

I do not know how it could be made any more plain?

I would point this out in love though:

If you need to now go to the SOP in a bid to get around this simple sequence of events, then there is something wrong with your belief system.

Mark :-)

PS.

If there is something I have missed from the biblical sequence, I would be interested in hearing about it however.

[Twilight]

There is always the possibility of my being deceived, which is why I do not automatically eliminate ANYTHING from consideration, vis a vis truth. It is only when a person refuses to look at everything that involves their belief system that the potential to be fooled goes to near 100%. It is for the very reason that I don't want to be fooled that I look at all these things.

As to which of the Disciples/Apostles/Prophets might have been deceived: Paul, certainly; Peter and Matthew, probably; John, not likely (which is why he is my favorite, and seemed to be the favorite of Jesus); anyone else, including 'modern' prophets, absolutely. It is our job as individuals to filter out the lies from the truth in every situation, this is why we must trust only the words of Jesus Christ as the filter.

But then you have a problem MM.

Because according to your reckoning, John himself WAS deceived by Pentecost.

Because he was there, happily joining in.

You are saying pentecost was a deception.

You are saying you do not think John was deceived.

But then you are saying he was deceived.

Mark

[pnattmbtc]

p:Your idea is that the Holy Spirit was the literal breath of Christ? So when Christ breathed upon them, they sucked in His breath, and thus received the Holy Spirit?

T:No.

It is not my idea pnat.

That is what the bible says.

Ok, I'll rephrase this. It's your understanding that Christ breathed upon them, they sucked in His breath, and this is how they received the Holy Spirit. The disciples did not receive the Holy Spirit by faith, but by inhaling. This is correct?

[Dr. Rich]

Mark, good try, but Luke wrote Acts didn't he? Luke was not a Jew and did not even know Jesus. He wrote what he had heard from Paul. Could the whole Pentecost episode be made up? Perhaps John was not there, neither Peter, or none of the disciples? Perhaps the whole story was made up? After all, there is NO ONE else that ever describe this story--is there? So, where is the the other witness that we need to prove this whole story was even true? Come on man--you gotta think like an investigator!

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

p:Your idea is that the Holy Spirit was the literal breath of Christ? So when Christ breathed upon them, they sucked in His breath, and thus received the Holy Spirit?

T:No.

It is not my idea pnat.

That is what the bible says.

Ok, I'll rephrase this. It's your understanding that Christ breathed upon them, they sucked in His breath, and this is how they received the Holy Spirit. The disciples did not receive the Holy Spirit by faith, but by inhaling. This is correct?

You seem to want to define what I am saying Pnat.

It is almost like you want to box it and label it?

But what does the bible say?

It says He breathed on them.

As to the detail of that, we can only say that we could possibly draw the comparison from the creation of man, where man was also "breathed on/into".

Beyond that, what could we say?

Why are you pressing for a detail that I have not stated?

C,mon Pnat.

What does the bible say happened?

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

Mark, good try, but Luke wrote Acts didn't he? Luke was not a Jew and did not even know Jesus. He wrote what he had heard from Paul. Could the whole Pentecost episode be made up? Perhaps John was not there, neither Peter, or none of the disciples? Perhaps the whole story was made up? After all, there is NO ONE else that ever describe this story--is there? So, where is the the other witness that we need to prove this whole story was even true? Come on man--you gotta think like an investigator!

So John wrote the epistle's of John and the book of Revelation, but never got around to mentioning that the book of Acts and Pauls writings were false.

That the account of pentecost was in fact a lie?

John being possibly the last disciple alive was a little remiss don't you think?

---------------

Have you also considered that Pentecost fell on the exact date that the Sanctuary services forshadowed?

Pretty clever "lie"!

If you guys are not careful you will end up with only one word left in the whole bible.

"I"

Mark :-)

[SivartM]

Good point, Twilight.

If Paul was a false prophet...

Why did none of the apostles EVER oppose him? He would have been one of the worst deceivers in the early church, but they never refuted him.