339 replies to this topic

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 10 November 2010 - 03:34 PM, said:

Vance,

I see no contradiction between Acts 10 and either Acts 8 or Acts 19. I do see contradictions between Acts and LDS dogma. What to do about that is the question.

And there are contradictions between Acts and your dogma. What to do about that is another question.

[Bill Hamblin]

Rob Bowman, on 10 November 2010 - 03:34 PM, said:

Vance,

I see no contradiction between Acts 10 and either Acts 8 or Acts 19. I do see contradictions between Acts and LDS dogma. What to do about that is the question.

You're really grasping at straws on this one.

LDS do not deny that people can receive the "gift" of the Holy Ghost before baptism, in the sense of manifestations and inspiration.  Heck, I'd even say YOU could have the Holy Ghost.  We simply make a distinction between "gift" as a temporary manifestation, and "Gift" as a ritual endowment of the Holy Spirit after baptism as a "constant companion."  

Surely you know that.  

Please try to do better in your criticisms in the future.  Come to think of it, don't you have something better to do?

[Rob Bowman]

Ahab,

I stand by my analysis of the issues. You wrote:

Ahab, on 10 November 2010 - 03:41 PM, said:

To know what we mean, you have to understand what we mean, and still you won't necessarily receive the Holy Ghost who will tell you that what we are saying is true.

I do understand what you mean. Unfortunately, you are in effect telling me to ignore what the Holy Spirit tells me in Acts (which he inspired) in favor of what you claim the Holy Spirit has told you. I'm sorry, but this isn't an option for me.

[Nathair]

In the modern Church, we sometimes use terms in a technical sense among ourselves in different ways than they were used anciently.  For example we exclusively apply the names Elohim and Jehovah to the Father and Son respectively  when anciently, both names were applied to both beings.  So what we call "the Gift of the Holy Ghost" is probably not the same thing as what Peter called "the Gift of the Holy Ghost."   Or at least that's my best guess.  Maybe I am just being an idiot.


Yours under the jargon-using oaks,
Nathair /|\

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 10 November 2010 - 03:44 PM, said:

In any case, as I have tried to explain, the expression "the gift of the Holy Spirit" in both Acts 2:38 and 10:45 in context refers to receiving the Holy Spirit, having him fall on the person, and not to receiving some particular manifestation or spiritual gift.

And how do you tell if the Holy Ghost has fallen on someone without some manifestation?

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You're recasting the distinction so as to salvage it in the teeth of contrary evidence. The LDS sources I cited specifically contrast receiving the Holy Spirit with receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. They flatly deny that anyone can receive the gift of the Holy Spirit before baptism. They do NOT do what you are doing here, saying that someone can receive the "gift" as a temporary manifestation and later the "gift" as a permanent endowment. Feel free to try to improve on Joseph Smith's teaching, but if you don't mind I'm going to continue focusing on what Joseph and the LDS Church's official publications teach.

Your argument also makes no sense of Acts 10:44-48. If all that had happened to the Corinthians was that they had received a temporary manifestation, Peter would not have said (v. 47) that the Holy Spirit had fallen on the Gentiles in the same way as he had fallen on them (the Jewish Christians).

I must also say that I found your comments, especially at the end, to be rude.

Bill Hamblin, on 10 November 2010 - 03:45 PM, said:

You're really grasping at straws on this one.

LDS do not deny that people can receive the "gift" of the Holy Ghost before baptism, in the sense of manifestations and inspiration.  Heck, I'd even say YOU could have the Holy Ghost.  We simply make a distinction between "gift" as a temporary manifestation, and "Gift" as a ritual endowment of the Holy Spirit after baptism as a "constant companion."  

Surely you know that.  

Please try to do better in your criticisms in the future.  Come to think of it, don't you have something better to do?

[Rob Bowman]

There was a manifestation. What's your point?

Vance, on 10 November 2010 - 03:48 PM, said:

And how do you tell if the Holy Ghost has fallen on someone without some manifestation?

[Bill Hamblin]

Rob Bowman, on 10 November 2010 - 03:46 PM, said:

Ahab,

I stand by my analysis of the issues. You wrote:



I do understand what you mean. Unfortunately, you are in effect telling me to ignore what the Holy Spirit tells me in Acts (which he inspired) in favor of what you claim the Holy Spirit has told you. I'm sorry, but this isn't an option for me.

Of course I suspect that Rob knows that the Greek word dorea in Acts 10:45 could be translated as present, bounty, handout, donation, award, endowment, benefaction, freebee, etc.  Would that make him happy?

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Vance, on 10 November 2010 - 03:45 PM, said:

And there are contradictions between Acts and your dogma. What to do about that is another question.

Neither you nor anyone else so far has specified any such contradictions.

[stemelbow]

Rob Bowman, on 10 November 2010 - 03:44 PM, said:

stem,

I certainly agree that the expression "the gift of the Holy Spirit" was not used by the ancient (NT) church in the same way as it is used in the LDS Church. That's part of my point.

I know.  That's why I made my comments.

Quote

Reading the NT only in English may be obscuring something for you, which is that when the NT talks about spiritual gifts of the Spirit, it does not use the word dorea ("gift," Acts 2:38; 10:45) but either pneumatikos ("spiritual thing," 1 Cor. 12:1) or charisma ("gift of grace," 1 Cor. 12:4, etc.). In any case, as I have tried to explain, the expression "the gift of the Holy Spirit" in both Acts 2:38 and 10:45 in context refers to receiving the Holy Spirit, having him fall on the person, and not to receiving some particular manifestation or spiritual gift.

Indeed.  Thus my point.  The Spirit falling on a person does not necessarily entail what LDS call The Gift of the Holy Ghost.  My point remains, even if spiritual gifts, as I attempted as an example does not work.  You see, the terminology, Gift of the Spirit as used by them of old can very well mean something different (even the Spirit coming to one, or falling on one) than what we mean by Gift of the Holy Ghost.  And neither may be wrong.  As another example many within the Church have often misused the terminology (gift of the Holy Ghost) in describing experiences much like witnesses from the Holy Ghost or the Holy Ghost falling on an individual, but such does not mean the terminology (Gift of the Holy Ghost) is all that wrong.  Afterall it is a gift either way.  

love,
stem

[Bill Hamblin]

Rob Bowman, on 10 November 2010 - 03:52 PM, said:

Bill,

You're recasting the distinction so as to salvage it in the teeth of contrary evidence. The LDS sources I cited specifically contrast receiving the Holy Spirit with receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. They flatly deny that anyone can receive the gift of the Holy Spirit before baptism. They do NOT do what you are doing here, saying that someone can receive the "gift" as a temporary manifestation and later the "gift" as a permanent endowment. Feel free to try to improve on Joseph Smith's teaching, but if you don't mind I'm going to continue focusing on what Joseph and the LDS Church's official publications teach.

Your argument also makes no sense of Acts 10:44-48. If all that had happened to the Corinthians was that they had received a temporary manifestation, Peter would not have said (v. 47) that the Holy Spirit had fallen on the Gentiles in the same way as he had fallen on them (the Jewish Christians).

I must also say that I found your comments, especially at the end, to be rude.

This is nonsense.  The Book of Mormon tells people that the Holy Ghost will manifest the truth to readers.  Missionaries ALWAYS tell contacts that the Holy Ghost will manifest the truth to them BEFORE baptism.  Get a grip!  

I'll add a smiley face so I'm not rude.  

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 10 November 2010 - 03:54 PM, said:

Neither you nor anyone else so far has specified any such contradictions.

Humm,  I wonder if that is really true or if you are so blind that even when pointed out you can not see them.  You are, after all, totally biased and agenda driven.

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 10 November 2010 - 03:52 PM, said:

. . . Peter would not have said (v. 47) that the Holy Spirit had fallen on the Gentiles in the same way as he had fallen on them (the Jewish Christians).

And just how do you know what Peter would or would not have said?  Taken up necromancy have you?

How do you know that Luke even got it recorded right?  Was he infallible? Was Peter infallible too?

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

"Nonsense"? Your reply didn't even address what I said!

Sigh....

Bill Hamblin, on 10 November 2010 - 03:56 PM, said:

This is nonsense.  The Book of Mormon tells people that the Holy Ghost will manifest the truth to readers.  Missionaries ALWAYS tell contacts that the Holy Ghost will manifest the truth to them BEFORE baptism.  Get a grip!  

I'll add a smiley face so I'm not rude.  

[stemelbow]

Quote

If all that had happened to the Corinthians was that they had received a temporary manifestation, Peter would not have said (v. 47) that the Holy Spirit had fallen on the Gentiles in the same way as he had fallen on them (the Jewish Christians).

Rob,

I see no reason to accept the idea that "Peter would not have said that the Holy Spirit had fallen on the Gentiles in the same way as he had fallen on them" if the manifestation was "temporary".  As has been suggested the witness of the Holy, to LDS, can be had by all, and in fact, should be had by nearly all.  

As for the wording/terminology.  I'm still insistent, that our particular terminology in describing an ordinance and our strict uses of that terminology, need not be applied to those of old.  

love,
stem

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I see that you have quickly exhausted your efforts to reconcile LDS teaching with Acts and are now simply questioning the reliability of the text.

Game over.

[BCSpace]

Quote

"While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 10:44-48, emphasis added).

Luke says that “the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word” before Peter had even finished speaking, and explicitly explains that this meant that “the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out” on the Gentile family of Cornelius (v. 45). Luke also quotes Peter as calling for them to be baptized because they had “received the Holy Spirit” (v. 47). (By the way, notice that here receiving “the gift of the Holy Spirit” is synonymous with receiving the Holy Spirit himself; there is no difference.) The order here is undeniable: first, the receiving of the gift (vv. 44-46); second, baptism (v. 48). Furthermore, since Cornelius and his family had not yet been baptized when they received the gift, clearly no one had laid hands on them to impart the gift. We must conclude, then, that these people received the gift of the Holy Spirit before they had been either baptized or had hands laid on them.

Although honest people can disagree about many things, in this instance there really is no room for doubt that the statement made by Gospel Principles—that “Cornelius did not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost until after he was baptized”—is flat wrong. Furthermore, it is difficult to see this claim as anything but a deliberate distortion of the facts. This false statement, in clear, explicit contradiction of Acts 10:44-48, has appeared in Gospel Principles from the very first edition over thirty years ago (see Gospel Principles, 1978 ed., 101).

Actually, the GP statement is correct when you look at the example of Acts 2 which is exactly like Acts 10 except there are a few more details.  Notice that in Acts 2, even though the Spirit had already fallen upon them and they spoke in tongues, they still had not got the gift of the Holy Ghost as per Acts 2:38.  So in Acts 10 they had received the testimony or witness of the HG as well as anyone else including the Apostles, just like in Acts 2, but cannot possibly have received the gift of the HG according to the Acts 2 example. So once again, if you want the Bible to be internally consistent, LDS doctrine is the only way to go.  

It's absolutely impossible rely on evangelicalism to clearly transmit the doctrine of the Bible.

Game, set, match.

Edited by BCSpace, 10 November 2010 - 04:12 PM.

[Rob Bowman]

stem,

By your reasoning, your religion can use biblical words, names, and expressions to mean anything and it doesn't matter if those meanings line up with the Bible or not. The words God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, gospel, salvation, gift, scripture, creation, angel, virgin, transgression, fall, heaven, hell, eternal, endless, apostle, priest, priesthood, teacher, deacon, patriarch -- these words and more can mean whatever your religious leaders decide they mean. What the Bible means by these things doesn't really matter.

Come to think of it, that pretty well sums up the actual situation.

stemelbow, on 10 November 2010 - 04:05 PM, said:

Rob,

I see no reason to accept the idea that "Peter would not have said that the Holy Spirit had fallen on the Gentiles in the same way as he had fallen on them" if the manifestation was "temporary".  As has been suggested the witness of the Holy, to LDS, can be had by all, and in fact, should be had by nearly all.  

As for the wording/terminology.  I'm still insistent, that our particular terminology in describing an ordinance and our strict uses of that terminology, need not be applied to those of old.  

love,
stem

[BCSpace]

Quote

Come to think of it, that pretty well sums up the actual situation.

Game over Bowman.  You forgot about Acts 2.

[Rob Bowman]

BCSpace,

Huh?

Who in Acts 2 had the Holy Spirit fall on them but had not yet received the gift of the Holy Spirit as per Acts 2:38??

Acts 2:38 and 10:45 are the only verses in the Bible to use the expression "the gift of the Holy Spirit." Are you saying it means one thing in Acts 2:38 but something else in 10:45, and if so, on what basis?

The only thing that seems absolutely impossible to me at the moment is understanding your post. Perhaps it's because I'm really overtired and overdue for dinner.

With that thought, I'll have to excuse myself from the forum here for at least a while.

BCSpace, on 10 November 2010 - 04:09 PM, said:

Actually, the GP statement is correct when you look at the example of Acts 2 which is exactly like Acts 10 except there are a few more details.  Notice that in Acts 2, even though the Spirit had already fallen upon them and they spoke in tongues, they still had not got the gift of the Holy Ghost as per Acts 2:38.  So in Acts 10 they had received the testimony or witness of the HG as well as anyone else including the Apostles, just like in Acts 2, but cannot possibly have received the gift of the HG according to the Acts 2 example. So once again, if you want the Bible to be internally consistent, LDS doctrine is the only way to go.  

It's absolutely impossible rely on evangelicalism to clearly transmit the doctrine of the Bible.

Game, set, match.