Did Cornelius receive the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized?

[Hick Preacher]

You need to listen to our prayers. I have been bestowed the Gift of the Holy Ghost, but I pray for the presence of the Holy Ghost upon myself and my family daily.

You need to attend our church. In our public prayers, we ask for the presence of the Holy Ghost. Our sacrament prayer specifically asks for the Holy Ghost. In none of these instances is the Gift of the Holy Ghost mentioned. Having that gift does not guarantee that the Holy Ghost is with us -- we need to seek it continually.

May I encourage you once again to listen to the living prophets and turn away from the theologians and Biblical scholars. Remember the lesson of Saul, who rejected the scribes and Pharasees and became Paul.

I do not see any reason to turn away from theologians and Biblical scholars.

But your other recommendations seem good and fine, by and large.

[Ahab]

I do not see any reason to turn away from theologians and Biblical scholars.

Imagine being face to face with theologians and Bible scholars as if you are face to face with people who can tell you everything you need to know about God.

Now imagine turning around to be face to face with God, himself, standing shoulder to shoulder with theologians and Bible scholars.

See any difference?

But your other recommendations seem good and fine, by and large.

Okay, so you're willing to hear our prayers and come to our Church. Would you also be interested in coming to a baptism ceremony held in your honor?

[PacMan]

Question: Why then could some baptize, but had to wait for the Apostles to come and lay hands to give the Holy Ghost? See Acts 8:14-17.

[Hick Preacher]

Question: Why then could some baptize, but had to wait for the Apostles to come and lay hands to give the Holy Ghost? See Acts 8:14-17.

Obviously this was a demonstration of the equal regeneration of Samarian Christians to Jewish Christians. The Jews and Samaritans harbored generations of animosity towards one another. New Jewish Christians would likely think of Samaritians as second class Christians if some outward verification of equality were not demonstrated.

Thus, God withheld the Spirit until a ritualistic in -person verification by Laying on of Hands was performed by Jewish Apostles.

[Hick Preacher]

Imagine being face to face with theologians and Bible scholars as if you are face to face with people who can tell you everything you need to know about God.

Now imagine turning around to be face to face with God, himself, standing shoulder to shoulder with theologians and Bible scholars.

See any difference?

Okay, so you're willing to hear our prayers and come to our Church. Would you also be interested in coming to a baptism ceremony held in your honor?

Say What?

[USU78]

Obviously this was a demonstration of the equal regeneration of Samarian Christians to Jewish Christians. The Jews and Samaritans harbored generations of animosity towards one another. New Jewish Christians would likely think of Samaritians as second class Christians if some outward verification of equality were not demonstrated.

Thus, God withheld the Spirit until a ritualistic in -person verification by Laying on of Hands was performed by Jewish Apostles.

Interesting notion, but how does one go about demonstrating such a thing with any degree of certainty?

[Vance]

Sorry, but I don't see how,

God withheld the Spirit until a ritualistic in -person verification by Laying on of Hands was performed by Jewish Apostles.

leads to,

a demonstration of the equal regeneration of Samarian Christians to Jewish Christians.

Could you explain?

[Hick Preacher]

Sorry, but I don't see how,

leads to,

Could you explain?

Samaritans were treated by Jewish culture of that day as a kind of 'untouchable' cast of person. If a Samaritan were claimed to have the Gift of the Holy Ghost among Jewish Christians it would be hard for many Christians to understand as real at this point of the development of the early Church.

http://www.bible-history.com/Samaritans/SAMARITANSJews_and_Samaritans.htm

Laying on of Hands is not about the magical transmission of power. Power is not transfered from one person to another, NOT like passing electrical power through a conductor to make an appliance work.

Rather Laying on of Hands is a outward sign a social ritual, and a kind of tactile communication that a group witnesses, or a person experiences. Tactile communication conveys love , acceptance and other important affective attitudes toward others.

http://work911.com/communication/nonverbtactile.htm

Jewish Apostles preforming the Laying on of Hands demonstrated acceptance and love toward an otherwise rejected cast of people. God is fully aware of this situation and the Apostles worked in harmony with God's will in this instance.

Laying on of Hands as a ritual is an important part of many cultural forms of communication, and God commanded people since the time of Adam to build and support culture.

[Vance]

Laying on of Hands is not about the magical transmission of power.

This, you have not established.

Power is not transfered from one person to another, NOT like passing electrical power through a conductor to make an appliance work.

This, you have not established.

1 Tim. 4:14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

Acts 28:8 And it came to pass, that the father of Publius lay sick of a fever and of a bloody flux: to whom Paul entered in, and prayed, and laid his hands on him, and healed him.

Acts 8:18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles

[Hick Preacher]

This, you have not established.

This, you have not established.

1 Tim. 4:14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

Acts 28:8 And it came to pass, that the father of Publius lay sick of a fever and of a bloody flux: to whom Paul entered in, and prayed, and laid his hands on him, and healed him.

Acts 8:18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles

[Vance]

So Vance do you believe that the Holy Ghost is actually somehow transmitted like electricity through an LDS Priesthood Holder's body down through his arms in to his hands, then out into the head of the person being blessed?

No, but nice strawman.

Kind of like getting an I.V. infusion?

No, but nice allusion in an attempt to make something look ridiculous. + 5 points for sophistry.

So, Mister "Prima Scriptura" please feel free to explain why the scriptures I quoted don't mean what they say.

[Hick Preacher]

No, but nice strawman.

No, but nice allusion in an attempt to make something look ridiculous. + 5 points for sophistry.

So, Mister "Prima Scriptura" please feel free to explain why the scriptures I quoted don't mean what they say.

Vance, these passages that you have cited when carefully examined simply say that blessings were given along with the laying on of hands. The laying on of hands did not transmit the gift, the function laying on of hands in these passages are an indication of palliative gestures.

Healings for example, are often also administrated with the laying on of hands. Again this touching tradition is not what transmits the essential healing powers, but rather, an accessory to the action of healing.

[Rob Bowman]

Ahab,

I had asked Vance: "Are you asserting that Christians killed the apostles?" You commented:

Come on now, Rob. Shirley even you would admit that they weren't really true Christians.

You're confusing the issue. The question is who killed the apostles. Another way to state the question is this: I wanted to know if the people who killed the apostles, according to Vance, were people who professed to be Christians or not; or if you like, people who were at the time members of the Christian church.

So far, I can't seem to get a straight answer to this simple question. There's a reason for this: a straight answer would expose the fact that Mormons do not have a viable explanation of the so-called Great Apostasy.

[Vance]

You're confusing the issue. The question is who killed the apostles. Another way to state the question is this: I wanted to know if the people who killed the apostles, according to Vance, were people who professed to be Christians or not; or if you like, people who were at the time members of the Christian church.

So far, I can't seem to get a straight answer to this simple question.

Rob,

See this post from 6 days ago.

Your question was answered.

There's a reason for this: a straight answer would expose the fact that Mormons do not have a viable explanation of the so-called Great Apostasy.

Well, you might have a point except the question was answered sometime ago.

Not sure how someone's answer to a question in the 21st century can affect the apostasy that started in the 1st. Perhaps you could enlighten us.

BTW, what part of "not sparing the flock" is so difficult to understand?

[PacMan]

Obviously this was a demonstration of the equal regeneration of Samarian Christians to Jewish Christians. The Jews and Samaritans harbored generations of animosity towards one another. New Jewish Christians would likely think of Samaritians as second class Christians if some outward verification of equality were not demonstrated.

Thus, God withheld the Spirit until a ritualistic in -person verification by Laying on of Hands was performed by Jewish Apostles.

Of course. Obviously. Or not, because nothing in the text suggests that such was needed. Moreover, why couldn't Phillip do it? I think the answer is clear, that not only did Philip not have the authority, but that the process of by the laying on of hands. As to authority - which is totally a separate issue - Hebrews makes it clear that authority is transmitted by the laying on of hands. This is exactly why Simon the magician wanted it, and why he got such a scolding by Peter. It wasn't a warm fuzzy, but a real demonstration of authority.

And by the way, there's nothing magic about it. It's all about organization, which the Lord tends to be good at.

Rob,

So far, I can't seem to get a straight answer to this simple question. There's a reason for this: a straight answer would expose the fact that Mormons do not have a viable explanation of the so-called Great Apostasy.

Not viable? The fact that not only did the Old Testament prophecy of it, but the Apostles did as well. Start with the first couple chapters of Ephesians: Paul's dispensation was the Grace of God, different than the dispensation of the fulness of times. And it was in the dispensation of the fulness of times that the time of the Gentiles would be fulfilled and all things under heaven and on the earth would become one. Dow when did that happen? And if you have a restitution of all things, where's your authority? Let's be certain to note that the office of Apostles and Prophets must be restituted (unless the Bible doesn't mean what it says). And that also means authority. Why? Because they were the Apostles that came together to fill the vacancy of Judas. Things were not to stay static, but there were to be significant shifts. And the shifts culminated in the Apostasy - the falling away - once the Apostles died (and they knew they were going to die off, too).

Not only is it viable, but the only way to consider the scriptures in any sort of harmony.

PacMan

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Ahab,

I had asked Vance: "Are you asserting that Christians killed the apostles?" You commented:

Come on now, Rob. Shirley even you would admit that they weren't really true Christians.

You're confusing the issue.

Surely you see the difference between Shirley* and surely.

*Whoever this Shirley person is I bet she is hot.

BTW welcome back Rob. I hope things are going a little better in your neck of the woods.

[Hick Preacher]

Of course. Obviously. Or not, because nothing in the text suggests that such was needed. Moreover, why couldn't Phillip do it? I think the answer is clear, that not only did Philip not have the authority, but that the process of by the laying on of hands. As to authority - which is totally a separate issue - Hebrews makes it clear that authority is transmitted by the laying on of hands. This is exactly why Simon the magician wanted it, and why he got such a scolding by Peter. It wasn't a warm fuzzy, but a real demonstration of authority.

And by the way, there's nothing magic about it. It's all about organization, which the Lord tends to be good at.

The the cultural tension between Jews and Samaritans is certainly described both in the scriptures and history. Peter and John represented the central authority from the Church at Jerusalem and came down to make sure the Samaritans were invited, accepted and unified with the Church at Jerusalem. So yes the Laying on of Hands by the Apostles from Jerusalem is associated with that some specific authority.

Hebrews did indeed usually use the laying on of hands as a tactile communication device in rites that are associated with the transfer of authority. However, the authority itself is not somehow transfered mechanically by the physical contact of the hands. Simon the magician likely did think that Laying on of Hands did have magical powers, because a magician with a magical world view, and a pagan mentality would likely think that way.

[Vance]

Simon the magician likely did think that Laying on of Hands did have magical powers, because a magician with a magical world view, and a pagan mentality would likely think that way.

Actually Luke, the author of Acts that says, "And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Bowman-

Long time, no see. I can only speak for what the Book of Mormon teaches, not what the LDS Church teaches. Jesus, in speaking to the Nephites, stated the following...

3 Nephi 9:20

And ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit. And whoso cometh unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, him will I baptize with fire and with the Holy Ghost, even as the Lamanites, because of their faith in me at the time of their conversion, were baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and they knew it not.

***So, according to the Savior Himself, in the Book of Mormon, at the time of true conversion one can, in deed, be baptized "with fire and the Holy Ghost."***

[Hick Preacher]

Actually Luke, the author of Acts that says, "And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles

[BookofMormonLuvr]

It does appear that Simon thought that laying on of hands CAUSED the Holy Ghost to be given.

Actually Laying on of Hands is associated with getting the Holy Ghost. But there is no pattern in the New Testament that supports the idea that it is the only way to get the Gift.

Laying on of hands can certainly be a positive influence in healing.

But just like in the case of receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost, cases of healing have been by God's power when the Laying on of Hands was involved and also when Laying on of hands was not a factor.

Examples of both--

Hick-

So it appears the Book of Mormon and Bible agree... as they always will.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

So your answer is that you don't know if professing Christians had any responsibility in killing the apostles. Is that correct?

By the way, I don't have any trouble understanding "not sparing the flock," but I fail to see the relevance of this expression to our discussion if your position now is that you don't know if professing Christians had any responsibility in killing the apostles.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

There have been three Shirleys in my life, two of them wonderful film performers (Temple and Jones) and one my father's departed cousin Shirley Daniel, a truly beloved family member and a more gracious and loving Christian than any I have known.

Life continues to be interesting, but some good things have been happening. God is always good. Thanks for asking.

[Ahab]

Why are people still talking about this, even after I have already given the correct answer(s)?

It's both Yes and No, folks.

Let's go do something else now.

[Hick Preacher]

So it appears the Book of Mormon and Bible agree... as they always will.

Yes BookofMormonLuvr,

The Bible and Book of Mormon have similar teachings, each canon is an analog of the other.