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

[Vance]

Vance...seriously... you're wrong. It is not an insult to call you ignorant in this case - it's a fact. The difference is untranslatable because we don't make the distinction in English.

Please feel free to show where I said that the difference was "translatable" or that we had to make a "distinction in English"

Don't accuse me of being wrong for something I haven't done.

There is no 'adding of words', or 'removing of words' that would clarify the meaning in English.

So? I didn't claim that there was. So again, don't accuse me of being wrong for something I haven't done.

The only difference is the grammatical case as to where it's being directed.

So, even you admit that there is a difference. That difference, what ever it is, destroys Rob's premise. His WHOLE premise is that they are EXACTLY the same. They aren't.

This is not a case of 'not being translated correctly'.

I never said that it was. So again, don't accuse me of being wrong for something I haven't done.

It's a case of you not understanding the text.

Hey, that there is a difference in the Greek is rather OBVIOUS!!! Rob is using the fact that the difference is inexpressible in English to hide the fatal flaw in his attack.

Call that what you will.

[David T]

Hey, that there is a difference in the Greek is rather OBVIOUS!!! Rob is using the fact that the difference is inexpressible in English to hide the fatal flaw in his attack.

Call that what you will.

No, he's not, Vance. The grammatical difference has no effect on Rob's claim.

While I have already disagreed with Rob's general conclusions in the OP here in this thread, it's incredibly clear that, in this particular case, you're chasing the wind with your embarrassing case-difference argument.

[Thunderfire]

It seems to me that our human nature is starting to show through where we begin straining at "nats" in order to support a belief. In my opinion, this very account introduces us to a lesson Peter needed to learn and one we also need to master.

The Inspired Version states: "And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost..." Acts 10:45

The NRSV states basically the same thing: "The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles, for they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God..." Acts 10:45-46

It appears by their "astonishment" that they too didn't believe it was possible for "others" to have the same experience with the Holy Ghost. Yet Peter was witnessing a Pentecost type encounter with these people!

But then what Peter says should silence all critics regarding what "type of gift" or degree of the Holy Spirit experience they had when he says: "They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have..." Acts 10:47 NIV (the other versions say the same thing)

Peter did not say, "But we still have greater because of who we are or what we had done." He simply said they received the same thing, end of discussion. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with God loving people outside of our respective denominations as much as us, or manifesting himself in the same power and presence.

[Vance]

No, he's not, Vance. The grammatical difference has no effect on Rob's claim.

Are you talking about Rob's claim that "the gift of the Holy Ghost" in Acts 10 is EXACTLY THE SAME as "the gift of the Holy Ghost" (of Acts 2) that LDS believe is bestowed by "the laying on of hands". You mean that one?

[Calm]

No, he's not, Vance. The grammatical difference has no effect on Rob's claim.

While I have already disagreed with Rob's general conclusions in the OP here in this thread, it's incredibly clear that, in this particular case, you're chasing the wind with your embarrassing case-difference argument.

Just to clarify, the case-difference does not really indicate a formal/informal difference as was claimed?

[Vance]

Just to clarify, the case-difference does not really indicate a formal/informal difference as was claimed?

Good question.

[USU78]

Good question.

In a prior life, I studied linguistics. The case endings that were mentioned are present in a whole lot of languages, including Middle and Old English.

Those case endings make it possible to move things around in sentences without losing meaning.

Man bites dog means something in English, but it's different from Dog bites man.

If you have the endings, you can recognize who's doing the biting and who's getting bit regardless how the words are put together in the sentence.

Think of one of the few words in English that retains the ending: Who/Whom. Who bites the dog vs. The dog bites whom. Whom is in the accusative (direct object) case: Who is in the nominative (subject) case. Thus meaning is not changed, though grammar, which gives meaning to what the words mean when put together in a sentence, is.

Nothing formal/informal about this.

[David T]

Are you talking about Rob's claim that "the gift of the Holy Ghost" in Acts 10 is EXACTLY THE SAME as "the gift of the Holy Ghost" (of Acts 2) that LDS believe is bestowed by "the laying on of hands". You mean that one?

Yeah. That one. If you read my posts in this thread, I have presented by disagreement with this conclusion.

We don't use the term gift of the holy ghost with the same meaning attached to it that Luke did. The words are the same, the modern connotation we understand by it is different. As I presented to Rob, we have done this many times in the Church - standardized usage of terminology when there are multiple similar (or even exactly the same) scriptural terms are used to doctrinal elements (or individuals or roles) we understand today to be distinct.

Hence, we use the term Ordain today, in reference to a priesthood ordinance, to specifically mean bestowing of a priesthood office. In the D&C, that term is also synonymous with 'setting apart' (which we recognize still in the term 'foreordination'). Hence, one generally does not refer to one being ordained to a calling today, we refer to them as being 'set apart'. Even though the D&C refers to Emma Smith being ordained (see D&C 25:7) to expound scriptures, etc.

Yes, Luke used the same terminology (albiet in greek) that we use today in referring to the Sacramental Gift of the Holy Ghost. However, it is clear by the context (and Joseph's expounding of the event) that this is not what Luke was referring to using the term. That does not effect in any way the Church's practice or policy, or usage of the specific phrase today. It's a non-issue.

[Vance]

Yes, Luke used the same terminology (albiet in greek) that we use today in referring to the Sacramental Gift of the Holy Ghost.

Ok, but he didn't use the exact same form of the words in both Acts 2 and Acts 10 thus presenting a difference, even if the difference is inexpressible in English.

However, it is clear by the context (and Joseph's expounding of the event) that this is not what Luke was referring to using the term.

Exactly my point. From an inerrantist perspective, different forms should (unless they are very biased and agenda driven) indicate some form of difference, and to adamantly conflate the two and refuse to acknowledge that there could be a difference, is, dare I say, less than honest.

That does not effect in any way the Church's practice or policy, or usage of the specific phrase today. It's a non-issue.

Absolutely, and so one wonders why Rob is spending so much time and effort attempting to make it an issue.

[David T]

Exactly my point. From an inerrantist perspective, different forms should (unless they are very biased and agenda driven) indicate some form of difference, and to adamantly conflate the two and refuse to acknowledge that there could be a difference, is, dare I say, less than honest.

This shows that you don't understand my point. You're still apparantly trying to argue that the word when used in two different cases should be evidence for two different distinct theological meanings of the words.

While not an exact grammatic equivalent, here's an example of what it appears you're arguing in English.

There are two phrases:

1. John gave the book to me.
2. Bill gave me the book.

Using the logic you're trying to work on the difference in Greek cases, we should understand the word 'book' to clearly mean something different in both cases. You would be using the difference in those phrases to prove that something substantially different was meant by the 'book' that John gave, as opposed to the book that Bill gave.

This is the essence of what you are arguing based on the difference in Greek cases. It's an illogical argument.

[Thunderfire]

Absolutely, and so one wonders why Rob is spending so much time and effort attempting to make it an issue.

In my opinion, this was also an issue with Peter. He appears to have felt the same way many do today. Look again at his vision of the large sheet of paper with all the different animals on it. This vision conveyed different layers of revelation for him. Some think this was only about clean and unclean foods. But then Peter goes on to explain the greater revelation he received from the vision when at the home of Cornelius he said:

"You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean..." Acts 10:28 So the vision of the large sheet was not just about clean and unclean foods, it was about people "outside of our group."

We have to admit that our denominations are closed fellowships, between member and non-member (or clean and unclean per this scriptural example). We know they felt this way because they were "astounded" that the Gentiles received the same thing Peter had being the gift of the Holy Spirit.

In our day, we equate this conveyance of the Holy Spirit as ONLY being done through laying on of hands. But going back to Acts 2, no one laid hands on each other to receive this gift as well as what happened in Acts 10. From Peter's perspective in the text, there was no difference in what happened. He recognized the same thing happening in the home of Cornelius as what happened to him at Pentecost. Surely this was very humbling for Peter to learn and a lesson we will need to learn in our day as well.

[Obiwan]

Edited to add,

Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

. . .

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

If they had already received the "gift" Peter was referring to, why did he tell them they had to be baptized BEFORE they could receive it?

Acts 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

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

[Hick Preacher]

In a prior life, I studied linguistics. The case endings that were mentioned are present in a whole lot of languages, including Middle and Old English.

Those case endings make it possible to move things around in sentences without losing meaning.

Man bites dog means something in English, but it's different from Dog bites man.

If you have the endings, you can recognize who's doing the biting and who's getting bit regardless how the words are put together in the sentence.

Think of one of the few words in English that retains the ending: Who/Whom. Who bites the dog vs. The dog bites whom. Whom is in the accusative (direct object) case: Who is in the nominative (subject) case. Thus meaning is not changed, though grammar, which gives meaning to what the words mean when put together in a sentence, is.

Nothing formal/informal about this.

It been a while but, ancient Greek alters nouns to signify roles which are not indicated in an English translation.

[Hick Preacher]

Vance has clearly and concisely above indicated all the valid points which debunk your claims Rob Bowman, from the Bible itself, so get a clue. You're doing as all "religions" do which don't have the authority, that is by proof texting certain scriptures to make your claim, and ignoring others which clearly give the FULLER facts on the issue in question which actually debunk your claim. Mormonism IS the Bible. Your man-made interpretations are not.

I do not think that Rob's claim was been debunked.

Christians have authority fundamentally due to the indwelling of the Holy Ghost.

[Hick Preacher]

And I would say LDS are "Prima revelationists". (As supported by scripture.)

As Jesus taught.

John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

And Paul taught.

1 Cor 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak (not write?), not in the words which man

[Vance]

This shows that you don't understand my point. You're still apparantly trying to argue that the word when used in two different cases should be evidence for two different distinct theological meanings of the words.

While not an exact grammatic equivalent, here's an example of what it appears you're arguing in English.

There are two phrases:

1. John gave the book to me.
2. Bill gave me the book.

Using the logic you're trying to work on the difference in Greek cases, we should understand the word 'book' to clearly mean something different in both cases. You would be using the difference in those phrases to prove that something substantially different was meant by the 'book' that John gave, as opposed to the book that Bill gave.

This is the essence of what you are arguing based on the difference in Greek cases. It's an illogical argument.

But how do you know that there isn't a difference in meaning by the difference in placement?

Clearly IN ENGLISH there is no difference in meaning by the difference in placement. That doesn't mean that in Greek there is no difference. Now, maybe in Greek there is no difference in the meaning intended to be conveyed. I will admit that possibility. And if so then I am clearly wrong.

But the fact that there is a difference, may not be as insignificant as you and Rob think. It isn't that I don't trust Rob . . . . . well yes it is.

[Vance]

Christians have authority fundamentally due to the indwelling of the Holy Ghost.

Can you provide a specific example of where the Holy Ghost bestowed authority (rather than a call)?

[Rob Bowman]

USU78,

Excellent job explaining the significance of case endings. Bravo!

In a prior life, I studied linguistics. The case endings that were mentioned are present in a whole lot of languages, including Middle and Old English.

Those case endings make it possible to move things around in sentences without losing meaning.

Man bites dog means something in English, but it's different from Dog bites man.

If you have the endings, you can recognize who's doing the biting and who's getting bit regardless how the words are put together in the sentence.

Think of one of the few words in English that retains the ending: Who/Whom. Who bites the dog vs. The dog bites whom. Whom is in the accusative (direct object) case: Who is in the nominative (subject) case. Thus meaning is not changed, though grammar, which gives meaning to what the words mean when put together in a sentence, is.

Nothing formal/informal about this.

[Hick Preacher]

TAO in quotes-

Hick in quotes where noted

Hick Preacher, on 12 November 2010 - 08:50 AM, said:

<<<<<Yes, TAO what you say stimulates thinking. This is a choice I make. I could just ignore anything that you write that I do not like, but I like to read what you have to say.>>>>>

<<<Good, I just wanted to make sure - I don't like having people think one thing is happening when I'm really doing another. I didn't want to deceive you into why I was asking questions I already knew.>>>

OK and-

Often any piece of knowledge can be reviewed, so show aspects in a new way.

TAO says

<<<However, the oldest 'somewhat' Bible-like thing we have is the Dead Sea Scrolls. They are dated about 2 centuries before Christ. The next oldest thing identified is a millenium later - in the 10th Century AD, the Aleppo Codex. However, neither of these is close to the creation date of the original texts. Also, for the DSS, the most commonality they have is 1/4 of the text, and that's for Psalms. Considering it's still too far from when the texts were wrote, it is very easy to see that changes WERE made, and they were quite numerous too.>>>

Scholars work to reconstruct the most accurate text possible. Old Testament texts are reflected in the New Testament. So we can see how the Apostles of Christ interpreted the Old Testament. And of course most significant is how the Savior Himself explained the religion of Abraham.

Many religious people of this day, do not realize the process , and history of how a modern Bible came to be. And many people belong to religious traditions that are holding on to certain fables on what the Bible is really about, and its nature.

<<<Alas, the Aleppo Codex in the 10th century AD (7 centuries afterward) leaves plenty of time for changes to occur, does it not?>>>

Here is a link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleppo_Codex

(of course a wiki link does not represent what is necessarily accurate in a comprehensive manner. But I like a wiki because if indicates the relative popularity of certain subjects, ideas, people and topics).

Scholars keep occupied with issues related to your comment. The informational condition of a text that is many generations from an original is complicated. From certain kinds of editing, interpolations, deletions, and even mistakes, the clues to the development of the Hebrew religion and its various branches can be revealed.

Finding old texts with changes in not a bad thing, rather it is a good thing. It provides insights into the past, and why we are the way we art today, and how me can make improvements.

<<<Ok, that's good, I was hoping this would be the conclusion you would reach. The value of books like the Bible, BoM, and others isn't truly in the interpretation of texts - it's in what the spirit tells you. The books are there simply to get you to think, to use the spirit - it's the spirit that actually matters.>>>

I would say that both what the scripture says, and what the spirit tells us matters.

It is true that we can read a certain passage over and over for years, and one day we read it again, and the spirit gives to us new and added meanings to that same passage. This kind of epiphany phenomena is facilitated by a number of factors, like life experiences, a current life situation, obedience to God

[cdowis]

Christians have authority fundamentally due to the indwelling of the Holy Ghost.

This was a fundamental difference with the Catholic church and Martin Luther. He had to explain where he got the authority to administer the ordinances, so this is pure Lutherism -- the priesthood of the believers. No ordination necessary.

Now, if you can show us specifically where this is taught in the Bible. Note that the espistles were written to those already members of the church, so show us how this applied to someone just being baptized, a new member before they were ordained.

For example, the LDS church consists of a lay priesthood, as was in the early church. But they are still formally ordained.

[Thunderfire]

Can you provide a specific example of where the Holy Ghost bestowed authority (rather than a call)?

The anointing of Mary, mother of Jesus and Elizabeth, the mother of John? What happened to them can definately be seen as the "authority" to accomplish a great and marvelous work!

But then, we need to acknowledge how we are applying "limited definations" to our words. A call is also a bestowal of the authority to fulfill the call. In essence, when ever God gives a task for someone to complete (the call), the authority to fulfill that call is also given.

I understand that this entire discussion is striking at long held beliefs and nothing will change except how our long held beliefs are being exposed and laid bare. I am relieved that (in my opinion) we are being faced with the prospects that it's not about us. Rather it is always about Jesus.

[USU78]

It been a while but, ancient Greek alters nouns to signify roles which are not indicated in an English translation.

Correct: There are a few others (both in Latin and Greek and beyond) beyond nominative, accusative, dative and genetive . . . ablative and locative, for example. Indo-European endings and a lot of those cases disappear in English both through the use of prepositions and just through sheer cussed laziness. Old languages are fun.

[cdowis]

The anointing of Mary, mother of Jesus and Elizabeth, the mother of John? What happened to them can definately be seen as the "authority" to accomplish a great and marvelous work!

Are you saying that she held the priesthood? Can you give us specific examples of where she exercised priesthood authority. This discussion is getting very interesting.

[Hick Preacher]

Double POST

[Hick Preacher]

Can you provide a specific example of where the Holy Ghost bestowed authority (rather than a call)?

The ability to do Gods works that God called you to do, and have God in you and with you in doing those works is all about having God