The Indwelling of the Holy Spirit

[Hermeneutico]

lol, whatever buddy.

*smile*

 

[OldAbramBrown]

The Greek Aorist Participle used in verse 13 teaches plainly that the Indwelling/Gift of the Holy Spirit is given AFTER believing, not SIMILTANEOUS to believing.

The Holy Spirit doesn't agree with you, it seems.

1 - yes, upon Ascension, not pentecost.

2 - where does it say Holy Spirit can't understand grammar?

 

[Hermeneutico]

1 - yes, upon Ascension, not pentecost.

2 - where does it say Holy Spirit can't understand grammar?

Hi,

Technically, the Holy Spirit was sent from the Father through Jesus Christ ten days after He ascended to the Father on the Day of Pentecost.

I never said that the Holy Spirit cannot understand grammar. I am saying that the Holy Spirit used the Greek grammar of the New Testament to convey specific truths to His people.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

Hi,

Technically, the Holy Spirit was sent from the Father through Jesus Christ ten days after He ascended to the Father on the Day of Pentecost.

I never said that the Holy Spirit cannot understand grammar. I am saying that the Holy Spirit used the Greek grammar of the New Testament to convey specific truths to His people.

technical hitch. the new content in my 45 (if you can still see it) is meant to reply to this.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

1 . How did they supplicate effectively after Ascension - their and our main ministry, including in times of fear (potentising their gift as well as gifts)?

2 . Do you believe the meaning in Holy Scripture is that Christ sent diverse gifts * unvetoed?

{ * Scripture lists at least 55, of which all believers are meant to have a number, in varying degrees and focus as between gifts

Their purpose is to strengthen our virtues and thus our fruit in supporting the integrity of the other as we trade the talents with them }

3 . It's just that Jesus' distinct mentions are meant to flag up distinct aspects of His teachings; One Holy Spirit person, distinct actions of His, meant to be received from the same occasion onwards, unobscured by ceremony or mannerism.

I'm not getting at you; I think a forum can be a place where we leave ideas - after all there is an indeterminate worldwide readership who might light to ponder and mull over matters mentioned.

My degree was not in divinity and I struggled with it, and I don't have a position, so my ideas and notions are necessarily private, like those of a great many CF members and readers I suppose. Distinct belief follows distinct teaching, which Jesus gave, in many more words than printed, which we can infer from both OT and NT.

I figured out that the Gospels and Epistles are not written as a series of overlapping icons like Genesis and Revelation.

It has been fashionable to devalue the disciples supplicating in fear, to devalue Believing Thomas (of the spectacularly bad timing), to devalue Jonah (bearing in mind the cautionary tale), to devalue Elijah as some sort of "losers", as if Paul and Jesus didn't suffer, as if Paul and Peter didn't have their cautionary tales. Thus much of our task is to help others escape this fashion.

(Prior to Ascension the Holy Spirit was given less often.)

The purpose of my take is to add and not detract. There were people in my young day who believed Jesus taught distinctly; I think it's good to carry on mulling over to see how beliefs mesh. This is probably what the famous Bereans were doing; to query the very Apostle and check that he wasn't a Superapostle.

It's all very existential and it was observing and comparing those around me that was one of the things that helped me see. I'm no explainer so this will appeal to those people who are intuitives as well as inferrers.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

What happened after 10 days was apparently an epiphany to the wider society? That would be the Joel point of view I suppose. The 120 or so disciples of all ranks had been jointly and equally ministering to that society in their supplications as example to us.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

I think that you are talking about the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

But the indwelling takes place at the moment of coming to the Lord. Then we have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. And He begins to lead us into all truth and to be our teacher. The indwelling Holy Spirit bears witness with our spirit.

Now before we were born again, we were spiritually dead, right? Then we receive Jesus into our heart as Lord and we are given a new spirit, right? So spiritually we alive again and pure and holy in God's eyes, In spirit alone, right? Our flesh remains the same and is not redeemed at this time so it needs sanctification which takes a bit of time and is a process. Our mind will and emotions have yet to accept the Lord. So it takes effort to grow into maturity, which the Lord wants.

So we grow into sanctification and maturity over time by the work of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

The Spirit has nothing to do with flesh. But it does the Spirit! And if we are to be taught and led into all truth in order to grow and mature, then the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is necessary. See?

Or so it seems to me.

If what you are trying to say is that without both our belief in indwelling to anchor us to Jesus and our belief in imparting of gifts unvetoed to give exercise to our virtues and our fruit in strengthening the integrity of others by trading the talents with them (as did both the boy with the loaves and fishes, and the disciples in headhunting him - with surprise) then I think you are getting at the point.

This really why what was pointed out by the OP is in fact so apposite: these excerpts intend to refer to the whole lot.

I've actually seen with my eyes the results of only part of Jesus' teaching: either manipulating through hysteria in the flesh, or manipulating through browbeating, both liable to become situations of materialism and codependency; and traced them through church history. In my long standing horror at what I've beheld for most of my life, I must have somehow been subliminally open to the idea that Jesus taught (implied in the OT) a whole and distinct doctrine after all.

The indwelling Holy Spirit person is the same Holy Spirit person as the imparting Holy Spirit person.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

Hmm? A troubling comment there I must say, you know the drill,

"Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. (Romans 8:9)​

Just what 'coming to faith' are you suggesting?

By mere virtue of Paul's question itself (Acts 19:2) indicates subsequent, or, consecutive yet holy division, easily independent.

Hmm? A troubling comment there I must say, you know the drill,

"Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. (Romans 8:9)

Just what 'coming to faith' are you suggesting?

By mere virtue of Paul's question itself (Acts 19:2) indicates subsequent, or, consecutive yet holy division, easily independent.

Faith follows on belief which follows on teaching. It bears reminding each other of, that Jesus' intent is not indistinct.

Occasionally the apostles filled out the belief of some of those they came across.

Holy = distinct.

I like to combine the sentiments of Schumann and Mozart:

S: Don't run the notes together ("markirt")
M: Notes that like each other (an understatement)

= One music. Not spineless and not fleshless from our fishing.

I thought this is what you are meaning (and the OP for that matter: that's the way I look at things LOL).

 

[OldAbramBrown]

... Our mind will and ...

Certainly those can accept Him straight away if we are actually taught to.

 

[Hermeneutico]

technical hitch. the new content in my 45 (if you can still see it) is meant to reply to this.

Strange reply... some have used weapons to attack churches here in the states because they disagreed as well. What are you really trying to say, and why would you use the idea of a weapon to convey it. Hmmmm