The Holy spirit or just holy spirit?

[Jerry Shugart]

OZOS wrote: What a fool you are! First of all, a covenant (testament / will) does not go into effect, until the one who makes it dies."

You really need to read the Bible for a change becausePaul wrote the following:

"Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God" (Ro.3:250.

That explains why the Lord Jesus said the following to a woman before the Cross:

"And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven....Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace" (Lk.7:48,5).



'

 

[OZOS]

OZOS wrote: What a fool you are! First of all, a covenant (testament / will) does not go into effect, until the one who makes it dies."

You really need to read the Bible for a change becausePaul wrote the following:

"Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God" (Ro.3:250.

That doesn't change a thing I said, you moron , in fact it confirms what I said. You're such an ignorant turd, trying to debate me and using the Bible to prove what I said as true, and then claiming what I said is not true .

You really are too stupid to speak about anything concerning God's word.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Do you not understand the meaning of the words "sins that are past"? Evidently not.!

Would you please clean up your language because my mind isn't in the gutter like yours is.

 

[OZOS]

Would you please clean up your language because my mind isn't in the gutter like yours is.

No, I speak to you that way, because YOU are in the gutter. You are full of crap.

Do you not understand the meaning of the words "sins that are past"? Evidently not.!

Is it your claim, from reading what Paul said, that the sacrifice of Jesus was ONLY for those sins that preceded His death?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

OZOS wrote: "Is it your claim, from reading what Paul said, that the sacrifice of Jesus was ONLY for those sins that preceded His death?"

There are plenty of places in the Scriptures which speak of the remission of sins which were committed after the Cross.

Do you denty that believers had their sins remitted before the Cross?

 

[OZOS]

"For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another— He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation. For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins."

Those who come to God, in spirit and in truth (the worshipers), should no longer have any consciousness of sins, because they know they have been cleansed from them ONCE for ALL. To be sin conscious is to claim that the sacrifice of Jesus was insufficient to have cleansed you from all unrighteousness and to make you perfect (Heb 10:14).

Sacrifices under the Law

Can never make you perfect
Can never stop you from being sin conscious
Reminded of your sins year after year
Can never take away your sin

The Sacrifice of Jesus

Takes away your sin, once for all
No more reminder of your sins
No more sin consciousness
Makes you perfect forever

There is no more sacrifice for sin.

"And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified." Heb 10:11-14

Jerry worships a goat god. In fact, his goat god is far worse than the sacrifices that were once a year. Jerry must make sacrifices for sin all day long, everyday, and every minute.

Jerry despises the blood of Jesus and God is only propitiated by your ability to do something about sin, because Jerry claims that what Jesus did is not enough.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Please explain how people before the Cross had their sins remitted.

 

[OZOS]

Please explain how people before the Cross had their sins remitted.

Just showed you, you dolt. I'm growing weary of your rejection of the gospel. You simply refuse to believe the truth of God's word in favor of your doctrine of demons.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You showed me nothing concerning the fact that believers had their sins remitteed before the Cross. as usual, when you have no answer which makes any sense you say that you have alredy answered the question. It is you who denies the Lord Jesus' words which prove that believers received eternal life before the Cross (John 5;24; John 6:47)..

 

[OZOS]

You showed me nothing concerning the fact that believers had their sins remitteed before the Cross. as usual, when you have no answer which makes any sense you say that you have alredy answered the question. It is you who denies the Lord Jesus' words which prove that believers received eternal life before the Cross (John 5;24; John 6:47)..

You are full of crap. I've shown you this at least 4 times now.

"And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator."

The writer of Hebrew spells it out clearly...

Once Jesus died those who had sinned under the first covenant could then receive eternal life. The first covenant ended with Jesus death, you fool. The new covenant required His death. YOU DENY THIS, and it proves that you are a godless pervert.

 

[nikolai_42]

It is not possible that the following translation is correct:

"And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit."(John20:22).

The Lord Jesus had not yet gone away to heaven, and He said that the Holy spirit will not come unto the disciples until He departed:


"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you" (Jn.16:7).

So John 20;22 is a mis-translation. here is a correct translation:

"And saying this, He exhales and is saying to them, "Get holy spirit!" (Jn.20:22; CLV).

if there is no definite article ('the') preceding the Greek words translated "holy spirit" then the reference is not the Third Person of the Godhead.

I can't say the argument seems very compelling. Are there many Holy Spirits? Thomas Constable notes this in his commentary on John 20:22 and the use of Holy Spirit :

The absence of an article before a noun often has the effect of stressing the quality of the noun. In this case that would be the holiness of the Spirit.

To assert some non-definite Holy Spirit only begs the question if there are then many Holy Spirits. Regardless of how David received God's Holy Spirit, it's clear he had it in some form or fashion - and it was personal in the sense that he acknowledged it being of and from God Himself. So the argument that referring to "Holy Spirit" vs. "The Holy Spirit" has a major impact on the text seems to me to be argumentative. It treats the title like a personal name when it is never so intended.

Further, it is clear that the article is not needed to demand specificity :

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Matthew 28:19

Here "name" applies to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Not only that, but the three are used in separate clauses as part of the same declaration. So if you are talking about the name of the Father and the name of the Son, then it requires very little effort to come to the conclusion that the name of the Holy Spirit is meant in the same manner. There is no definite article underlying this text.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Nicolai 42 wrote: "To assert some non-definite Holy Spirit only begs the question if there are then many Holy Spirits."

Perhaps the following will clear that up:

"Now this He said concerning the spirit which those believing in Him were about to get. For not as yet was holy spirit given, for Jesus is not as yet glorified" (Jn.7:39; CLV).

What was this "holy spirit"and it was given on the day of Pentecost:

"And suddenly there came out of heaven a blare, even as of a violent, carrying blast, and it fills the whole house where they were sitting." And seen by them were dividing tongues as if of fire, and one is seated on each one of them." And they are all filled with holy spirit, and they begin to speak in different languages, according as the spirit gave them to declaim." (Acts 2:2-4; CLV),

This particular "holy spirit" Was the ability to speak in different languages. oit is also referred to as a gift of the Ho;y Spirit here

"Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. ...Have all the gift of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?" (1Cor.12:4,30)

 

[nikolai_42]

Nicolai 42 wrote: "To assert some non-definite Holy Spirit only begs the question if there are then many Holy Spirits."

Perhaps the following will clear that up:

"Now this He said concerning the spirit which those believing in Him were about to get. For not as yet was holy spirit given, for Jesus is not as yet glorified" (Jn.7:39; CLV).

What was this "holy spirit"and it was given on the day of Pentecost:

"And suddenly there came out of heaven a blare, even as of a violent, carrying blast, and it fills the whole house where they were sitting." And seen by them were dividing tongues as if of fire, and one is seated on each one of them." And they are all filled with holy spirit, and they begin to speak in different languages, according as the spirit gave them to declaim." (Acts 2:2-4; CLV),

This particular "holy spirit" Was the ability to speak in different languages. oit is also referred to as a gift of the Ho;y Spirit here

"Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. ...Have all the gift of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?" (1Cor.12:4,30)

I Cor 12:4 seems to be clear that there is no reason to think "Holy Spirit" and "the Holy Spirit" refer to different entities. It seems to me like a distinction without a difference.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Nicolai 42 said: "I Cor 12:4 seems to be clear that there is no reason to think "Holy Spirit" and "the Holy Spirit" refer to different entities. It seems to me like a distinction without a difference.

Then how do you explain the following facts:

It is not possible that the following translation is correct:

"And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit."(John20:22).

The Lord Jesus had not yet gone away to heaven, and He said that the Holy spirit will not come unto the disciples until He departed:

"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you" (Jn.16:7).

How is it possible that anyone received the Holy Spirit at john 20;22 since the Lord Jesus had not yet gone away at that time?

 

[nikolai_42]

Nicolai 42 said: "I Cor 12:4 seems to be clear that there is no reason to think "Holy Spirit" and "the Holy Spirit" refer to different entities. It seems to me like a distinction without a difference.

Then how do you explain the following facts:

It is not possible that the following translation is correct:

"And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit."(John20:22).

The Lord Jesus had not yet gone away to heaven, and He said that the Holy spirit will not come unto the disciples until He departed:

"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you" (Jn.16:7).

How is it possible that anyone received the Holy Spirit at john 20;22 since the Lord Jesus had not yet gone away at that time?

Only 2 comments immediately :

1. I have never read John 20:22 as though the apostles were given the Holy Spirit at that time. I have always read that as their being prepared to receive the Holy Spirit.

2. At the very least you would have to believe that no one was baptized until after Pentecost per Matt 28:19

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Nichola 42 said: "1. I have never read John 20:22 as though the apostles were given the Holy Spirit at that time. I have always read that as their being prepared to receive the Holy Spirit."

then what meaning do you put on the word "receive" in this verse?:

"And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit."(John20:22).

You also said: "At the very least you would have to believe that no one was baptized until after Pentecost per Matt 28:19.

Before Pentecost were believers baptized "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"?

 

[nikolai_42]

Nichola 42 said: "1. I have never read John 20:22 as though the apostles were given the Holy Spirit at that time. I have always read that as their being prepared to receive the Holy Spirit."

then what meaning do you put on the word "receive" in this verse?:

"And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit."(John20:22).

I see it just as though someone were with a group of people (use the analogy of a visitor at a household) and were the guest of honor. That guest has a limited time to stay but wants to send someone back to those remaining at the household. Before the guest leaves, he gives notice that he will be sending someone and asks the household to receive this second guest in the name of the first guest (i.e. after the first guest is gone). He hasn't left yet, but he is giving instructions (or request) that the household receive the second guest when he comes. I call it an analogy, but it seems very close to the actual. Jesus seems to be saying "Receive the Holy Spirit just as you received Me."

You also said: "At the very least you would have to believe that no one was baptized until after Pentecost per Matt 28:19.

Before Pentecost were believers baptized "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"?

That's the question for you. Do you believe they were?

 

[marke]

It is not possible that the following translation is correct:

"And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit."(John20:22).

The Lord Jesus had not yet gone away to heaven, and He said that the Holy spirit will not come unto the disciples until He departed:


"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you" (Jn.16:7).

So John 20;22 is a mis-translation. here is a correct translation:

"And saying this, He exhales and is saying to them, "Get holy spirit!" (Jn.20:22; CLV).

if there is no definite article ('the') preceding the Greek words translated "holy spirit" then the reference is not the Third Person of the Godhead.

I believe the KJV is the most accurate translation of God's Word available today. I have studied the issues pertaining to the validity of various translations and my conclusion is based upon what it seems clear to me to be the most compelling reasoning.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

nikolia 42, you said: "I see it just as though someone were with a group of people (use the analogy of a visitor at a household) and were the guest of honor. That guest has a limited time to stay but wants to send someone back to those remaining at the household. Before the guest leaves, he gives notice that he will be sending someone and asks the household to receive this second guest in the name of the first guest (i.e. after the first guest is gone).

The " mood" of the verb translated "receive " is the 'imperative mood." Here is definition of the mood:

"Corresponds to the English imperative, and expresses a command to the hearer to perform a certain action by the order and authority of the one commanding. Thus, Jesus' phrase, "Repent ye, and believe the gospel" (Mk.1:15) is not at all an "invitation," but an absolute command requiring full obedience on the part of all hearers." (Blue Letter Bible).

The Lord Jesus was commanding them to receive it. That doesn't fit your definition of 'receive."


"

 

[Jerry Shugart]

marke wrote: "I believe the KJV is the most accurate translation of God's Word available today. I have studied the issues pertaining to the validity of various translations and my conclusion is based upon what it seems clear to me to be the most compelling reasoning."

You might be right that it is the most accurate translation but I don't think that it is without error.