Spiritual gifts: Unconfusing them part 2

[DJT_47]

A continuation of my previous post entitled "Spiritual gifts: Unconfusing them"

There is obvious confusion and lack of understanding in what is meant by the scripture "and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (Spirit)" as per Acts 2:38, versus the various miraculous spiritual gifts listed in 1 Cor 12:8-10.

Note that the "gift of the Holy Ghost" as cited in Acts 2:38, the word "gift" is singular, not plural. What this means within the context of that scripture is, all those baptized into Christ pursuant to that scripture, receive the GIFT of the Holy Ghost/Spirit itself, the actual indwelling of the Spirit, and NOT one of the miraculous spiritual gifts enabled by the Spirit, those listed in 1 Cor 12:8-10.

The miraculous gifts of the Spirit were imparted by the laying on of the apostle's hands as aforementioned in the first part of this study, as confirmed by specific passages within Acts 5, 6, 8, and 19, 2 Tim, as cited therein.

 

[marksman]

the word "gift" is singular, not plural.

Simple. There is only one Holy Spirit

 

[marksman]

and NOT one of the miraculous spiritual gifts enabled by the Spirit, those listed in 1 Cor 12:8-10.

The passage concerned is not talking about spiritual gifts.

 

[marksman]

The miraculous gifts of the Spirit were imparted by the laying on of the apostle's hands

I think you will find that the gifts are given by the Holy Spirit severally AS HE WILLS.

 

[DJT_47]

Simple. There is only one Holy Spirit

The distinction is between gift and gifts, one being the gift or indwelling of the actual Spirit itself, and the other is the manifestation of the various miraculous gifts that are or were bestowed upon individuals subsequent to having the Spirit within them, brought about by the laying on of the apostle's hands.

 

[marksman]

The distinction is between gift and gifts, one being the gift or indwelling of the actual Spirit itself, and the other is the manifestation of the various miraculous gifts that are or were bestowed upon individuals subsequent to having the Spirit within them, brought about by the laying on of the apostle's hands.

I know as I have taught many Christians over the years about the gifts of the Spirit. I did not teach that they came by the Apostles laying on of hands. I taught them that the Spirit gives them severally as he wills which means you seek the giver not the gifts.

 

[DJT_47]

I know as I have taught many Christians over the years about the gifts of the Spirit. I did not teach that they came by the Apostles laying on of hands. I taught them that the Spirit gives them severally as he wills which means you seek the giver not the gifts.

The power from on high as referenced in Luke 24:49 by Jesus to his apostles, gave THEM the ability to enable the manifestation of the Spirit, the gifts as they are commonly referred to today, which they solely did as noted in such passages as Acts 5:12, Acts 6:6-8, Acts 8:9-17, Acts 19:6.

 

[Hillsage]

There is obvious confusion and lack of understanding in what is meant by the scripture "and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (Spirit)" as per Acts 2:38, versus the various miraculous spiritual gifts listed in 1 Cor 12:8-10.

You are very correct. Having noted your correct comment, please unpack the very first "lack of understanding".....which I'm questioning in your above sentence. That "understanding" being, why did you say; "the Holy Ghost (Spirit)" up above?

Only the KJV says "the Holy Ghost". And it does so 89 times in the NT. The KJV also says "the Holy Spirit", but only 4 times in the NT. So, I'm curious, just why did you add them both together? And tell me your opinion as to why the KJV didn't translate and interpret the same two Greek words hagios pneuma, the same way, in those 4 verses compared to the other 89?

0040 hagios: sacred (phys. pure, mor. blameless or religious, cer. consecrated)
4151 pneuma: a current of air, i.e. breath (blast) or a breeze; by anal. or fig. a spirit, i.e. (human) the rational soul, (by impl.) vital principle, mental disposition, etc., or (superhuman) an angel, demon, or (divine) God, Christ's spirit, the Holy Spirit.

Even Strong's definition of 4151 pneuma/spirit says it can mean "a human spirit" the "Christ's/Messiah's spirit" or "the Holy Spirit". That is 3 different spirits....HELLO, from the rooftops.

Note that the "gift of the Holy Ghost" as cited in Acts 2:38, the word "gift" is singular, not plural. What this means within the context of that scripture is, all those baptized into Christ pursuant to that scripture, receive the GIFT of the Holy Ghost/Spirit itself, the actual indwelling of the Spirit, and NOT one of the miraculous spiritual gifts enabled by the Spirit, those listed in 1 Cor 12:8-10.

Why do you think that "the GIFT of the Holy Ghost/Spirit itself" means 'the person of the Holy Ghost of God, in the KJV.
Did you now that the Greek word for "OF THE" is the word Greek word TOV and it is not defined as being 'the person', but instead is defined as possessive and therefore is referring to something FROM THE person. In this case it is of the (from the) HOLY GHOST. And the 'CHARISMA supernatural Power' is 'the only' singular power that is ever poured out of the (FROM THE/tov) Holy Ghost of GOD.

 

[DJT_47]

You are very correct. Having noted your correct comment, please unpack the very first "lack of understanding".....which I'm questioning in your above sentence. That "understanding" being, why did you say; "the Holy Ghost (Spirit)" up above?

Only the KJV says "the Holy Ghost". And it does so 89 times in the NT. The KJV also says "the Holy Spirit", but only 4 times in the NT. So, I'm curious, just why did you add them both together? And tell me your opinion as to why the KJV didn't translate and interpret the same two Greek words hagios pneuma, the same way, in those 4 verses compared to the other 89?

0040 hagios: sacred (phys. pure, mor. blameless or religious, cer. consecrated)
4151 pneuma: a current of air, i.e. breath (blast) or a breeze; by anal. or fig. a spirit, i.e. (human) the rational soul, (by impl.) vital principle, mental disposition, etc., or (superhuman) an angel, demon, or (divine) God, Christ's spirit, the Holy Spirit.

Even Strong's definition of 4151 pneuma/spirit says it can mean "a human spirit" the "Christ's/Messiah's spirit" or "the Holy Spirit". That is 3 different spirits....HELLO, from the rooftops.


Why do you think that "the GIFT of the Holy Ghost/Spirit itself" means 'the person of the Holy Ghost of God, in the KJV
Did you now that the Greek word for "OF THE" is the word Greek word TOV and it is not defined as being 'the person', but instead is defined as possessive and therefore is referring to something FROM THE person. In this case it is of the (from the) HOLY GHOST. And the CHARISMA supernatural Power is 'the only' singular power that is poured out of the (FROM THE/tov) Holy Ghost.

The Holy Spirit and Holy Ghost are one in the same and interchangeable which is why I stuck them together just in case the reader more commonly referred to one vs the other. Moot point.

And the Greek interlinear in Acts 2:38 says "the gift of the Holy Spirit". The gift of the Holy Spirit (Ghost) is clearly just that: the Spirit or Ghost, NOT gifts of it. Otherwise it would have said "a gift of the Holy Spirit/Ghost or 'gifts' of the Holy Spirit/Ghost, meaning, one or more of the manifestations of the Spirit/Ghost and not the indwelling of the Spirit/Ghost itself. There is a difference and that differentiation is made by the words "the" and "gift" as used in the text as opposed to the aforementioned.

 

[Hillsage]

The Holy Spirit and Holy Ghost are one in the same and interchangeable which is why I stuck them together just in case the reader more commonly referred to one vs the other. Moot point.

It was obviously not a "moot point" to the translators of the KJV. And it obviously isn't a "moot point" to me from my studies. So why don't you just explain to me why they didn't think it moot? And just 'saying' "spirit/ghost" are the same is just a pretty lacking rebuttal IMO.

And the Greek interlinear in Acts 2:38 says "the gift of the Holy Spirit". The gift of the Holy Spirit (Ghost) is clearly just that: the Spirit or Ghost, NOT gifts of it. Otherwise it would have said "a gift of the Holy Spirit/Ghost or 'gifts' of the Holy Spirit/Ghost, meaning, one or more of the manifestations of the Spirit/Ghost and not the indwelling of the Spirit/Ghost itself. There is a difference and that differentiation is made by the words "the" and "gift" as used in the text as opposed to the aforementioned.

That opinion does not address the premise for my unpacking of the correct interpretation of Act 2:38. The "point" which you did not refute, was my Greek word 'TOU', statement of fact. So let me just elaborate on that fact from a cut/paste copy of page 8 in my 18 page teaching on THE BAPTISM OF HOLY SPIRIT POWER.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

“THE PROMISE” (of/FROM/TOU) THE FATHER AND “THE PROMISE” (of/FROM/TOU) THE SPIRIT

SRN 5120 ‘TOU’​

The understanding of a little Greek word is of huge importance to correctly understand some scriptures.

Bible Hub
Strong's Concordance Properly, the genitive case of ho; sometimes used for toutou; of this person -- his.
tou: his.
Original Word: τοῦ
Transliteration: tou
Phonetic Spelling: (too)
Definition: his

(“OF THE”) is the Greek word SRN 5120 ‘TOU’ and it means ‘OF THIS PERSON’, and it is literally defined in Strong's as ‘HIS’. In other words, it is possessive and speaks of something which is –his to give...

When scripture says; “the promise of the Father” or “the gift of the Spirit”, what is one getting? It’s “the promise… FROM the Father’” and ”the gift FROM the Spirit” that you are getting. In other words, you are not getting them, you are getting something from them which they possess. And the promise was POWER in Luke AND in ACTS 1.

LUK 24:49 And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high."

ACT 1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the/tou Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
ACT 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

ACT 2:33 Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which you see and hear. (IOW Pentecostal holy spirit power, poured out from the Holy Spirit)

Did the people see and hear the invisible person of the Holy Spirit? Or did they “SEE and HEAR” people speaking in tongues by the power which was poured upon them from Him?

LUK 11:13 KJV All Translations incorrectly capitalize both Holy and Spirit: in this verse below.

If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts (Gr doma) unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give [the] Holy Spirit to them that ask him? A spiritual gift would be the Gr. word charisma and not doma.

The heavenly Father is going to give ‘good gifts’ to the person of ‘God the Holy Spirit’? That doesn’t even make grammatical sense? Doesn’t the Father giving ‘holy spirit’ power to his children FROM THE HOLY SPIRIT (God's source of power) make more sense?

 

[DJT_47]

Simple. There is only one Holy Spirit

True! But the problem is many people wrongly assume this passage is stating that this means the various gifts of the Spirit and by your baptism you also should automatically receive gifts. That's the difference in singular and plural, gift and gifts. Acts 2 :38 has nothing you do with bestowing one or more of the miraculous gifts recorded in 1 Cor 12:8-10

 

[DJT_47]

It was obviously not a "moot point" to the translators of the KJV. And it obviously isn't a "moot point" to me from my studies. So why don't you just explain to me why they didn't think it moot? And just 'saying' "spirit/ghost" are the same is just a pretty lacking rebuttal IMO.


That opinion does not address the premise for my unpacking of the correct interpretation of Act 2:38. The "point" which you did not refute, was my Greek word 'TOU', statement of fact. So let me just elaborate on that fact from a cut/paste copy of page 8 in my 18 page teaching on THE BAPTISM OF HOLY SPIRIT POWER.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

“THE PROMISE” (of/FROM/TOU) THE FATHER AND “THE PROMISE” (of/FROM/TOU) THE SPIRIT

SRN 5120 ‘TOU’​

The understanding of a little Greek word is of huge importance to correctly understand some scriptures.

Bible Hub
Strong's Concordance Properly, the genitive case of ho; sometimes used for toutou; of this person -- his.
tou: his.
Original Word: τοῦ
Transliteration: tou
Phonetic Spelling: (too)
Definition: his

(“OF THE”) is the Greek word SRN 5120 ‘TOU’ and it means ‘OF THIS PERSON’, and it is literally defined in Strong's as ‘HIS’. In other words, it is possessive and speaks of something which is –his to give...

When scripture says; “the promise of the Father” or “the gift of the Spirit”, what is one getting? It’s “the promise… FROM the Father’” and ”the gift FROM the Spirit” that you are getting. In other words, you are not getting them, you are getting something from them which they possess. And the promise was POWER in Luke AND in ACTS 1.

LUK 24:49 And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high."

ACT 1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the/tou Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
ACT 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

ACT 2:33 Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which you see and hear. (IOW Pentecostal holy spirit power, poured out from the Holy Spirit)

Did the people see and hear the invisible person of the Holy Spirit? Or did they “SEE and HEAR” people speaking in tongues by the power which was poured upon them from Him?

LUK 11:13 KJV All Translations incorrectly capitalize both Holy and Spirit: in this verse below.

If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts (Gr doma) unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give [the] Holy Spirit to them that ask him? A spiritual gift would be the Gr. word charisma and not doma.

The heavenly Father is going to give ‘good gifts’ to the person of ‘God the Holy Spirit’? That doesn’t even make grammatical sense? Doesn’t the Father giving ‘holy spirit’ power to his children FROM THE HOLY SPIRIT (God's source of power) make more sense?

'Tou' in Greek is generally 'the' or 'of the'. Doesn't change anything. What's your point and what is it you disagree with and are trying to prove or disprove? You've not stated what you believe and why with supporting scriptures. If you want to argue for the sake of arguing, go do so with someone else.

And "Holy Spirit' or 'Holy Ghost' used in any context in which either is found doesn't alter the meaning within the context irregardless of which word you choose to use, so, yes, it is a moot point.

God doesn't make things difficult to understand, but rather, man through his logic makes things difficult.

 

[Hillsage]

'Tou' in Greek is generally 'the' or 'of the'. Doesn't change anything. What's your point and what is it you disagree with and are trying to prove or disprove? You've not stated what you believe and why with supporting scriptures. If you want to argue for the sake of arguing, go do so with someone else.

It changed everything for me.

And "Holy Spirit' or 'Holy Ghost' used in any context in which either is found doesn't alter the meaning within the context irregardless of which word you choose to use, so, yes, it is a moot point.

And your unscripturally backed OPINION is duly noted. My opinion was backed. But if you still don't even know what my point is, then you're probably right you don't even know what you are arguing against.

God doesn't make things difficult to understand, but rather, man through his logic makes things difficult.

Tell me, which one of the 1,000 "Christian" denominations, taught you that LOGIC?

 

[DJT_47]

It changed everything for me.

And your unscripturally backed OPINION is duly noted. My opinion was backed. But if you still don't even know what my point is, then you're probably right you don't even know what you are arguing against.

Tell me, which one of the 1,000 "Christian" denominations, taught you that LOGIC?

Goodbye

 

[marksman]

True! But the problem is many people wrongly assume this passage is stating that this means the various gifts of the Spirit and by your baptism you also should automatically receive gifts. That's the difference in singular and plural, gift and gifts. Acts 2 :38 has nothing you do with bestowing one or more of the miraculous gifts recorded in 1 Cor 12:8-10

Acts 2 v 38 does not mention any gifts of the Spirit.

1Cor 12 v 8-10 does not mention the gift of the Holy Spirit.

 

[DJT_47]

Acts 2 v 38 does not mention any gifts of the Spirit.

1Cor 12 v 8-10 does not mention the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Exactly! Receiving the Spirit is not the same as receiving the gifts manifested by the Spirit once it's in you. But furthermore, that was only in biblical times since the gifts, or manifestations of the Spirit, became available through the laying on of the apostle's hands, and they are long dead.

 

[marksman]

that was only in biblical times since the gifts,

My theology and experience tells me otherwise.

 

[DJT_47]

My theology and experience tells me otherwise.

Wonderful!

 

[St. SteVen]

Question. cc: @Hillsage and anyone else that wants to reply.

The phenomenon of the outpouring in Acts chapter two was the entry to a pioneering work in the Holy Spirit.
How do we compare what we suppose happened at the end of Acts chapter two (Acts 2:38) and what happened in Samaria.
Believe and be baptized at the end of Acts chapter two. But in Samaria something went wrong.

Acts 8:14-16 NIV
When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria.
15 When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit,
16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

 

[DJT_47]

Question. cc: @Hillsage and anyone else that wants to reply.

The phenomenon of the outpouring in Acts chapter two was the entry to a pioneering work in the Holy Spirit.
How do we compare what we suppose happened at the end of Acts chapter two (Acts 2:38) and what happened in Samaria.
Believe and be baptized at the end of Acts chapter two. But in Samaria something went wrong.

Acts 8:14-16 NIV
When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria.
15 When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit,
16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Nothing went wrong St. Ste.Ven, as I've stated and restated. The scriptures you cited are validation that to receive the manifestation of the Spirit, the miraculous gifts, those listed in 1 Cor 12:8-10, required the laying on of the apostle's hands. The Samarians were baptized believers no different than the Jews on the day of Pentecost, and both received the gift of the Spirit, the Spirit itself, the indwelling of it, as we who are baptized into Christ do today pursuant to Acts2:38; but NOT any of the miraculous manifestations of the Spirit, hence, the need for the Samarians to have Peter's and John's hands laid on them according to the record, subsequent to their (Peter and John) prayer that they MIGHT receive the gifts or manifestations of the Spirit. Acts 2 and 10 were heavenly anomalies, not the norm as most chooseto believe, needed in order to start the church. Let the scriptures speak and let go of preconceived notions that you may be clinging to. The miraculous gifts don't exist today: no apostles to pass them along and no futher need for them.