Great stuff Keith. Just one question. When Saul arose and was baptised, how did you make the assumption that he spoke in tongues? The Greek word we translate as baptised always has to do with ceremonial ablution (or washing with water by immersion).
After consulting with a fellow laborer in the scriptures, I removed the sentence in question. It is not easy to cross check the assertions I made, as I relied upon some information that is rather obscure and isn't on-line.
Before the ascension, Jesus was instructing the disciples:
Acts 1:5 for John baptized with water, but (in contrast) you will be baptized with the holy spirit not many days from now.”
With the coming of the greater - holy spirit - the lesser is no longer required.
On the day of Pentecost
Acts 2:4 - ...they were all filled (to overflowing) with the holy spirit and began to speak in tongues...
Same word as in Acts 9:17, ...and be filled (to overflowing) with the holy spirit...
The only way Ananias would know that he was filled with holy spirit is if he spoke in tongues. Water baptism would be useless in this regards.
Although some water baptism MAY have been performed after the day of Pentecost, by the time the gentiles received the holy spirit (Peter & Cornelius) they finally realized that water was no longer needed. Check Peter's report to the assembly at Jerusalem. Speaking in tongues is THE EVIDENCE of the new birth, and the indwelling holy spirit, not water.
Also see Paul at Ephesus - Acts 19. Here they mention John's baptism which is water. Paul ministered to them so they could receive holy spirit into manifestation - and the spoke in tongues.
I must admit though, that there is better evidence that he spoke in tongues, than if he was water baptized or not.
A dead man can’t make himself undead. Fantastic read. Without the Holy Spirit we are dead men walking.
Never thought of it that way ......
So the Holy Spirit represents the "new life"?
Holy Spirit makes new life possible. He opens our eyes and ears so we can choose Christ.
Sooooooooo true. I tried for years to read the Bible but didn’t understand it until I opened myself up to receive Holy Spirit 😊
Great stuff Keith. Just one question. When Saul arose and was baptised, how did you make the assumption that he spoke in tongues? The Greek word we translate as baptised always has to do with ceremonial ablution (or washing with water by immersion).
After consulting with a fellow laborer in the scriptures, I removed the sentence in question. It is not easy to cross check the assertions I made, as I relied upon some information that is rather obscure and isn't on-line.
Questions are good!
Was going to ask this! Thanks for doing so
Before the ascension, Jesus was instructing the disciples:
Acts 1:5 for John baptized with water, but (in contrast) you will be baptized with the holy spirit not many days from now.”
With the coming of the greater - holy spirit - the lesser is no longer required.
On the day of Pentecost
Acts 2:4 - ...they were all filled (to overflowing) with the holy spirit and began to speak in tongues...
Same word as in Acts 9:17, ...and be filled (to overflowing) with the holy spirit...
The only way Ananias would know that he was filled with holy spirit is if he spoke in tongues. Water baptism would be useless in this regards.
Although some water baptism MAY have been performed after the day of Pentecost, by the time the gentiles received the holy spirit (Peter & Cornelius) they finally realized that water was no longer needed. Check Peter's report to the assembly at Jerusalem. Speaking in tongues is THE EVIDENCE of the new birth, and the indwelling holy spirit, not water.
Also see Paul at Ephesus - Acts 19. Here they mention John's baptism which is water. Paul ministered to them so they could receive holy spirit into manifestation - and the spoke in tongues.
I must admit though, that there is better evidence that he spoke in tongues, than if he was water baptized or not.
So very well written 😃