Originally posted by Pesachpup
View Post
What I do NOT agree with you on, is that is that John connected Jesus' 1st anabaino with glorification of the Son, though actually this is irrelevant whether correct or not. IOW even IF Jesus was glorified at the 1st anabaino it is an irrelevancy.
More importantly Peter did NOT declare that Jesus received the Holy Spirit from the Father at the 1st anabaino. Peter did NOT make ANY such declaration, but instead made a CLEAR connection with the move of the Holy Spirit as seen on Pentecost (that DAY), and that Luke 100% connected this
with what he wrote in the preceding chapter:
Act 1:4 And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me;
Act 1:5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”
Very clearly the PROMISE was NOT given PRIOR to Jesus' 2nd anabaino, and the connection is therefore MADE by Peter with this 2nd anabaino.
You seem unable and unwilling to accept the CLEAR CONTEXT as given by Luke and Peter.
Are you of the mindset that doesn't believe a person has the Holy Ghost until he speaks in tongues?
However the ASSURANCE we have the Holy Spirit is based on TWO things:
1) His Word - and this is the assurance BOTH Peter and Paul refer to when speaking of Jesus being seen risen from the DEAD. This assurance is based upon egeiro/anistemi in fulfilment of His Word, and Paul notes that this is of 1st importance.
2) His Holy Spirit giving us gifts - which may include speaking in tongues or other gifts. IOW an outward manifestation, which is what Peter is declaring in Acts 2 and what is declared in other passages WHEN speaking about the giving of the Holy Spirit as an assurance.
Comment