Dr. Brown speaks with Paul Westphal about the major NBA controversy, and then speaks with several guests about the Black Hebrew Sect. Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at (866) 348 7884 with your questions and comments.
Hour 1:
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: It is Satan who wants to divide and destroy. It is Jesus, Yeshua, who makes us one in Him.
Hour 2:
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Isn’t it interesting how Jesus died to break down the middle wall of partition that divides peoples, and yet we constantly keep putting it back up.
SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY!
This week, you can pre-order a signed and numbered copy of Dr. Brown’s new groundbreaking book, Can You Be Gay and Christian?, for $30 Postage Paid! (Release Date May 6th)
Call 1-800-278-9978 or Order Online!
Other Resources:
I believe Dr. Brown when he says that he has a special affinity to African American churches.
That is one of my biggest compliments of the Pentecostal churches — they are the most ethnically diverse church movement I am aware of. Good for them.
How would you answer someone who accused the Old Testament of being racist for the claim the Jews are uniquely chosen?
This isn’t my own issue but, I have to admit, I don’t have a good rebuttal for such a charge.
Greg we do not have the thoughts of God, the rebuttal would be that God uniquely chose a people for the salvation of the whole world. Who are we to question the God of the universe. Our thoughts are not his thoughts, our ways are not his ways. Ponder it though and let the holy spirit answer you as you pray. Share the answer.
jon,
No offense but you didn’t answer the question.
Simply put, you said, “I don’t know.”
I already know I don’t know. That’s why I posed the question!
I think a modern person could look at the Old Testament and dismiss it as profoundly racist.
As Christians, shouldn’t we have an answer for this? At least one more thoughtful than “That’s how God did it.”
Greg,
How can it be racist for YHWH to chose the Israelites before they were even born or a nation. They were not a race at the time of their choosing. Abraham’s faithfulness was so impressive to YHWH that He trusted him to pass on his faith. The Hebrew scriptures over and over invite outsiders to join YHWH’s team.
Greg, of course I do not know.. Suggestion ask questions of such profound depth to the holy spirit.
“How would you answer someone who accused the Old Testament of being racist for the claim the Jews are uniquely chosen?”
The Old Testament God is concerned only with this small piece of land and this small group of people with a very high opinion of themselves. Everyone outside this speck of land is equally foreign and equally the enemy. It’s beyond me how anyone can believe this burning goat flesh sniffing God created the universe. Especially since science tells us the universe was not created.
Bo,
No offense, but you are still simply saying, “God did it. It just is.” This is not an answer that will satisfy and sincere questioner.
Can’t you see how many people will see the Abraham story as a way to justify the “deserved” racist superiority of the “chosen” Jews?
How would you address that question?
I didn’t say it explicitly, earlier, but this question comes out of today’s show. Dr. Brown called the “Black Hebrews” a racist movement.
Are they racist because they identify with being African or being Jewish?
Jon,
You sure have a pious way of saying, “I have no idea!”
Anyway, God bless you!
(I’m not being snarky… I mean that. Your outlook seems genuine.)
” Who are we to question the God of the universe.”
> Your religious leaders have convinced you that some things are beyond question. Fear of questioning is the beginning of superstition. I hate to use the expression “brainwashing” but that’s exactly what it is. Question EVERYTHING especially authority.
Van,
I wasn’t thinking of you but I assume you are one of the people who see the Old Testament as basically a mythology to justify Hebrew (and, then, Jewish) racism.
In my Dispensation/Fundamentalist church they would argue that the Jews weren’t chosen to elevate them but to use them.
God uses the Jews to send God’s salvation to _all_ races.
I have never bothered to see if that really is in the Old Testament or if they were just “proof texting” a much later theology.
Van,
>> Your religious leaders have convinced you that some things are beyond question. Fear of questioning is the beginning of superstition
Why do you come here, rather than to a group that is dedicated to questioning everything?
I am probably one of the most open-minded debaters here — and I certainly don’t question everything.
No offense but I have to ask: do you come here because you are afraid to go to the “big leagues” where they debate the full range of philosophy?
Van, Do you believe it’s right to question God about everything he does? Have you read the book of Job?
Greg,
You are wrong. I am not simply saying, “God did it.” You are reading my statements that way because you do not like the answer. Your definition of racist is at the root.
How can the one that created all of humanity be racist? How can the one that destroyed all races be racist? How can the one that allowed all the races to exist be racist? How can the one that simply starts a covenant with a single man that is passed down to his family and everyone else that wants to join it be racist?
Do these passages sound racist to you?
Nu 9:14 And if a stranger shall sojourn among you, and will keep the passover unto the LORD; according to the ordinance of the passover, and according to the manner thereof, so shall he do: ye shall have one ordinance, both for the stranger, and for him that was born in the land.
Ex 22:21 Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
Ex 23:12 Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest: that thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy handmaid, and the stranger, may be refreshed.
Le 23:22 And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not make clean riddance of the corners of thy field when thou reapest, neither shalt thou gather any gleaning of thy harvest: thou shalt leave them unto the poor, and to the stranger: I am the LORD your God.
Le 25:35 And if thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee; then thou shalt relieve him: yea, though he be a stranger, or a sojourner; that he may live with thee.
Nu 15:16 One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you.
Isa 56:3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree.
What about the book of Ruth? Moses has a dark skinned wife and his sister is given leprosy for being racist about it.
And Greg, what if my statements are just a fancy way of saying, “God did it.” Is not the very definition of right and wrong what YHWH does and does not do? Is not His character the standard? Is not our judging Him or His word as racist just the pot demanding an explanation for why the potter made it thus? You have made up a question akin to, “Could YHWH make a rock so big that he could not lift it?” It is a foolish and unlearned question. It is a false paradox.
2Ti 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
Greg,
You wrote:
“I have never bothered to see if that really is in the Old Testament or if they were just “proof texting” a much later theology.”
Hmmmm? “Unlearned (uninformed) questions.” You admit ignorance, even neglectful ignorance, but you think you know enough to postulate that YHWH is racist and accuse us of just saying, “God said it.” Hmmmm?
Bo,
>> You are reading my statements that way because you do not like the answer.
I don’t hate your answer. You gave me no answer to hate!
FYI – asking a bunch of counter-questions is not an answer!
No offense to you or jon, but I’m giving up this question. You guys have clearly not thought this through.
And there is no call for the personal insults!
It was a fair question, raised by today’s show.
PS: My definition of racism is the dictionary definition.
>> : the belief that some races of people are better than others
Greg,
I did not insult you and the question was answered with verse after verse after verse. You are the one that claims ignorance and asked the unlearned question. So be it.
Matt Slick has stated on several occasions that he experienced a personal manifestation of Jesus, which makes one wonder why he cannot seem to give any definitive statement about the Lord’s skin color. In point of fact, that Christ came from the Middle East does not tell us anything about the his race. There are plenty of Middle Eastern people who are fair haired and fair skinned, especially in the Levant area, and blue, green and hazel eyes are not all that uncommon. In any event, more often than not, the whole issue about Jesus’ race is politically motivated.
Greg,
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that any race of people is better than another. As a matter of fact:
De 7:6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all peoples that are upon the face of the earth.
7 The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all peoples:
8 but because the LORD loveth you, and because he would keep the oath which he sware unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.
Ex 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
7 And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him.
8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.
And He chooses us the same way:
1 Pe 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.
If you would spend about 3 years reading carefully through the first five books of the Bible you could get informed. If you continue to “never bother” with it you will not get very far really understanding the rest of scripture.
Bo,
>> I did not insult you
Yes you did. You called me a fool — in direct disobedience to Jesus.
>> Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
Greg,
I quoted a passage of scripture about foolish questions and said you asked a foolish and unlearned/uninformed question. I never said that you were a fool. I am on record for calling Van a fool with a dozen scriptures that prove it.
Greg,
If you would read a little more carefully both my posts and the Bible, you would not justify the wicked…namely abortionists and homosexuals. You also would realize that I did not call you a fool.
>> I never said that you were a fool.
Apology accepted.
>> I am on record for calling Van a fool with a dozen scriptures that prove it.
Why would you ever call someone a fool when Jesus clearly states that you are in danger of hell for doing so?
Jesus is much clearer about calling people “fools” than he was about homosexuality.
… and about abortion.
The bible is ambiguous, at best, about when life begins.
That’s why I’m pro-choice.
Greg,
And so I am as guilty as the apostle Paul as far as calling a brother a fool. Do you think that he and I will end up in hell? I think that you should apologize for asserting that I disobeyed what Messiah said.
Greg,
I did not apologize, for I did not call you a fool. Van is not a brother. And he has proven by every scriptural test that he is a fool.
Greg,
You wrote:
“The bible is ambiguous, at best, about when life begins.”
You have been proven to be in error concerning this over and over with many, many Bible verses. The Bible has much more to say about when life begins than about calling people fools.
Bo,
Read this bible verse carefully:
Matthew 5:22 (NIV)
22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
Do you take the bible seriously or not?
If you take it seriously — you will stop calling people fools. Or even insinuating that I am a fool (which you clearly did.)
Greg,
I am waiting for an apology.
Bo,
>> You have been proven to be in error concerning this over and over with many, many Bible verses.
Not even close.
Seriously. No one has ever provided me a verse clearly showing that life begins at conception.
Why?
Because it is not in the bible. The bible does not claim that.
Bo,
>> I am waiting for an apology.
I apologize.
But for what?
Greg,
I have read the verse carefully for a long time. And I have not broken it.
Greg,
Read post 26.
Bo,
The verse clearly says that you are in danger of the fires of hell for calling someone a fool.
You called Van a fool.
Could the bible be any clearer?
Do you take the Bible seriously or not?
Greg,
Now it seems to me that the a person is a person if he can be filled with the Holy Spirit.
Lu 1:15 For he will be great in the sight of the Lord
and will never drink wine or beer.
He will be filled with the Holy Spirit
while still in his mother’s womb.
But if the above passage is to vague…please note that John the Baptist responded with joy at 6 months gestation and that it was just a few days after conception that He recognized Y’shua in Mary’s womb. Would it have been OK for Mary to have an abortion? According to this passage Mary was already a mother…of the Lord no less. The child in Mary’s womb was already called blessed.
Luke 1
38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.
39 And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda;
40 And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth.
41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.
Greg,
The passage is about brothers. Context, context, context. At least Samuel, Solomon, Jeremiah, Y’shua, Paul and Peter called people fools…just not brothers.
Greg,
Post 26 and 36 require your attention.
>>Now it seems to me that the a person is a person if he can be filled with the Holy Spirit.
But the bible in ambiguous about this. In the bible, “spirit” means “breath”.
Do you believe a fetus becomes a baby only after they take their first breath?
I most certainly do not.
—————-
Here is the problem that you Christian pro-lifers will never overcome.
In bible times, they didn’t know about conception.
Not in any scientific understanding, anyway. They didn’t know about eggs and sperm, DNA, or any of that.
But. we know about that now thanks to science.
The two world views can never be reconciled.
That’s why I am pro-choice. I trust women enough, I trust the Holy Spirit enough, I trust doctors enough — to let women make the hard decisions for themselves without the government getting involved.
Greg,
That was lame. You didn’t ask me to reconcile modern secular scientific worldview with the Bible. You said that no one had provided a scripture verse. Well, I just did for the fifth or sixth time. There is a difference between breath and “Holy Spirit.” How disingenuous for you to stretch the context and twist meanings around. Pneuma and Ruach can mean breath in context, but John the Baptist did not breathe in his mother’s womb. Deal with the jumping for joy in the presence of newly conceived baby Y’shua. Deal with the other things I brought up. And you do not know how much they knew about conception and eggs and sperm. And I am sure that YHWH did know. Now deal with the rest of the passage.
Greg,
You wrote:
“The two world views can never be reconciled.
That’s why I am pro-choice.”
So, what you have just stated is that you will bow to man’s science instead of YHWH’s revealed word. And that you will trust women and doctors more than YHWH. Very telling. Now deal with the rest of the passage and the issues I brought up.
Shabbat Shalom everyone!
Bo,
>>So, what you have just stated is that you will bow to man’s science instead of YHWH’s revealed word.
It’s not “man’s science”. It’s God’s creation.
Science didn’t “invent” DNA, eggs, sperm and conception. God created it. Science helps us understand what God created.
But, I think you have drilled down to a fundamental difference between you and me.
I am not afraid to learn about God’s creation. I don’t think understanding God creation is any threat to the word of God.
There are TONS of stuff that we know outside of the bible — from science and elsewhere. And, if the bible is silent on it, we can never reconcile the two.
This is not “bowing to man’s science.”
I encourage you to have enough faith in the bible to not fear science.
Bo,
As for John the Baptist — that verse does not, in any way, declare that life begins at conception.
(And, besides, it was Elizabeth who was filled with the Spirit. There is no mention of John being filled. )
But if you insist on (mis)using scripture that way, one could probably argue that this is indication that life begins at the third trimester as Roe v. Wade ruled!
>> And that you will trust women and doctors more than YHWH. Very telling.
Now you are debating dishonestly. You edited out the part where I said I trusted in the Holy Spirit. You are intentionally misrepresenting what I clearly said.
As for the rest of what you have told me “five or six times” — you can keep pasting scripture that doesn’t address the issue but it still doesn’t make your point.
If the bible is silent on, let’s say, space travel, surgery, dinosaurs or molecules — you can keep pasting bible verses but it doesn’t inform the issue.
And, the bible is silent on exactly when life begins. (Or, even less helpfully, it’s ambiguous.)
This is not a flaw in the bible. It’s just that the people, of the bronze era, had a vastly difference understanding of science and life itself.
Greg,
You keep skipping the parts of scripture that disagree with you.
Lu 1:15 For he will be great in the sight of the Lord
and will never drink wine or beer.
He will be filled with the Holy Spirit
while still in his mother’s womb.
So John was filled with the Holy Spirit while in his mother’s womb. You said that the passage did not say that. So they both were filled with the Holy Spirit. John, sometime before birth, and his mother, immediately upon Mary’s arrival.
Luke 1
38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.
39 And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda;
40 And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth.
41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.
John leaped for joy in response to Mary, who is called a mother already, when Messiah was only a few days past conception. John had emotions. Messiah was already considered a child. She went to Elisabeth in haste…very quickly after the message from the angel. How many days gestation do you think Messiah was? Mary was already a mother. Messiah was already a human. Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit when she proclaimed a blessing on the human in His mother Mary’s womb by divine guidance. It wasn’t their knowledge that considered Him already to be a human baby, it was YHWH speaking through her…Prophecy! It was divine revelation from the Holy Spirit that Mary was carrying the Master, not backward middle eastern ignorance of conception and eggs and sperm.
OK, try answering the above points that you have consistently failed to thus far. Contrary to your assertion, the above scripture does directly address the issue about when life begins. You just do not want to see it that way.
I did not list that you mentioned that the you trusted the Holy Spirit because you seem to keep not believing what the Holy Spirit inspired to be written. Do you believe that the Holy Spirit inspired Luke to write what he did and Elisabeth to proclaim what she did?
Bo,
>> the above scripture does directly address the issue about when life begins.
OK then, if so — where does it say,”life begins at conception”?
And that is the abortion debate.
I also believe that life begins _some time_ before birth. I just don’t know,for fact, exactly when. And the verse you cite certainly does not say precisely when.
You may think you know – but you don’t know from the bible and you don’t know from settled science. It’s simply your opinion – and you want to use the power of government to force your opinion on women.
This is the very heart of the American abortion debate in America. Most Americans are OK with very early term abortions and strongly against very late term abortions. Where we can’t agree is on which point in-between that it becomes OK.
And, the bible doesn’t help us answer this question in any way that can be used to guide medical science.. The reason is obvious — they didn’t have a scientific understanding of conception and gestation all those thousands of years ago.
>> I did not list that you mentioned that the you trusted the Holy Spirit because you seem to keep not believing what the Holy Spirit inspired to be written.
But don’t edit-out my clear statement that I trust in the Holy Spirit and then accuse me of not saying it! That is just dishonest debate.
And, just because I understand the bible differently doesn’t mean I don’t believe the bible. Dr. Brown, himself, has spoken to that kind of judgmental among Christians many times.
PS: Just to not be too cantankerous — I did misread 1:15. I stand corrected on that point. I was reading later in the chapter and forgot about verse 15.
Bo,
(I’ll put this in a second post because it is a very different issue.)
I’ve wondered how Pentecostals interpret the fact that one can be filled with the Holy Spirit before birth?
It’s a wild precedent if you think about it at all!
With a new week coming, I’ll probably not check back here again but I want to correct Dr. Brown on one point:
Dr. Brown has the history of marriage completely backwards when he claims that gay marriage is a slippery slope to concubinage.
Conservatism is the “slippery slope” to concubinage and polygamy.
Traditional marriage, going back to the Patriarchs and earlier, allows for multiple wives and/or an extra women on the side.
Donald Sterling is very much within the conservative, traditional model of marriage.
Modern marriage is a “slippery slope” towards egalitarian pair-bonding. Two, equal partners. Yes this includes same-sex couples.
But it does not include the kind of inequitable mistress relationship that Sterling had — and was so common in the Bible Belt among plantation owners. This is very much a traditional, conservative marriage practice.
I other words: gay marriage is, sociologically, the polar opposite of polygamy.
Greg,
I will explain then quote from Luke to show proof of my statements. Please read both carefully.
Mary left immediately after the message from the angel.
Luke 1
38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.
39 And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda;
John the baptist recognized Messiah in Mary’s womb. Messiah was only a few days gestational age. The Holy Ghost filled Elisabeth and confirmed that Messiah was in fact alive and human at this very early stage.
40 And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth.
41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
It has only been a few days since conception. The Holy Ghost communicates to and through Elisabeth that Mary is already a mother and that the child is her master.
43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
This all happened before Mary told her about it for it was the first sound of Mary’s voice that started the whole Holy Ghost experience. Blessings were pronounced on the brand new mother and the brand new baby human…not on a cluster of cells that might one day be a baby human.
44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.
45 And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.
Greg,
You wrote:
“I’ve wondered how Pentecostals interpret the fact that one can be filled with the Holy Spirit before birth?
It’s a wild precedent if you think about it at all!”
I think that you are equating baptism/immersion with filling. They are not the same thing.
Lu 1:15 For he will be great in the sight of the Lord
and will never drink wine or beer.
He will be filled with the Holy Spirit
while still in his mother’s womb.
Lu 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
Joh 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
Mt 3:14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
Joh 4:1 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,
2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)
John the baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit while in the womb. He also emphatically said that he needed the baptism that Y’shua administered…the baptism in the Holy Ghost. Being filled and being baptized are totally different. A glass can be filled with water without being immersed in it. It cannot be totally immersed without being filled. The two are not the same.
Messiah didn’t baptize in water. John did and Y’shua’s disciples did. It was revealed to John that Messiah is the one that baptizes in the Holy Spirit. John was not saying that he needed to baptized in water by Messiah, but that he needed the Holy Spirit baptism that only Messiah can do.
There is no problem with being filled before during or after baptism in the Holy Spirit. If YHWH so chooses to fill a person with the Holy Spirit before birth, so be it. But like true water baptism by immersion, only a believer in Messiah can be baptized in the Holy Spirit and one must usually come to the baptizer of his own free will to get either water or Spirit baptism. And a believer can get these two baptisms before or after the other.
Infant baptism is not taught in scripture. It is solely a tradition of men. Thinking that baptism in water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit or in the name of Y’shua does not automatically impart either a filling of the Holy Spirit or the baptism with the Holy Spirit. The prerequisites to being baptized in the Holy Spirit are knowing there is such a thing, desiring it/asking for it, repentance, salvation and obedience.
Ac 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.
Ac 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Lu 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
Ac 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.