Did the Jews and Gentiles both receive the Spirit before they were water baptized

When Peter commanded those to repent and be baptized and they would receive the gift of the Holyghost,

Did those people first receive the Spirit before they were water baptized.

Of course this may begg the question that the gift was the Holy Spirit itself.

So the question: did they receive the Holyghost after they came out of the water or before they entered the water.

It also beggs the question of the Holyghost and Holy Spirit being the same, at least in my thoughts.

So if they received the Holy Spirit after they came out of the water then they didn’t receive it before they went in.

My next question then would be what is the gift they received? The Holy Spirit, or the Holyghost and when did they receive it? Before they went in the water or afte

So here’s the thought I need to prove or disprove: Paul, and those Peter preached to receiced the Holy Spirit before they were water baptized.

Here are some scriptures to think about:

Acts 8:14–17 (NKJV) :

14Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, 15who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit..

Rom 3:25-26 “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; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.”

The Holy Spirit and the Holy Ghost is one and the same. Older versions of the English Bible use Ghost and the new versions use Spirit. I think that’s because the word ghost brings up a different connotation to its true meaning.

In John 20:22 Jesus has been resurrected but has not yet ascended to heaven. He breathed on his disciples and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” They were all there except Thomas. The disciples received the Holy Spirit before Pentecost but at Pentecost they received the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus told them to stay in Jerusalem and wait for this power. They were going to need it to do what Jesus asked of them.

Being baptized doesn’t result in receiving the Holy Spirit although it could. God seals us with His Spirit when we put our faith and trust in Jesus as our Savior. The Bible calls it a seal of ownership and a guarantee. There’s the power of the Spirit, the manifestation of the Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit and its all the One Spirit. All born again believers have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them whether they are baptized or not because it isn’t baptism that saves us. It’s who we are believing and who we are trusting in which is Jesus.

Some will disagree with what I’ve said. I hope this helps answer your question.

1 Like

Thank you for responding, ..Im seeing something a little different when it comes to the meaning of holyghost. Yet you said it and maybe didn’t know that that’s what I was seeing…“Power”…the Holyghost is looking more like power of the resurrected “body of Christ” more than ever.

Side note: we all are going to have different views, doesn’t mean that we can’t speak them in love, like you have.

1 Like

When I use a concordance to look up verses that talk about the Holy Spirit, the original word of Spirit (or Ghost if its a KJV translation) is pneuma. It’s always the same original word whether its been translated as Spirit or Ghost. From my understanding there’s no difference between these two terms. They’re one and the same.

I tried to explain how I believe they are different not that I know the way I’d like to understanding with clarity.

But say Clara Brown is a 23 year old woman who lives with her parents.

She gets married to John Smith and moves to a new house with Him.

Her last name changes to Clara Smith.
Now is she still the same woman that lived with her parents? If so -why, and if not -why?

So I see HS & HG in that light

She’s the same woman, but her role has changed from daughter to wife. The difference between Holy Spirit and Holy Ghost is a matter of translation. In the KJ version it will only use Holy Ghost and in the newer version NIV it will only use Holy Spirit. You will not find both descriptions used in one translation.

I am more looking at context. The reason I take a stand that there is a difference because it’s in the Bible. Why would intellegent people make a difference?

The one thing I see is that the term is associated with power.

But interesting enough, don’t the roles we play change who we are?

I’m sorry @Corlove13. I’m just not getting where you’re coming from. Maybe there’s someone else here who has a better understanding. Maybe we’re talking about two different things. You’ve said that its in the Bible. Where?

Greek Foundation (NT Texts)

The New Testament consistently uses πνεῦμα ἅγιον (pneuma hagion) to refer to the Spirit of God:

~Matthew 28:19 - Jesus commands baptism “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος).”

~John 14:26 - “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit (τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον), … shall teach you all things.”

There is no variation in person or essence; the same Greek term refers to the Spirit active in inspiration, empowerment, conviction, and sanctification.

  1. Latin Translation (Vulgate)

Jerome’s Vulgate consistently renders πνεῦμα ἅγιον as Spiritus Sanctus:

~Matthew 28:19 - “Baptizantes eos in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti.”

~John 14:26 - “Paraclitus, Spiritus Sanctus, quem Pater mittet in nomine meo, ipse docebit vos omnia.”

Spiritus Sanctus = Holy Spirit, the same entity as in Greek. There is no duality; the Latin preserves person, function, and divine essence.

  1. English Translation History

Early English Bibles used Holy Ghost from Old English gāst, which translated the Latin spiritus. The term “ghost” in Middle and Early Modern English meant “spirit” or “breath,” not a spectral apparition.

Modern translations shifted preference to Holy Spirit, aligning semantically with the Greek pneuma and Latin spiritus, but there is no theological difference-the English terminology simply evolved.

  1. Theological Consistency

Both “Holy Ghost” and “Holy Spirit” perform the same biblical functions: teaching, guiding, convicting, regenerating, and empowering believers (e.g., ~John 16:13, ~Acts 1:8).

Both are identified as divine, personal, and co-equal with Father and Son (cf. ~Matthew 28:19, ~2 Corinthians 13:14).

The early church, including Augustine and the Nicene Fathers, made no distinction based on English terms, the emphasis was on personhood, divinity, and mission, not linguistic preference.

  1. Etymology and Semantic Continuity

Language Term Literal Meaning Function / Role
Greek πνεῦμα ἅγιον “Holy Breath” / “Spirit” Teacher, comforter, sanctifier, guide
Latin Spiritus Sanctus “Holy Spirit / Breath” Same as Greek; used in liturgy and creeds
Old English Hālig Gāst “Holy Spirit / Sacred Breath” Same as Greek & Latin; term “ghost” = spirit
Modern English Holy Spirit Direct translation of Greek & Latin Identical in theological role

  1. Patristic Support

Augustine (De Trinitate) equates Spiritus Sanctus with the Spirit proceeding from the Father and Son.

Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria consistently use πνεῦμα ἅγιον in Greek texts, translated Spiritus Sanctus in Latin, without introducing a second entity.

The Reformation English Bibles (Tyndale, Geneva, KJV) retained “Holy Ghost” because of linguistic heritage, not theological distinction.

In other words @Corlove13

The evidence is overwhelming: Holy Ghost and Holy Spirit are identical. The variance is purely linguistic:

Greek πνεῦμα ἅγιον → Latin Spiritus Sanctus → English Holy Ghost / Holy Spirit.

Aramaic Term

The equivalent of “Holy Spirit” in Aramaic is רוחא קדישא (rūḥā qaddīšā).

רוחא (rūḥā) = spirit, breath, wind

קדישא (qaddīšā) = holy, sacred

Literally: “Holy Breath” / “Holy Spirit”, directly mirroring the Greek πνεῦμα ἅγιον and Latin Spiritus Sanctus.

In the Peshitta (Syriac Old and New Testament), which is the primary Aramaic Bible used in Syriac Christianity, the Holy Spirit is always רוחא קדישא.

Example: ~Matthew 28:19 (Syriac Peshitta) - “Baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (ܘܪܘܚܐ ܩܕܝܫܐ).”

Example: ~John 14:26 (Syriac Peshitta) - “But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit (ܪܘܚܐ ܩܕܝܫܐ), whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things.”

Early Syriac fathers (e.g., Aphrahat, Ephrem the Syrian) treat rūḥā qaddīšā identically to Greek πνεῦμα ἅγιον, as the divine, personal, co-equal third person of the Trinity.

Functionally, personhood, divinity, and operations are identical.

Historical, patristic, and biblical usage all confirm one Spirit, one divine person, acting consistently across Scripture and tradition.

No difference sister.

J.

@Johann Your explanations are always profound and thorough. There are many here who are blessed with your knowledge and I can appreciate how your sharing brings light to some passages. Sometimes a knowledge of Greek or Latin doesn’t help the person asking because we are all different and we are all in different places. Thank you for weighing in! Perhaps your answer will help @Corlove13 with her question.

Thank you for your kind words @Bestill and to our God be all the glory.

J.

Cor -# I am more looking at context. The reason I take a stand that there is a difference because it’s in the Bible. Why would intellegent people make a difference?

The one thing I see is that the term is associated with power.

But interesting enough, don’t the roles we play change who we are?

What’s in the Bible that: when mentioning the Holyghost it has to do with power?

In the King James Version (KJV), the Holy Ghost is frequently associated with power, particularly regarding divine empowerment, miracles, and boldness for ministry. Key scriptures include Acts 1:8, where Christ promises power after the Holy Ghost comes upon them, and Acts 10:38, linking the Holy Ghost directly with anointing and power to heal.

  • Acts 1:8 (KJV): “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me…” This verse explicitly connects the arrival of the Holy Ghost to receiving empowering ability for witnessing.

  • Acts 10:38 (KJV): “How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.” Here, the Holy Ghost is linked to the power used for healing and miracles.

  • Romans 15:13 (KJV): “…that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost.”

  • Romans 15:19 (KJV): “Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God…”

  • 1 Corinthians 2:4 (KJV): “And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power.”

  • 1 Thessalonians 1:5 (KJV): "For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost..

This was not suppose to be a debate rather there is a difference of HolyGost and Holy Spirit. My stand is there is. I was sharing with the other why I take that stand. I take that stand because the kjv uses both. I do not think things are done without a reason. I take that stand because Power is usually alongside Holyghost.

Not a problem sister @Corlove13 .

J.

You’re right. In the KJ, you fine both the Holy Ghost and the Holy Spirit being referenced. If we were to read these passages in the original language we would find that it’s the same word -pneuma. The interpreters who translated the Biblical language to English made the choice to sometimes translate it a ghost and sometimes as spirit, but its not there in the original language. In the original language it is always pneuma. For example, Acts 2:4 uses both in that one verse.

“And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.”

The word for ghost and the word for spirit is the same word in the original language. If we looked this verse up in another translation like the NIV it would use the word ‘Spirit’ in both places. I have to go with the original language of the Bible as opposed to the intent of the translator. The KJ version uses an outdated English language which is why we have thee’s and thou’s throughout.

You have spoken this quite beautifully and I want to thank you for every word. To each their own opinions, absolutely, but I do hope they see this opinion right here, that you have shared, in a way maybe they haven’t ever seen before and hopefully give it some thought because this feels so 100% accurate. But I always stay open-minded and hear every opinion because there’s always a lesson in everyone’s journey that somebody can learn from as well. But I love this that you have shared, thank you. Stay smiling and stay blessed. :folded_hands::dove: