When were the Disciples of Jesus, "born again"?

I have heard a few different sides of this, but this is my take:

They were saved prior to Christ breathing the Holy Ghost upon them, no different than all the OT saints that went before them, and no different than anyone during this NT age. They were saved by God's grace through their faith.

Once Jesus died, was buried, and risen again, he then returned to breathe the Holy Ghost into the disciples. I believe no one had received the indwelling Holy Spirit until this point, (besides John Baptist his case being a mystery, to be filled with the Holy Ghost from the womb, I don't care what anyone says, it is a mystery), however I would be happy for someone to show me otherwise (not the Spirit upon them, but indwelling them).

So I believe the disciples were born again when they repented and put their faith in Christ, just like us. But today we are sealed with the Holy Spirit upon conversion, but they couldn't be on their conversion because Christ had not breathed the Holy Ghost yet, nor had God's Spirit been poured out (fulfillment of Joel and other Scriptures).

They were saved prior to Christ breathing the Holy Ghost upon them,

"Conversion is not Regeneration"

[url=http://www.myutmost.org/01/0110.html]My Utmost for His Hightest: Oswald Chambers January 10th. [/url]

Very True. However, in your referrance, O.C. is not addressing those who live with a hope, but who haven't heard of the Lord Jesus. Big difference.

Does it matter?

Does it matter?

However, it does matter if we are trying to understand why the disciples behaved as they did and different times in their experience and it often matters too if we are trying to understand our own experience.

When I asked 'Does it matter', I was refering to the original question. God bless.

Ormly on 2006/9/13 19:00:29 posted

what is the real reason for the born again experience?

Ormly on 2006/9/13 21:43:56

The new birth isn't what saves a person. The shed Blood of Jesus satisfies the Holiness of God concerning the issue of sin.

I will stand with that.

Oh??

We are back to the old puritan book title; "Redemption: accomplished and applied"

by Ormly on 2006/9/14 0:13:48

FOR them. However, they were re-born in John 20.22

Personally, I don't think this passage has anything to do with regeneration but is a unique commissioning of the apostles.

Can I ask, with reference to the original question, when you say, born again, do you also mean saved? Thanks.

Well then you are clearly ignoring much and there is nothing "unique" about it except they were the first. It is still the way it happens today who become born again. Not only that but the commissioning could not and didn't happen-take effect until after Acts 2. Here are the instructions of Jesus:

OK, time to discuss...

[b]Let's take the 'it didn't happen-take effect until after Acts 2'[/b]
This construction here is the Aorist Imperative. If Christ had meant to say 'you will receive' or 'you will continue to receive' the tense used by John would have been the Aorist Indicative. The whole thrust of this tense used at this point is that they were to receive immediately as an act of obedience. They were to receive what He had breathed out.

[b]Let's put it in context and see what more we can discover.[/b]
This resurrection appearance is plainly the one referred to by Luke in“And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.”
(Luke 24:36 KJVS

“And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things. And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.”
(Luke 24:44-49 KJVS))If we put together the two accounts of the same meeting we shall see the emphases which develop. John says 'he breathed upon them'. Luke says 'he opened their understanding that they might understand the scriptures. This is an empowering. It is the unique equipping of men to do a unique task. Although aspects of this narrative do have an application to all the saint the narrative is focussing on what happened to the apostles at this point. If we read John's context we can see the same 'apostolic' commissioning.“Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.”
(John 20:21 KJVS) The first of these words 'send' is apostellO. As Christ had been 'apostelled' by his father, now his disciples would be similarly apostelled.

Earlier in John's gospel Christ had expressly promised that the Spirit would provide unique empowerings for the aposlles. He would bring to their remembrance the things that they had heard, lead them into truth and show them things to come. They were to be his living representatives and to be such they had to have the same Spirit as He. The story of Moses and his representatives is instructive in this. “And the Lord came down in a cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him, and gave it unto the seventy elders: and it came to pass, that, when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, and did not cease. But there remained two of the men in the camp, the name of the one was Eldad, and the name of the other Medad: and the spirit rested upon them; and they were of them that were written, but went not out unto the tabernacle: and they prophesied in the camp.”
(Num 11:25-26 KJVS) This action guaranteed continuity of the witness.

Previous to this point the eyes of the disciples had been "holden that they should not know him. " Luke 24:16 but after this event they both knew him and understood the scriptures. People sometimes ask where Peter got the sermon he preached on the day of Pentecost. The answer is he got it here when Jesus breathed on him and his understanding and the scriptures were opened.

Keep in mind, Jesus didn't tell them how long they would have to wait. Consequently, we are told, only 120 out of the 500 who witnessed the ascension, did so tarry.

John 20:21 is the kind of empowering that is represented by the word 'anointing'. It is a conscious commissioning and enabling of men and women to fulfill a particular task. There is no hint that this was regeneration.

When I spoke of the 'signs' of regeneration I was referring to 1 John.

Now, I could guess where you get your information but that would accomplish nothing except to reveal my distain for their writings. And I do distain them because they rob good folk of the priviledge of knowing the Father in the way He wants to be known, i.e., per John 17.

You are too full of the "Aorist Imperative" and "Aorist Indicative" to ever have a meaningful realistical understanding or discussion of what scriptures actually say. The rule you overlook is to first let them say what they do say. In other words, contextually, you are out to lunch.

...and I thought you wanted a discussion. Seems you only want an argument. I will not oblige you.

If your knowledge comes from your own studies, which I find difficult to accept...

If you can't believe what I say there is little point in continuing the conversation, so this will be my last post in our conversation.

Ormly,

Sorry to interrupt!

Has anyone considered the followings in light of John 3:3? An episode directed to Nicodemus ( a Pharisee, perhaps a representation of the religious Israel ) and a call for Israel's national repentance to the then earthly Israel King and Messiah, as a fulfillment of the prophecies in these passages by HIS first Advent?

Lev 26:40 (National Repentance)

 40 If they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, with their trespass which they trespassed against me, and that also they have walked contrary unto me;
 41 And that I also have walked contrary unto them, and have brought them into the land of their enemies; if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity:
 42 Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land.

Ezekial 36-38 ( Water Baptism )

24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.
25 [b] Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. [/b]

I forgot if it was you or Ron who else mentioned that somewhere along the line that John 3:3's rebirth being a unique event towards the REBIRTH OF ISRAEL. A somewhat difference to the Gentile's salvation by grace through faith unto this 'new birth'?

To answer the question as to "when" did the disciples ( The Lord's disciples/ followers,( not Christians overall) in HIS time, I'd say that they were "reborn" , if we have to use this term, in Acts 19, where Paul took them from water baptism (John's baptism) to the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

[b]Peter's preaching of John's baptism:
..Repent...be water baptized..for the remissions of sins..in lieu of Mosaic circumcision.

In contrary to Paul's gospel to the Gentiles:
" Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.."
" By grace are you saved through faith (in Christ)"[/b]

mamaluk on 2006/9/14 19:50:58 posted

I forgot if it was you or Ron who else mentioned that somewhere along the line that John 3:3's rebirth being a unique event towards the REBIRTH OF ISRAEL. A somewhat difference to the Gentile's salvation by grace through faith unto this 'new birth'?

Not guilty! :-)

I am not sure I follow the quotation as you express it. There are some interesting questions to ask about the John 3 event. In particular

1. who is the 'we' in verse 2?
2. who is the 'we' in verse 11?

To answer the question as to "when" did the disciples ( The Lord's disciples/ followers,( not Christians overall) in HIS time, I'd say that they were "reborn" , if we have to use this term, in Acts 19, where Paul took them from water baptism (John's baptism) to the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Ormly
You are quite predictable.

I asked the question, knowing that you would not answer it, but ask another question instead. And you did! Why that is, only you know.
But see reason, if you fail to answer questions, then don't ask them. Thanks.

Ormly,
Once again, a non answer, and a non statement.

Ormly,
Still a non answer.

Ormly
Forgive me. I'm not being serious! Doesn't matter to me. I'll leave the thread to those who want to discuss it. That's what it's there for. God bless.

Yeah Orm and Ron,

I have been reading some material on this lately, I thought I throw this out and see what you both thought. I'm honestly a bit confused over this still, and will need to re-study this whole issue.

The disciples in Acts 19 were of John the Baptist's, in[b] verse 5, " When they heard this,they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus"??[/b] Was this a water or Holy Spirit baptism? Oh, was this their 2nd baptism?

As for Acts 2;, in verse 5 "..there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout, out of every nation under heaven...", they were all Jewish.

The 'we' in John 3: 2 are those in verse one, the Pharisees, Nicodemus friends? No?

Yeah, it must not have been either of you mentioning this, I have been reading here and there and sorry if I got you all mixed in.

Please explain whatever I need to know, I find this very interesting, for the longest time, I have a big puzzle in my head over this section of Scripture.

Um, as to the when question, what were you referring to when you said "disciples", I know you didn't mean the apostles. Did you mean followers of Christ in general? or The Disciples of The Lord while He was on earth?

Sorry if I'm making your heads spin, mine is anyways. :)

Both please ! But first explain all this 'aorist' business. ( I dozed out through all my English grammar classes in my 'golden' years!)

mamaluk on 2006/9/15 15:04:51

The 'we' in John 2 are those in verse one, the Pharisees, Nicodemus friends? No?

Judaism of the day had a language of 're-birth' and a rite of 'water baptism' for the proselytes. Nicodemus would have known this pattern but not for Jews!! This was what was so shocking about John's intervention. He was baptising Jews! I wonder how Nicodemus had reacted to John's baptism? Did he 'repent and look forward to the Lamb of God?'. Or did he just keep his distance?

This is why I asked about the second 'we'. I think it is also possible that the Lord was joining his own testimony to that of John's, [color=0000fff]we speak what we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.[/color] I am sure that the witness of miracle and the Father and the Spirit is included in the Lord's consciousness but I wonder too how Nicodemus 'heard' this word. There is a lot about John in these chapters.

Another interesting area to explore is the switch between 'thee' in v3 and 'ye' ie from the singular to the plural may also indicate that the Lord is speaking to 'representatives' and not just to an individual.

Nevertheless, the topic of regeneration is far beyond Nicodemus grasp at this stage.

Thanks Ron,

According to Lightfoot,I read,the rabbinical tradition makes him(Nicodemus) one of the 3 richest men in Jersusalem at the time.

[i]How did you come to conclude that the water baptism was directed to the Proselytes only? [/i] Yes, switching thee and ye to the plural is sort of what I have in mind.

hm, this is getting to be even more interesting, I'd like to learn more.

Both please ! But first explain all this 'aorist' business. ( I dozed out through all my English grammar classes in my 'golden' years!)

Hi
You wouldn't have been much better off if you had stayed awake. We don't have an Aorist tense in English. This is one of the difficulties in translation that even tenses change from language to language.

In English we have the [b]Perfect Tense[/b] which describes something which began in the past but is still true. "I have been painting the fence" implies that I started some time ago and am still on the job. There is a Greek Perfect tense too and Paul uses it in [color=0000ff]“I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.” (Gal 2:20 NKJV)[/color] Notice how the NKJV has switched from 'I am crucified' to 'I have been crucified'. Paul is speaking here of an ongoing experience, not something which just happened in the past and not something which is just happening in the present.

In English we also have the [b]Imperfect Tense[/b] which is a continuous tense but in the past. "I was painting the fence" or "I used to paint the fence". Greek has an Imperfect Tense too. [color=0000ff]“for before the coming of certain from James, with the nations he was eating, and when they came, he was withdrawing and separating himself, fearing those of the circumcision,” (Gal 2:12 YNG)[/color] This is from Youngs Literal Translation. You can see how he has tried to capture the fact that it was not a single act of Peter's that drew out Paul's protest but rather a complete change in the pattern of Peter's behaviour.

In Biblical Greek (and not in English) we also have the [b]Aorist Tense[/b]. Older linguists used to say that the main emphasis of the Aorist is that of a completed action. They used to use the illustration "He shot the donkey and it died". In Biblical Greek you would use the Aorist tense for 'shot' because you only shot it once and the action was complete in itself. But you would use the ordinary Past Tense in Greek to say 'it died', because its death continued. Greek is a very subtle language and although no one needs to understand it to be saved or to be useful to God, for some purposes it can be very useful.

On to [b]Imperatives[/b]... this is the 'mood' in which orders are given. Because Greek is so subtle you can actually distinguish between 'do it and carry on doing it' and 'do it immediately'. When the Lord 'ordered' the apostles to 'receive the Spirit' he used the [b]Aorist Tense[/b] in the [b]Imperative mood[/b] which has the sense of 'do it now'.

It would, of course, have been quite impossible for the apostles to receive the indwelling Christ while He was still resident in a body on the earth. So, when He said 'Receive the Spirit now' it is plain that whatever else was happening here they were not being regenerated.

Now my head is spinning too. :-D

Ron,

Thanks, no no, my head is not spinning on this one. You haven't responded to the part where you came up with the notion of water baptism in Ezek is directed to the proselytes?

Also, what do you think of the following:

" John 3:5
of water, = of water and spirit. No art. Fig. Hendiadys. Not two things, but one, by which the latter Noun becomes a superlative and emphatic Adjective, determining the meaning and nature of the former Noun, showing that one to be spiritual water: i.e. not water but spirit. It is to be rendered "of water-yea, spriirtual water". Cp. Eph 5:26, and Ezek. 36-25-27 "

If the above is sound, that means the Lord was talking about Spirit Baptism for Nicodemus...ah....interesting ?

Thanks, no no, my head is not spinning on this one. You haven't responded to the part where you came up with the notion of water baptism in Ezek is directed to the proselytes?

I am not sure where the notion of 'baptism' comes from in Ezekiel. There is sprinking in Ezek 36 but sprinkling is a very different thing to immersing.

" John 3:5
of water, = of water and spirit. No art. Fig. Hendiadys. Not two things, but one, by which the latter Noun becomes a superlative and emphatic Adjective, determining the meaning and nature of the former Noun, showing that one to be spiritual water: i.e. not water but spirit. It is to be rendered "of water-yea, spriirtual water". Cp. Eph 5:26, and Ezek. 36-25-27 "

The Jews of the day practised baptism in water and referred to it as new birth. This was a requirement for a proselyte. It still is. Anyone converting to Judaism today has to submit to circumcision and to self baptism. John's baptism was different in that he was baptizing Jews and he was doing the baptizing.

They taught that the perfect proselyte was Naaman. They said that Naaman was a better proselyte than Jethro because Jethro only believed that Jehovah was greater than all the other gods, but Naaman said he believed that there was only one God. So Naaman was the ultimate example of the proselyte. Naaman baptized himself 7 times and it is one of the very few places in the Greek Old Testament where the word 'baptize' is used. Naaman's flesh was restored as a child and this became the basis for the claim that in circumcision and baptism the proselyte became an 'Israelite' and was 'born again'. So Nicodemus was familiar with the connection between 'baptism' and 'new birth'. He was no doubt perplexed that John was baptizing Jews who did not need to be 'born again'.

Consequently the sense of Jesus' words may well have been that 'water baptism' is not sufficient but without the work of the Spirit. In that sense the Lord may well have been adding Spirit Baptism to water baptism. But that opens up the whole connection of regeneration to Spirit baptism which we have discussed on these pages a few times in the past.

Where did you get your quote from?

Orm,

I did compare Acts 2, 19 with Luke 3:16, what were you wanting me to see??

Let me try to sort this out...

[b]Disciples of Jesus ( pre-acension )[/b], were baptized by John's water baptism.

[b]The 12 Disciples/apostles[/b], baptized by the Holy Spirit in Acts 2. ??

[b]Disciples of Christ (excluding the 12) ( post-acension ),[/b] continued to be baptized in water by the Apostles with John's baptism were again baptized by Paul by the Holy Spirit according to Acts 19:4-5

[b]4Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5When they heard this, [i]they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. [/i][/b]

?? :)

Ron,

Quoting you " Judaism of the day had a language of 're-birth' and a rite of 'water baptism' for the proselytes. "

Sorry,my mind took a huge erroneous leap from Ezek to your above statement.

I get it now, interesting to know.
Thanks

Ron,

"Where did you get your quote from?"

To answer your question, from the notes in the Companion Bible. Yes, by EWB. I sensed that you don't quite approve of him? :)

That's okay, I try to learn from EVERY one with discernment, even so, I err from time to time, just like most everyone else (even the scholars I believe) , but the Lord has been forever gracious in correcting and teaching me through different diligent bible students, and some such as yourself and brother Orm.

I have learned not to take side, not to be any "ite" or "ist" and embrace any 'ism' to 100%. I guess that's how sectarianism all started.

Digressing...

Sola Scriptura, I know I know..:)

"Water baptism after Acts took on new significance, that of being a testimony of those entering the New Birth experience; equating them with the Body of Christ.
Too bad the full significance of "equating" rarely becomes a reality in the lives of most people to cause them to move on in Christ and receive all He intends to be received by those who claim they love Him.."

Hmm, that's a rare but definitely a good perspective in looking at all this , for sure.

Thank you Orm

Aren't we all saved by grace through faith? Wasn't righteousness accounted to Abraham by faith? If it's faith by which we're saved then isn't it by faith that the disciples were saved?

They didn't have to say a "prayer", because that didn't exist then. The salvation prayer is a recent invention.

I believe that they were born again the moment they left their families and began to follow Christ...even if they at first were completely clueless. I thank God that my salvation is not dependent on my understanding. I know that God will reveal himself to those who dilligently seek him. And in John 17 Jesus defines eternal life as Knowing the Father and Jesus...so....When the Christ revealed himself to his would be disciples and they surrendered their lives to their Master and took up their cross (died to themselves and their desires and aspirations) and followed Christ when he called...I believe it was at that moment they were justified by their faith and recieved the gift of the rebirth by faith that this man was the actual Son of God.

May the Lamb that was slain receive the reward of His suffering.

Desi

Aren't we all saved by grace through faith? Wasn't righteousness accounted to Abraham by faith? If it's faith by which we're saved then isn't it by faith that the disciples were saved?

I have no doubt that the Old Testament saints received 'imputed righteousness'. The question we may need to ask is did they receive 'imparted righteousness' or in Chambers' language 'were they born again'?

I'm sorry,
but I'm surprised that you are asking if there is a difference in the type of righteousness in the Old and New Testaments. It's always been by faith. Its the same God, the same love, the same grace, the same ole sinners.

The only difference is now its once and for all time.

Look at King Saul conversion...YES...OLD TESTAMENT King Saul was born again...

6And the Spirit of the LORD will come upon thee, and thou shalt prophesy with them, and shalt be turned into another man.

7And let it be, when these signs are come unto thee, that thou do as occasion serve thee; for God is with thee.

8And thou shalt go down before me to Gilgal; and, behold, I will come down unto thee, to offer burnt offerings, and to sacrifice sacrifices of peace offerings: seven days shalt thou tarry, till I come to thee, and shew thee what thou shalt do.

1Samuel Chapter 10: 9-10
9And it was so, that when he had turned his back to go from Samuel, God gave him another heart: and all those signs came to pass that day.

10And when they came thither to the hill, behold, a company of prophets met him; and the Spirit of God came upon him, and he prophesied among them.

God gave him a new heart fellas.....

Secondly

My dearest brother in Christ,
The cross counts for everything. It is not being ignored. But....the cross performed something...not for our temoral lives in this body....he performed something in the eternal...for our eternal souls. He defeated death, by overcoming the bondage of Hell. That is the price he paid. There were two others on that cross. They died too. What made Christ special is that he took the punishment for us by being separated from God in the eternal realm...yet eternal death could not contain him...

Hebrews 2:9 (King James Version)
9But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

He tasted death for every man.....does that me we are not going to die our physical deaths...of course not...Christ Physical death was not the paramount point of his ministry..it was tasting death for every man...the death of the spirit....yet Hell could not contain the Spirit of God so he rose from the Death and paid our Hell penalty...not our crucificion penalty.

So...to answer your question...men were born again in the old testament...read the scripture I referenced about King Saul...don't deny the truth of the ages. It is by faith we are justified in the here and now...but it is by the sacrifice of Christ that we will be glorified in the eternal.

Love you guys,
Desi

what about when peter utterd his famous saying toward Jesus"thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Peter did not speak from the flesh and blood , but he spoke from the revelation of God , and that can only come from the Spirit Of God.. Like Paris Reidhead said "Salvation is revelation", or what do you think made Peter follow hard after Jesus and give up all he had? was it was his own flesh, it most have been the Spirit Of God in him" for the flesh Profit nothing" when peter and the disciples went out to heal the sick and cast out demons , who was it casting out demons the flesh or the Spirit of God? the Spirit of course in the diciples. how else could the diciples follow after Jesus , without the Spirit? a man can not truly follow after Jesus unless God changes his Heart.. and 11 out of the 12 disciples had changed hearts when they 1st followed after Jesus.
love andy

what about when peter utterd his famous saying toward Jesus"thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Peter did not speak from the flesh and blood , but he spoke from the revelation of God , and that can only come from the Spirit Of God.. Like Paris Reidhead said "Salvation is revelation"

This is only part of your quotation but enough I think for me to comment. One of the things Jesus said to his disciples was “Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth [u]with[/u] you, and shall be [u]in[/u] you.”
(John 14:17 KJVS) There is a vital change of preposition here from 'with' to 'in', and this change was to take place in the future from when Jesus said these words. The disciples had been led and empowered by the Spirit for some time and yet Jesus still speaks of a future time when there will be a change in their relationship with the Spirit. It is the same Spirit but his 'proximity' was going to be changed.

The next question is when did this happen. When did the accompanying Spirit become the indwelling Spirit?

"The next question is when did this happen. When did the accompanying Spirit become the indwelling Spirit? "

Ron, in your mind, or according to the Word, when ? :)

thanks

in your mind, or according to the Word, when ?

Ron,

No, no, didn't have any inherent meaning by my quesion. Just tried to phrase myself cautiously.

"how do you read this"?

John 14:17 transitioning towards John 20:22. ?

John 14:17 transitioning towards John 20:22. ?

He says, in the same context, that He and the Father will make his dwelling place (John 14:23) The receiving of the Spirit to which he refers in the means whereby Christ dwells in our hearts by faith...“That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,”
(Eph 3:16-17 KJVS) It is by this working of the Spirit in the inner man that Christ dwells in our hearts by faith. How could Christ 'dwell in their hearts by faith' in John 20:22 where he is standing by their side?

It was not until Christ was ascended to his Father and had poured out the promised Spirit that men and women could experience the abiding presence of Christ in the heart.

Yes, I see all that, thank you.

The question posted on this Thread was, I think, refering to the Disciples of the Lord at that time, rather than to believers of Christ in general, post-ascension.

John 20:21-22

21Then said Jesus to [i]them [/i]again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: