951753

This Site Is No Longer Active

Check out RESTITUTIO.org for new blog entries and podcasts. Feel free to browse through our content here, but we are no longer adding new posts.


  

Introduction

Tucked away at the end of the Gospel of Matthew is the great commission. It reads, “Therefore, go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy spirit” (Mat 28.19). Oftentimes modalists and unitarians question the validity of this verse because of its trinitarian flavor. Typically, the questioner makes the point that we do not have manuscripts of Matthew 28.19 before a.d 325 when the church ratified the Trinitarian creed at Nicea and that they were all corrupted at that time. Furthermore, they refer to Eusebius, the famous church historian, because he quotes an alternative version of Matthew 28.19 (i.e. “Go and make disciples of all the nations in my name”) in his writings. Although it certainly wouldn’t ruin my day if Matthew 28.19 turned out to be spurious, I am wary of textual arguments motivated by theology. As a result, I want to lay out for you the reasons why every handwritten and printed Greek text contains the full version of Matthew 28.19.

Manuscript Evidence

Even though there is absolutely no textual variation whatsoever for Matthew 28.19 in the manuscripts, some allege these manuscripts are ALL wrong and a corruption entered into the picture during or after the Council of Nicea in a.d. 325 when the Trinity became accepted. There are two points to keep in mind here: firstly, the Trinity was not codified until a.d. 381 (the Council of Nicea in a.d. 325 merely decided that Jesus was God while leaving the Holy Spirit out of the equation); secondly, there are a number of Greek papyri dating from the third century. Sadly, these earlier manuscripts, like most manuscripts, are only accessible to those with special access to the museums where they are stored. I wish CSNTM published these on their website, but they don’t. However, if there was an early manuscript with even a slight variation, Bruce Metzger’s UBS 4th edition or his Commentary on the GNT would note it. For the sake of argument let’s assume there really are no manuscripts before a.d. 325 that contain Matthew 28. Where does that leave us? We still have thousands of manuscripts, some of which date back to the fourth century (like Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus). These manuscripts contain the standard reading of Matthew 28.19. This is significant because these differ from one another in many places, so it is not like Constantine or whoever forcibly standardized all the New Testament manuscripts in a.d. 325. Furthermore, it is important to keep in mind that later manuscripts are copied from earlier ones. Thus, a later, or even medieval manuscript, could preserve a very early reading. Again, we have no evidence of an alternative version of Matthew 28.19 in any of these manuscripts.

For the shorter reading hypothesis to be correct, someone would have had to destroy all of the manuscripts containing the “original” version of Matthew 28.19 and replace them with new ones with the longer reading. This is quite a conspiracy theory that requires a level of control that did not exist at that time. Fourth century Christianity was a mess organizationally, which is why the century was chock full of controversies and councils. If there was a strong pope figure in the fourth century this theory might be possible, but he would still lack the power and thoroughness to ensure that every last scrap of the original Matthew 28.19 was destroyed. We know this because a Roman emperor once tried to do something similar—a man named Diocletian. In the early fourth century he fiercely persecuted Christianity and tried to collect and destroy all of the New Testament manuscripts, which is why we do not have many from before the fourth century. But even the Great Diocletian who had the full power of the Roman government behind him could not accomplish this task. Thus, the hypothesis that some sect within Christianity succeeded in tweaking all the manuscripts is untenable.

Early Quotes by Christian Authors

Even if we cannot find or access early manuscripts before the fourth century to see if they contain Matthew 28.19, we can still consult the many Christian authors who lived in the second and third centuries to see how they cited it. Below is a list of a few quotations.

Didache (a.d. 60-150) chapter 7.1-4

“Now about baptism: this is how to baptize. Give public instruction on all these points, and then baptize in running water, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. If you do not have running water, batpize in some other. If you cannot in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, then pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Before baptism, moreover, the one who baptizes and the one being baptized must fast, and any others who can. And you must tell the one being baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand.”

First Apology by Justin Martyr (a.d. 155) chapter 61

“…Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are born again, for they then receive washing in water in the name of God the Father and Master of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. For Christ also said, ‘Except you are born again, you will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.’…”

Against Heresies by Irenaeus (a.d. 180) book 3 chapter 17.1

“…And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God, he said to them, ‘Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’…”

On Baptism by Tertullian (a.d. 198) chapter 13

“For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: ‘Go,’ He saith, ‘teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’ The comparison with this law of that definition, ‘Unless a man have been reborn of water and Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of the heavens,’ has tied faith to the necessity of baptism.”

The Apostolic Tradition by Hippolytus (a.d. 200-235) chapter 21.12-18

“And when he who is baptized goes down into the water, he who baptizes him, putting his hand on him, shall say thus: Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty? And he who is being baptized shall say: I believe. Then holding his hand placed on his head, he shall baptize him once. And then he shall say: Do you believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was born of the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was dead and buried, and rose again on the third day, alive from the dead, ascended into heaven, and sat at the right hand of the Father, and will come to judge the living and the dead? And when he says: I believe, he is baptized again. And again he shall say: Do you believe in holy spirit, and the holy church, and the resurrection of the flesh? He who is being baptized shall say accordingly: I believe, and so he is baptized a third time.”

Epistle to Magnus by Cyprian (a.d. 250) chapter 7

“…But if any one objects, by way of saying that Novatian holds the same law which the universal church holds, baptizes with the same symbol with which we baptize, knows the same God and Father, the same Christ the Son, the same Holy Spirit, and that for this reason he may claim the power of baptizing, namely, that he seems not to differ from us in the baptismal interrogatory; let any one that thinks that this may be objected, know first of all, that there is not one law of the creed…”

The traditional reading of Matthew 28.19 was alive and well before a.d. 325 and people knew about it. Furthermore, I have not found any controversy over the authenticity of this text anywhere. This is mounting up to be a really solid case: not only do ALL extant Greek manuscripts with Matthew 28.19 in them contain the traditional reading, but all of the church fathers in the second and third century that quote or allude to it use the traditional version. Suddenly the case from Eusebius’ quotations does not seem so impressive. Even so, let’s consider Eusebius’ statements to better understand what is happening.

Eusebius of Caesarea

The theory goes that Eusebius quoted a shortened version of Matthew 28.19 before the council of Nicea in a.d. 325 and then quoted the longer, more Trinitarian, version thereafter. This allegedly proves that the church decided to change the Bible to give more credence to the Trinity theory. I find this hypothesis unconvincing for four reasons. First of all, Eusebius was not a Trinitarian; he was an Arian. In fact, Eusebius of Caesarea had written a letter to Alexander, the bishop who excommunicated Arius, demanding he restore Arius. Furthermore, Eusebius called a council in the early 320s at which the gathered bishops vindicated Arius and drafted another letter pressuring Alexander to reinstate him. Lastly, Eusebius found himself deposed by a council in Antioch shortly before the one at Nicea for supporting Arius. Now it is true that Eusebius signed the Nicene Creed in a.d. 325, but historians generally chalk that up to compromise rather than a sudden change of heart. (If he hadn’t signed the creed he would have lost his job as bishop of Caesarea, lost his influence in the debate, and lost his position as one of the emperor’s advisors.) So, Eusebius is not some super Trinitarian defender like Athanasius, but actually quite the opposite. He felt uncomfortable with the Nicene Creed and even wrote a kind of damage control letter home to Caesarea explaining how they were going to understand the new formula. His well-known anti-Nicene position is probably why he is today not known as Saint Eusebius.

Another reason I find the theory that the Council of Nicea changed the Bible unconvincing is that it would have given the anti-Nicene party potent ammunition in the sixty year battle that followed. To my knowledge, the subordinationists never accused the Nicenes of changing the text of Scripture, a charge they surely would have capitalized on if they could have. Rather the battle centered on the meaning of Scripture and arguments based on reason. Thirdly, even if the Nicene sect wanted to change Scripture, they had no mechanism to make that a reality. As I’ve already mentioned, the required organization and hierarchy simply did not exist yet. Lastly, Eusebius quoted the shorter version of Matthew 28.19 after Nicea as well (see In Praise of Constantine 16.8, written in a.d. 336).

So if the conspiracy theory—that the “evil” Eusebius twisted Scripture to inject a Trinitarian dogma—is not true, why did Eusebius so often quote this shorter version? Ancient people did not look up every verse they quoted as they were writing something. It was more common to memorize Scriptures and pull from memory. Ancient texts did not have spaces between words nor did they have chapters much less paragraphs. As a result, it would have been very time consuming to look something up, making authors more likely to quote from memory than try to find something that they were fairly confident they knew. However, sometimes one’s memory can conflate multiple passages together. To this issue George Beasley-Murray addresses the following:

“F. C. Conybeare, in an oft cited article, examined the citations of the text in Eusebius and concluded that Eusebius did not know the longer form of the text until the Council of Nicea, when the Trinitarian doctrine became established. …The real difficulty [with his view] is to determine whether we have any right to speak of a ‘Eusebian reading.’ E. Riggenbach, in a lengthy reply to Conybeare’s article, showed that Eusebius exercised considerable freedom in quoting the Matthaean text, as is evidenced in the fact that the text appears in various forms, even in one and the same work; after Nicea Eusebius cites the commission in both longer and shorter forms; while (in Riggenbach’s view) in the letter written by Eusebius in 325, during the Council of Nicea, the manner in which he cites the common form of the text suggests that he had been familiar with it for a long time.” (George Raymond Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1973), p. 81)

One can easily see how someone’s memory could blur together bits from one verse and another when recalling a verse. I’ve done this and a good number of the textual variants in the gospels are due to scribes remembering a bit from another gospel and injecting it when it was not originally there. But, just because Eusebius habitually misquoted Matthew 28.19, does not mean he did not know the full version as well. Everett Ferguson is helpful here:

“An examination of Eusebius’ references where the baptismal command was omitted shows that it was superfluous to the context (for in every case the emphasis was on the universality of Christ’s teaching in contrast to previous religious and civil law), and consideration of Eusebius’ method of citing Scripture (omitting phrases he counted irrelevant and blending phrases from other passages he counted pertinent) deprives the argument for a shorter text of any validity.” (Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2009), p. 134.)

So, we can more easily account for the Eusebian tendency to quote the shorter version on these grounds rather than positing a conspiracy wherein the church fathers altered the text of Scripture. To entertain the idea of changing Scripture because one Christian misquoted a text centuries later would require a much more solid basis than what we have. Methodologically this wouldn’t work anyway. Should scholars start combing through early Christian authors and correcting the manuscripts based on quotations? This would be like going to a Christian bookstore and throwing out all the Bibles and then piecing together a “more accurate” text based on quotes from Christian authors!

Contradiction with Acts?

One last supporting reason some use to cast doubt on Matthew 28.19 as we have it relates to baptismal practices in the book of Acts. If Matthew 28.19 is accurate then Jesus commanded his followers to baptize “in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy spirit.” However, throughout the book of Acts, when baptisms occur, they never mention this formulaic expression. Here are some examples:

Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy spirit.

Acts 8:16 For it [the holy spirit] had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 10:47-48 “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the holy spirit just as we did, can he?” And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.

Acts 19:5-6 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the holy spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying.

Allegedly these texts contradict Matthew 28.19. But, is there another way to understand them apart from changing what the Bible says? Ferguson provides two other options that are well worth considering:

The phrases in Acts may not, however, reflect alternative formulas in the administration of baptism or alternative understandings of the meaning of the act. In some cases the description in Acts may mean a baptism administered on a confession of Jesus as Lord and Christ (cf. Acts 22:16), or it may be a general characterization of the baptism as related to Jesus and not a formula pronounced at the baptism. In the later history the only formula regularly attested as pronounced by the administrator includes the triune name, but in Matthew it too may be descriptive rather than formulaic. If Matthew 28:19 is not a formula, then there is no necessary contradiction to the description “in the name of the Lord” in Acts and Paul. (Ferguson, p. 136).

So Ferguson suggests that Acts describes what happened, “they were baptized into the name of Jesus,” whereas Matthew describes what words were said, “baptized in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy spirit” or that Matthew 28.19 is not formulaic at all. Another possibility is that Acts describes the confession of the convert whereas Matthew tells us what the baptizer said. It could also be that in the context of Judea, Christians baptized new people in the name of the Lord Jesus because Jews and God-fearers already had an adequate understanding of God and the holy spirit. However, when going out among the nations as in Matthew 28.19, one needs to also explain who God is (cf. Acts 17) and what the holy spirit is (cf. Acts 19). One final idea is that the “name” in Matthew 28.19 is not literal, but the agenda or cause of the father, son, and holy spirit. However we work out the seeming contradiction, our difficulty here does not warrant changing what Scripture says to read more smoothly.

Text -> Exegesis -> Theology

The text is primary; it is the foundation. We do not change what Scripture says on the basis of our exegesis or theology, rather we accept it as a starting point. This is why textual critics develop objective rules to help them figure out which readings are more accurate. They do not want their theological biases to inform their choices. For a good window into how this process happens see Metzger’s Commentary on the Greek New Testament or the NET Study Bible. We are fortunate today to live in a time when the New Testament text is over 99% established based on centuries of discoveries, cataloging, and comparisons.

This brings me to the second step: exegesis. This word basically means to explain what the text means. The idea is that we read out (ex) from Scripture rather than into it. Preachers exegete verses every Sunday when they describe what they mean. Although what the text actually means and what we think it means are hopefully identical, we cannot allow ourselves to be so arrogant as to say we never err in understanding what something says.

Now we move to the pinnacle of our work: theology. One’s theology does not depend on the exegesis of a single text, but on what many different verses say together. This is the most complex level of understanding and it is the most prone to error for all of us. However, so long as we keep everything in order—text then exegesis then theology—we will end up with more accurate theology. For example, if rather than reading what a verse says and interpreting it within its context (exegesis) I cherry pick it to support my theology, I will likely end up with wrong doctrine. Additionally, I cannot allow my theology to change the text of Scripture. Just because I do not believe the Trinity is true does not give me the right to rid the Bible of a verse like Matthew 28.19. To do so is to go in the wrong direction.

367 Responses to “Is Matthew 28.19 Authentic or a Forgery?”

  1. on 27 Feb 2013 at 1:19 pmWolfgang

    Sean,

    I can only smile …

    One day the truth will most certainly become evident; also, truth has always been simple and in no need of any fancy defense …

    BTW, would you regard my a “truer” Christian if you had put me under water in a river in Georgia or lake in New York or some other place ? If not, why not?

  2. on 27 Feb 2013 at 2:22 pmJas

    “For the shorter reading hypothesis to be correct, someone would have had to destroy all of the manuscripts containing the “original” version of Matthew 28.19 and replace them with new ones with the longer reading.”

    Sean
    This conclusion is flawed .We have seen many writings fade away through lack of use.The fact that there are a few MSS that survived from before late 4th century doesnt make them the authored witness. Matter of fact we would not even have these if it wasnt for the roman church. We also have seen many of the writings of early religious writers corrupted or completely fake . Most of this corruption has been exposed . It is completely unbelievable that Eusebius would be just quoting his own condensed version because he was Arian or any other reason. I am almost Sure that Justin was the source of the trinity concept because he was more about proving he was actually a christian while he was a pagan by trying to prove all the things he believed was just Satan using fore knowledge to apply these things to foriegn gods before christianity.

  3. on 27 Feb 2013 at 2:48 pmWolfgang

    Sean,

    This brings me to the second step: exegesis. This word basically means to explain what the text means. The idea is that we read out (ex) from Scripture rather than into it.

    so then why do folks read “water baptism” into almost every passage in Acts, when the Lord Jesus himself declared to his apostles that “not many days hence” from his ascension, baptism with water (which had been practiced by John) would be superseded by baptism with holy spirit ?

    Now we move to the pinnacle of our work: theology. One’s theology does not depend on the exegesis of a single text, but on what many different verses say together.

    indeed … what the many texts in Acts about the subject tell should form the basis of one’s theology on the subject and not how one verse (with a somewhat dubious wording) reads … why are you seemingly insisting on something you refute in principle?

  4. on 27 Feb 2013 at 2:55 pmWolfgang

    Sean,

    since you promote that the command to baptize people in the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, on manuscript evidence, would have some manuscript evidence for Mt 28:19 in which at least the grammar is correct and we read “in the names (plural) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” ??
    Also, perhaps you can enlighten us on what you understand (a) the name of the Father, (b) the name of the Son, and (c) the name of the Holy Ghost actually is?

    I am familiar with the name of the Father and the name of the Son, but haven’t read any verse or seen any manuscript evidence for “the name of the Holy Ghost” … what would be the name of the Holy Ghost? perhaps Prof Buzzard whose theology you seem to be representing here, can help us out with that question?

  5. on 27 Feb 2013 at 6:03 pmRay

    It seems to me that late in the Lord’s ministry, we should expect that he might make mention of some very important things, for some things should not be left out of the gospel without the mention.

    In all that there is, is there any more than this that we should depend on to be always true, never wavering, and always right no matter what?

    1. The Father
    2. The Son
    3. The holy Spirit

    I suppose to that list we could add the word of God.

    In all that there is and has ever been, what can we depend on that is never against the word of God, or will never sin?

    Whatever it is, it’s character, it’s DNA, or whatever we would like to call it, is worth the mention, isn’t it?

  6. on 27 Feb 2013 at 6:07 pmRay

    When we read, “in the name of”, let’s think of “for the purposes of”, or “for the purpose of in the power thereof.”, much like a carpenter might go to the lumber yard and use the name of the builder he is employed by to sign for material to be used for the job by prior arangement or authorization.

  7. on 27 Feb 2013 at 8:40 pmTim (aka Antioch)

    Sean,

    Good article. The idea that changing all copies to read the new formula without any recorded objections is pretty powerful testimony. I hadn’t thought of it that way but that makes sense. I am stewing over your explanation of the difference between Acts baptisms and the tri-formula – that still bothers me.

  8. on 27 Feb 2013 at 9:17 pmJas

    Tim
    Just how many people do you think had copies. Owning a copy of the bible back then would be more than their home. Do you know the average person couldnt afford a bible till the printing press was 100 years old. so who would there be to object

  9. on 27 Feb 2013 at 10:13 pmJas

    Codex Sinaiticus

    The folios are made of vellum parchment primarily from calf skins, secondarily from sheep skins.[12] (Tischendorf himself thought that the parchment had been made from antelope skins, but modern microscopic examination has shown otherwise.) Most of the quires or signatures contain four leaves save two containing five. It is estimated that about 360 animals were slaughtered for making the folios of this codex, assuming all animals yielded a good enough skin. As for the cost of the material, time of scribes and binding, it equals the lifetime wages of one individual at the time.

  10. on 28 Feb 2013 at 1:13 amWolfgang

    Tim

    The idea that changing all copies to read the new formula without any recorded objections is pretty powerful testimony. I hadn’t thought of it that way but that makes sense.

    as Jas has already pointed out, we must be careful in our evaluation of this point to not be caught thinking of “all copies” as if there had been thousands of copies around in many different places, sort of like to what we are used in more modern days. Copies were relatively scarce, and some of the few historic records of the times of the trinity controversy in the early centuries AD indicate that there were most definitely manuscripts destroyed (either as a whole or in part)

    I am stewing over your explanation of the difference between Acts baptisms and the tri-formula – that still bothers me.

    It is the internal evidence of the Scriptures relating to the context of a topic and the overall scope which carries the main weight for arriving at a correct interpretation of passages of Scripture and also for determining if and in which regard a passage which “sticks out awkward” and which is “bothersome” is suspicious as far as its textual accuracy and/or authenticity is concerned.
    Everybody acknowledges that there is a discrepancy between Mt 28:19 and what we read in Acts about the apostles carrying out …

  11. on 28 Feb 2013 at 1:32 amTim (aka Antioch)

    I’ve been trying to find some source to determine how many copies may have been in circulation circa 325 – no luck so far. Anybody have that data?

  12. on 28 Feb 2013 at 3:20 amWolfgang

    Tim,
    I doubt that there can be any source with any data … what is clear, even just because of what is known about the materials, methods of copying, etc., is the fact that we cannot think in terms of what we are used to since the time of invention of the printing method with movable letters in the 15th century AD.

    We also know from the internal evidence of the Scriptures that in the early church not every congregation (and possibly not even every city or area) had their own copy of the OT and/or NT writings. Copies were circulated and read
    publically in assemblies … there was no such thing as we have today with just about everybody being able to afford their own copy of the Bible for private reading

  13. on 28 Feb 2013 at 10:27 amJas

    Tim
    We can be safe to assume that atleast all the bishops had a copy thats about it. In late 4th century 300 copies were commisioned ,so assuming this was enough to give all the churches at that time a copy then its safe to assume there were probably less then 300 prior to this,probably less than 100 .

  14. on 28 Feb 2013 at 10:54 amXavier

    Just because the text makes mention of “the Father, the Son & the Holy spirit” does not make it a trinitarian “proof text”.

    It remains to be proven where scripture explicitly defines the one God of Israel as “the Father, the Son, the HS”.

  15. on 28 Feb 2013 at 11:26 amJas

    Xavier
    Yes which has already agreed upon in Matt’s thread. The problem is there is no biblical witness to it existing before late 4th early 5th.
    Eusebius is completely unaware of it in late 3rd early 4th. Sean provided some early writings that seem to support reading but are they a witness or a source for addition. We cant even claim with 100% certainty that these earlier writings were not corrupted later because we also do not have any copies of them that pre 4th.

  16. on 28 Feb 2013 at 11:43 amWolfgang

    Xavier

    Just because the text makes mention of “the Father, the Son & the Holy spirit” does not make it a trinitarian “proof text”.

    indeed … have already acknowledged this as well in another thread.
    BUT – and I have mentioned this also here already — the manner and way in which the three are mentioned here in connection with a single name (rather than names in the plural) does turn the passage pretty much into a text which seems to have been used in support of a tri-person Deity .. and it is used by trinitarians as such.

  17. on 28 Feb 2013 at 3:40 pmMatt Elton

    Thanks, Sean, for this really insightful post.

    I agree with Ray that the singular word “name” does not necessarily need to be interpreted so literally as to mean that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are literally one and the same. Even if Trinitarians today interpret Matthew 28:19 this way, it is unlikely that the early church interpreted it this way.

    Instead, “in the name” has a broader meaning of “in the authority of.” For example, we pray “in the name of Jesus Christ” meaning “in the authority of Jesus Christ.”

    We often use expressions like “stop in the name of the love,” or “in the name of the law” to mean “in the authority of” or “for the sake of.” So this interpretation of the word “name” is not farfetched.

    The Greek word translated “name” in Matthew 28:19 is “onoma” (Strong’s 3686). My dictionary defines it as “a name, authority, or cause” and “the manifestation or revelation of someone’s character, i.e. as distinguishing them from all others. Thus ‘praying in the name of Christ’ means to pray as directed (authorized) by Him, bringing revelation that flows out of being in His presence.”

    “In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” means “in the authority and the presence of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” All three are listed here because they are all vitally important for our salvation! One must have believe in God the Father, accept the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and walk by the Holy Spirit.

    Given the abundance of manuscript evidence and the testimony of six early Christians writers from the first through third centuries who all speak of baptism “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” it seems pretty clear to me that Matthew 28:19 is an authentic verse of scripture and not a forgery.

    For Matthew 28:19 to be a forgery, every manuscript AND every copy of the six early witnesses Sean quoted would have to have been physically altered. We have no reason to think that such a grand conspiracy took place, and if it did happen, how do we know other verses were not likewise altered – how could we really trust anything written in the Word of God?

    I for one stand firmly on what the Word of God says. God is powerful enough to protect His Word from corruption, and He has throughout history. Sean makes a great point that we ought to base our theology on what the text of scripture says, and not the other way around.

  18. on 28 Feb 2013 at 3:57 pmJas

    “I for one stand firmly on what the Word of God says. God is powerful enough to protect His Word from corruption, and He has throughout history. ”
    Matt
    Then explain how we have several dozen different versions of the bible which vary enormously in many passages then explain the variants in the greek MSS then explain the variants between the greek and aramaic .God gave men freewill and boy is more evident in what they have done to His Word and Church which neither exist in the singular sense anymore. What really hypocritical is no matter how so one claims to believe in a bible inerrant all have passages they claim were added. Maybe God gave us common sense to help preserve His Word, maybe we are to do this by proving and reproving.

  19. on 28 Feb 2013 at 4:25 pmXavier

    Jas

    The problem is there is no biblical witness to it existing before late 4th early 5th.

    Maybe because it wasn’t an issue until the violent debates between the early Catholic-Orthodox, proto-trinitarian vs Arian Christological “Christian” groups of those later centuries?

    I’ll continue to stake my theological stake on the Primary, unitarian sources of the NT and not on the later bini/trinitarian Secondary sources.

  20. on 28 Feb 2013 at 4:40 pmJas

    Xavier
    Who knows but Eusebius provides a very powerful witness that the bible he had did not have this version in it. Maybe others had versions of it maybe it wasnt in any at that time.

  21. on 28 Feb 2013 at 4:44 pmMatt Elton

    Jas, I mean that God still uses his Word to teach us, and He will not allow that teaching (what He is trying to communicate to us through His Word) to be destroyed. I don’t mean that God has not allowed variation or addition to His Word. I did not claim that the text is inerrant.

    If we had a strong case for Matthew 28:19 being a forgery, I would have no problem admitting that it’s a forgery. But we have very little evidence that it’s a forgery, and evidence from early writers that their scriptures (pre-Eusebius) contained this verse. If Matthew 28:19 can be discounted on the basis of such little evidence (there is not even any variation of this verse in the manuscripts) we might as well discount ANY verse in the Bible. If you discount Matthew 28:19 on the basis of not having any pre-Nicene manuscripts, couldn’t the same be said for much of the New Testament?

    I guess it really comes down to this question: Can we trust scripture or not? And if not, where does our theology come from?

  22. on 28 Feb 2013 at 4:50 pmXavier

    Jas

    Who knows…

    But we do know. Just read any of the early writings starting in the late 1st/early 2nd century [Ignatius, Tertullian, et al.].

  23. on 28 Feb 2013 at 5:04 pmJas

    Jas, I mean that God still uses his Word to teach us, and He will not allow that teaching (what He is trying to communicate to us through His Word) to be destroyed. I don’t mean that God has not allowed variation or addition to His Word. I did not claim that the text is inerrant.

    Matt Elton
    How is that we have 30000 plus denominations .
    The whole problem is satan is hard at work and without thorough testing how do you know the source.

    “And if not, where does our theology come from?”
    If Theology is false what profit is it!

  24. on 28 Feb 2013 at 5:08 pmJas

    We have no witness of the first.
    [Ignatius, Tertullian, et al.]. were mid to late second but actually dont have any early copies of those that predate 5th century and the Roman church was in possesion of most of them.

  25. on 28 Feb 2013 at 10:56 pmRay

    I hope we don’t use men “quoting” a verse in a certain way, as proof of another reading of that verse as if it must have been in print somewhere that way, for men will often give the sum and substance of a verse according to their understanding of it, or in a way they would like to communicate the spiritual truth or teaching of a particular point of that verse.

    There are different ways to communcate a particular verse or something that is often said. I’ve done that before and people have told me that I misquoted that verse.

    I wonder what it was that Eusebius actually said besides ” go and make disciples everywhere in my name,” or whatever it was he said.

  26. on 28 Feb 2013 at 11:33 pmJas

    Ray
    Eusebius was probably the most active of all the church fathers and was into detail. While most of his conclusions and beliefs I disagree with , his quotes were mosly dead on. The fact that he quoted this verse many many times and had no motive to deceive is very power witness it didnt exist. Someone actually said where is the conflicts if the later church changed it and I say where is the conflicts if he misquoted it if it existed in his time.

  27. on 01 Mar 2013 at 1:24 amWolfgang

    Matt

    For Matthew 28:19 to be a forgery, every manuscript AND every copy of the six early witnesses Sean quoted would have to have been physically altered. We have no reason to think that such a grand conspiracy took place, and if it did happen, how do we know other verses were not likewise altered – how could we really trust anything written in the Word of God?

    Considering the great conflict during the early centuries AD about trinity doctrine leading up and in great rage during the time of the councils in the 4th century AD, I have no problem thinking that texts were burned and replaced by those who “won the fight”. We must also consider that perhaps a “great conspiracy” was not even needed, seeing that an order by Cesar woud accomplish things just as well and most likely more effectively

    I for one stand firmly on what the Word of God says. God is powerful enough to protect His Word from corruption, and He has throughout history. Sean makes a great point that we ought to base our theology on what the text of scripture says, and not the other way around.

    So you stand firmly on what the Word of God says … and others who do not agree with your understanding don’t? How do you actually know what the Word of God says ? or do you just claim that what you understand and believe concerning the Bible is what the Word of God says?

  28. on 01 Mar 2013 at 1:31 amWolfgang

    Hi

    Matt wrote

    … Sean makes a great point that we ought to base our theology on what the text of scripture says, and not the other way around.

    Indeed …. and as I have mentioned already, what the rest of the NT scriptures say is what causes me to believe that the traditional wording of Mt 28:19 with the baptism command in the name or authority of 3 persons (Father, Son, Holy Ghost) is NOT what the original texts had and thus not what the Lord commanded his apostles.

    I am NOT taking Eusebius’ writings and lift them above Sccripture, I only acknowledge that even though there are no mss of Mt 28:19 which would clear up the obvious problem between the traditional wording of that verse and the rest of the NT scriptures,, there is some evidence in Eusebius’ writings as well as the writings of a few other church fathers.

  29. on 01 Mar 2013 at 2:33 amRay

    I wonder if Eusebius found MT 28:19 to be undigestable or at least not to his liking, though I believe it should be completely acceptable as it is in our Bibles, to a mature Christian’s appetite, even though some of the things men may say about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit might not be.

  30. on 01 Mar 2013 at 2:46 amRay

    I wonder if Eusebius always made reference to MT 28:19 without the word “baptism” or “baptize”, or whatever.

    It doesn’t seem likely to me that people would insert a “commandment” of Christ on their own, into the scriptures because they all agreed on a certain doctrine.

    I think it’s more likely that something Jesus said might be spoken about in a slighty different understanding at times, and because of that, some might stumble at what he said, or wish within themselves that it wasn’t even in the scriptures, for such reasons as what men have done with it.

  31. on 01 Mar 2013 at 3:07 amWolfgang

    Xavier,

    But we do know. Just read any of the early writings starting in the late 1st/early 2nd century [Ignatius, Tertullian, et al.].

    now, whw would you want to refer folks to those who were instrumental in inventing and developing the trinity doctrine, seeing that you obviously are following a belief that does consider the trinity doctrine to be a false doctrine?

  32. on 01 Mar 2013 at 8:28 amXavier

    Wolfgang

    Re-read my posts and the interaction therein.

  33. on 01 Mar 2013 at 9:15 amJas

    “I wonder if Eusebius always made reference to MT 28:19 without the word “baptism” or “baptize”, or whatever.”

    Ray
    You could actually read Eusebius to find out instead of wondering or trust those that have . Of the several dozen times he quoted it he never mentions baptism but he did speak of baptism in other places

  34. on 01 Mar 2013 at 10:06 amRay

    It seems obvious to me then that since Eusebius’ never making mention of baptism in reference to MT 28:19, would cause one who would believe that Eusebius was reading a “real” manuscript which contained MT 28:19 correctly, that the command to baptize was added later by a religious group, likely confiscating all existing manuscrips they could find, and recopying them with the new command to baptize which they themselves agreed to fabricate.

    These then would not be real Christians, but rather some kind of religious Mafia types, a religious system with all members in agreement.

  35. on 01 Mar 2013 at 10:15 amJas

    “These then would not be real Christians, but rather some kind of religious Mafia types, a religious system with all members in agreement.”

    Ray
    You should take some history lessons on the early church. Many people were murdered because they would not adhere to the universal( catholic ) church which has brought us most of modern christian beliefs .

  36. on 01 Mar 2013 at 10:44 amXavier

    Jas

    Constantine militarized the churches when the sold out to the pagan government.

    This is the problem today.

  37. on 01 Mar 2013 at 10:48 amJas

    Xavier
    I agree with the first part but not sure how this is the problem today. I see today a more psychological control the last few hundred years.

  38. on 01 Mar 2013 at 11:35 amRay

    And another thing that bothers me, if so many false manuscripts were being made, that is if somebody was forging manuscripts to insert a false command by Jesus in what has been known as the great commission, shouldn’t we expect to see the true Christians making all the more true copies of the legitimate manuscripts?

    Wouldn’t they do that work with as much effort?

  39. on 01 Mar 2013 at 11:51 amWolfgang

    Sean,

    still waiting for your reply to various comments, such as questions of mine in comments #3 and #4 …

  40. on 01 Mar 2013 at 1:12 pmTim (aka Antioch)

    Matt,

    I guess it really comes down to this question: Can we trust scripture or not? And if not, where does our theology come from?

    I had a similar conversation on another topic and it was pointed out to me that the bible talks about not condemning someone on the testimony of just one witness. You need to have two or three. Perhaps we should not be making doctrines out of lone verses but focus on the concepts that are repeated over and over again to form the basis of the faith?

  41. on 01 Mar 2013 at 2:25 pmWolfgang

    Matt,

    I guess it really comes down to this question: Can we trust scripture or not?

    I wonder if the real question is more: Do we have the true understanding of the Scriptures?
    I would say that I have no question about whether or not we can trust the Scriptures … the problem is that not always may what we consider to be what the Scripture says really be what the Scripture says !
    Only when we have the true understanding of what we read in the Scriptures do we have “what the Scripture says” … if we have an incomplete or inaccurate understanding, we do not have what the Scripture says, despite any claims to the contrary.

  42. on 01 Mar 2013 at 2:33 pmRay

    Maybe it’s better to stick with what the word says, that is, what all of our Bibles say rather than run the risk of becoming a Eusebian or something. (the word, the word, and nothing but the word) Maybe it’s time to get that again, for sometimes what men have done with something the scripture says, is not exactly right, and could be the cause of another’s indigestion.

    I don’t want what I believe to be founded upon one man’s indigestion due to what some others have done with it.

  43. on 01 Mar 2013 at 2:41 pmJas

    “I don’t want what I believe to be founded upon one man’s indigestion due to what some others have done with it.”

    Ray
    That may be exactly what you are doing by not proving and reproving what you hold as authenic. Your man just may have been the most powerful in that time who just murdered,tortured and exiled all that did not agree with his belief.

  44. on 01 Mar 2013 at 2:44 pmXavier

    Sean

    Just to add to your excellent article and to the topic of water baptism and what “in the name of” may mean:

    “Remember what your water baptism meant in that it symbolized that you received God’s spiritual baptism in salvation and you were placed into Jesus Christ [through his death].” Romans 6

    Water baptism is a proper symbol instituted by God to illustrate God’s [salvation].

    Further the example in the New Testament is that water baptism always follows the exercise of saving faith and is a public act of submission that pictures and identifies the person being baptized with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection and with the local congregation of believers.

    The reference is to both spiritual and water baptism. You cannot separate the symbol from that which it symbolizes. The baptism is of water that symbolizes the spiritual baptism that Christ accomplished for the believer in His death, burial, and resurrection. Spiritual or Water Baptism? An examination of Romans 6:3-4 by Cooper Abrams

    “In the name of” does not prescribe a ritualistic formula of words to be called out while baptizing a person, but explains by what right or authority baptism is commanded.

    The Jewish leaders asked Jesus concerning the things he taught and practiced, which included baptism, “By what authority doest thou these things? And who gave thee this authority?” Jesus said their question about authority would be answered if they answered an equivalent question: “The baptism of John, whence was it? From heaven, or of men?” They refused to answer the question (Matt. 21:23-27). In this debate over the issue of authority, the Jewish leaders and Jesus were not discussing what ritualistic formulas were in order but whether the things taught and practiced were divinely authorized.

    We do not know what John or Jesus or the Apostles said during the act of baptizing anyone, but we know they all had divine authority for what they preached and practiced regarding baptism. Truth Magazine, “Baptism: In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, or in the Name of Jesus Christ?”, Ron Halbrook

    PS: interesting Gnostic text from Nag Hammadi:

    There is no other baptism apart from this one alone, which is the redemption into God—Father, Son and Holy Spirit—when confession is made through faith in those names. (127:26ff.; see J. Robinson, Nag Hammadi Library, pg. 150)

  45. on 02 Mar 2013 at 1:57 amWolfgang

    Xavier,
    you quote a rather typical “explanation” for justifying the continuance of water baptism

    “Remember what your water baptism meant in that it symbolized that you received God’s spiritual baptism in salvation and you were placed into Jesus Christ [through his death].” Romans 6

    Water baptism is a proper symbol instituted by God to illustrate God’s [salvation].

    Further the example in the New Testament is that water baptism always follows the exercise of saving faith and is a public act of submission that pictures and identifies the person being baptized with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection and with the local congregation of believers.

    The reference is to both spiritual and water baptism. You cannot separate the symbol from that which it symbolizes. The baptism is of water that symbolizes the spiritual baptism that Christ accomplished for the believer in His death, burial, and resurrection. Spiritual or Water Baptism? An examination of Romans 6:3-4 by Cooper Abrams

    Only, where in Scripture is water baptism ever called a symbol ??? or “a sacrament” for that matter because this is how the quoted author seemingly views water baptism ?

    It’s the typical answer and explanation of those who — for whatever reason — seem unable to go beyond physical symbols and believe the spiritual reality. Rom 6 has NOTHING whatever to do with a water baptism … it’s interpreters and theologians like this author (and many, many more .. including teachers of a number of students here who just follow along with such explanations) who read “water” into Scriptures that have nothing to do with water and then try to heal up their self-inflicted wound by mingling it together with “spiritual baptism”, claiming that the water ritual is a symbol ..

    Why is it so hard to realize and believe what the Scriptures in their overall scope show so clearly …. that is, that the OT physical, earthly and temporal types are fulfilled in NT spiritual heavenly and eternal reality. The least those teachers then should do – in order to be consistent – is to also teach that they view themselves to still be under the OT Law and to be living in the OT age.

  46. on 02 Mar 2013 at 2:02 amWolfgang

    Xavier,
    you quote from an author above

    “In the name of” does not prescribe a ritualistic formula of words to be called out while baptizing a person, but explains by what right or authority baptism is commanded.

    I agree with this understanding …. “in the name of” is using a figure of speech by which “the name” of a person stands for “the authority granted” by that person …

    However, this does not solve the problem introduced by the baptism command “in the name of” the 3 persons Father, Son and Holy Ghost in Mt 28:19 … or do you water baptism teachers here regard the Holy Ghost to indeed be a 3rd person next to the Father and the Son ?

  47. on 02 Mar 2013 at 2:18 amWolfgang

    Xavier

    your quote from R. Halbrook continues with

    The Jewish leaders asked Jesus concerning the things he taught and practiced, which included baptism, “By what authority doest thou these things? And who gave thee this authority?” Jesus said their question about authority would be answered if they answered an equivalent question: “The baptism of John, whence was it? From heaven, or of men?” They refused to answer the question (Matt. 21:23-27). In this debate over the issue of authority, the Jewish leaders and Jesus were not discussing what ritualistic formulas were in order but whether the things taught and practiced were divinely authorized.

    We do not know what John or Jesus or the Apostles said during the act of baptizing anyone, but we know they all had divine authority for what they preached and practiced regarding baptism. Truth Magazine, “Baptism: In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, or in the Name of Jesus Christ?”, Ron Halbrook

    As far as I read, the Jewish leaders questioning Jesus about the authority by which he did what he did did NOT include by which authority Jesus conducted baptisms ! Scripture clearly tells that Jesus himself did NOT water baptize anyone!

    John 4:1-2
    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,)

    For those who mis-read Joh 4:1 as if it said that Jesus baptized, John emphatically by means of the figure parenthesis states that Jesus himself did NOT baptize! Joh 4:1 does NOT say that Jesus baptized anyone in water!

    His discples — who had been disciples of John (cp the context in Joh 1-3) — continued to carry out JOHN’s baptism (not a baptism authorized by Jesus).

    Yes, the authority for John to baptize with water was “from heaven”, that is the water baptism of John was ordained or authorized by God and served a divine purpose for the time during which it was in effect! Jesus himself, shortly before his ascension, plainly and clearly taught his apostles that John had (note the past tense) baptized with water , but his disciples would be baptized not many days hence (note the rather immediate future) with holy spirit.

    There is NO indication that Jesus taught them that they would be water baptized after those “not many days hence” with a new type of water baptism which would be a symbol for a baptism with holy spirit. The clear teaching of Jesus is that baptism with holy spirit would “not many days hence” supersede the baptism with water which had been in effect previously.
    This being plain and clear, how can anyone think that Jesus at about the same time he made those statements as recorded in Acts 1:5ff would have issued a contradictory command as we read in the traditional wording in Mt 28:19 ?

  48. on 02 Mar 2013 at 8:09 amXavier

    Wolfgang

    where in Scripture is water baptism ever called a symbol ???

    “This water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also–not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God.” 1Pe 3.21

    Joh 4:1 does NOT say that Jesus baptized anyone in water!

    But John 3.22 does. 😉

    Then Jesus and his disciples left Jerusalem and went into the Judean countryside. Jesus spent some time with them there, baptizing people.

  49. on 02 Mar 2013 at 9:15 amWolfgang

    Xavier,

    “This water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also–not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God.” 1Pe 3.21

    is this your own translation of 1Pe 3:21? I briefly looked up NASB and found the following (giving v. 20 as context)

    1Pe 3:20-21
    20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.
    21 And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you– not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience– through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

    there is NOTHING about baptism water symbolizing anything !

    Joh 3:22 uses the same type of language as Joh 4:1 … and what is then stated in the parenthesis in Joh 4:2 applies obviously not only to what is said in 4:1, but also to what is said in 3:22.
    Or do you want to insist that John purposely added the emphatic statement in 4:2 about Jesus himself did NOT baptize just for the fun of contradicting what he had written a few sentences earlier?

  50. on 02 Mar 2013 at 10:14 amRay

    Jas, the one I’ve been attempting to follow through all of this is Jesus.

    How can I prove that men did not insert their own command to baptize in MT 28:19, and put Jesus’ name on it, confiscate all other manuscripts they could find which did not agree with the ones they allegedly forged, and call what they did, the great commission?

    What possible proof could I find?

    The closest thing I know of would be that somebody, one man, was found making reference to MT 28:19 without reference to baptism nor the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one Eusebius by name.

    All of our Bibles agreee as to the content of MT 28:19, don’t they?

    What should I go with in your opinion, all of our Bibles, or one Eusebius, by name?

    Should I discount what all of our Bibles say in MT 28:19 because I have some doubts about a man named Constantine?

    If so, would I be discerning, or following suspicion instead, in your opinon?

    My best guess is still that Eusebius gave the jist, the substance of what he received of MT 28:19 in his own wording, something that is not uncommon for men to do, though I don’t know much about the man. Maybe there were things about MT 28:19 he had trouble digesting because sometimes men will do the wrong thing with something right and good.

    In my opinion, there are Christians that might do well to ask a brother or an elder to anoint them with oil (a little smear with a finger in the shape of the cross on the forehead might do well) in the name of the Father, Son, and holy Spirit.

    I believe that to be better than blaming Constantine for whatever it is they can not proove, but can only suspect because someone acted out of suspicion rather than any proof of manuscript tampering or confiscating.

    I still believe I should think that if manuscripts were confiscated and destroyed if they did not contain something men took upon themseves to insert, not only would it require the consent or agreement of a majority of the people, (the very great majority I should think if not even one manuscript survived such an assalt) but I should assume that there would be those true Christians who would have risen up to protect and copy the legitimate manuscripts that existed, and that there would have been many that survived.

    Or, in your opinion, is all of this just simply suspicion on my part?

  51. on 02 Mar 2013 at 11:42 amXavier

    Wolfgang

    is this your own translation of 1Pe 3:21?

    NIV, ISV & WEB translate it thus. Furthermore, there has NEVER, in the history of Christianity, EVER been an issue on whether or not water was used, UNTIL guess who came along. 😛

    But alas I digress…

  52. on 02 Mar 2013 at 11:48 amDr Ali

    Thanks , good academic article with a balanced view .

    I want to bring into attention John chapter 1 verses 24 to 32

    24 Now the Pharisees who had been sent 25 questioned him, “Why then do you baptize if you are not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”

    26 “I BAPTIZE WITH WATER” John replied, “but among you stands one you do not know. 27 He is the one who comes after me, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie.”

    28 This all happened at Bethany on the other side of the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

    29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is the one I meant when I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ 31 I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel.”

    32 Then John gave this testimony: “I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. 33 And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will BAPTIZE WITH HOLY SPIRIT ”

    Verse 26 has John the baptist baptizing with water and verse 32 says Jesus Christ will baptize with holy spirit . Both John the baptist and Jesus Christ did NOT baptize in the name of father , son and holy spirit .

    Jesus Christ baptizing by holy spirit , what it means is a different discussion but considering the time when he lived there was absolutely no concept of holy spirit being a separate salvific figure leave alone God .

    When John the baptist and Jesus Christ themself did not baptize in the name of father , son and holy spirit how can other people be baptized like that ? SO THAT CASTS DOUBT ON MATTHEW 28:19 .

  53. on 02 Mar 2013 at 11:50 amJas

    Ray
    If MT 28:19 was the true wording it wouldnt be against my beliefs as it would yours . I believe in water baptism. So my motive here is only to do with whether it was added which I find strong evidence for.

  54. on 02 Mar 2013 at 2:19 pmWolfgang

    Xavier,

    NIV, ISV & WEB translate it thus.

    indeed they do …
    BUT did you not read that v21 is not even speaking about the baptism water? Please read v. 20 carefully, and you will notice that a comparison (and actually not a smbolization) is made to the water of the flood at the time of Noah, not to water in a pond in Georgia or a river in NY or some water in a pitcher that a pastor or some other preacher claims is needed in order to have a proper baptism

    Furthermore, there has NEVER, in the history of Christianity, EVER been an issue on whether or not water was used, UNTIL guess who came along.

    You know what, Xavier …. with you and your father-in-law’s way of always trying to dodge an issue by pointing to TWI / VPW when you realize that your biblical assumptions are not quite as solid as you think, I am beginning to wonder and asking myself what your and his real reasons might be for doing so …

  55. on 02 Mar 2013 at 2:24 pmWolfgang

    Dr. Ali

    Verse 26 has John the baptist baptizing with water and verse 32 says Jesus Christ will baptize with holy spirit . Both John the baptist and Jesus Christ did NOT baptize in the name of father , son and holy spirit .

    Jesus Christ baptizing by holy spirit , what it means is a different discussion but considering the time when he lived there was absolutely no concept of holy spirit being a separate salvific figure leave alone God .

    When John the baptist and Jesus Christ themself did not baptize in the name of father , son and holy spirit how can other people be baptized like that ? SO THAT CASTS DOUBT ON MATTHEW 28:19 .

    I appreciate your input and how you point out some more details regarding the relation between the baptism which John was practicing and the baptism which Jesus would be administering and how the two relate to each other in terms of the time frame when they were done. John was first, Jesus would follow … exactly what Jesus himself told his apostles shortly before being received up into heaven (cp Acts 1:5ff)

    As you conclude, these truths do indeed cast (should cast) doubt on the traditional reading of Mt 28:19.

    I am a bit surprised that others here do not want to see it …

  56. on 02 Mar 2013 at 3:13 pmtimothy

    Dr Ali #52

    Jas #53

    Wolfgang #54 & #55

    AMEN and AMEN and AMEN !!!

    It is nice to be with our group who have common sense to read and rightly divide the word of GOD.

    The hidden agenda is not hidden to GOD and Jesus Christ.

    Peace and Joy

    Timothy

  57. on 02 Mar 2013 at 3:50 pmSarah

    Wolfgang,

    John was first, Jesus would follow … exactly what Jesus himself told his apostles shortly before being received up into heaven (cp Acts 1:5ff)

    Why then did Peter call for a water baptism in Acts 10:47-48? I would expect to find NO further water baptisms being performed by the apostles post-Pentecost if they had indeed understood Jesus to mean water baptism was defunct.

  58. on 02 Mar 2013 at 4:15 pmXavier

    Wolfgang

    you will notice that a comparison (and actually not a smbolization) is made to the water of the flood at the time of Noah

    Agreed. The reference is to water both THEN and NOW. 😉

  59. on 02 Mar 2013 at 4:21 pmJas

    Xavier
    Just how could the flood be a reference to baptism? There was no immersion for Noah. Also It was his righteousness that kept him from immersion .
    Stretching God word like this is what causes unneeded confusion.

  60. on 02 Mar 2013 at 6:05 pmXavier

    Jas

    Just how could the flood be a reference to baptism?

    Of course Noah and the rest did not get wet in the flood since this is called a TYPE [v.21] of what was to come.

  61. on 02 Mar 2013 at 6:38 pmJas

    Xavier
    The antitype is the contrast between water that death comes by and water that life comes by.The only thing to consider here was Noah’s salvation was only a prolonged life not eternal cause Noah died. If Grace is a gift then baptism can not be a requirement for it.
    I see water baptism as a sign of acceptance of The Words of the Covenants and see it replacing the sacrifice required for entering into a Covenant relationship with God

  62. on 02 Mar 2013 at 7:29 pmRay

    Let’s suppose a spirit of witchcraft jumps all over a beastly religious system and thereby gains power or opportunity to practice it’s craft.

    I always wanted to overcome the beast and the false prophet, and it seems that God throws in the whore of Babylon just because he can.

  63. on 02 Mar 2013 at 7:30 pmRay

    I take MT 28:19 to be legitimate scripture just as it is in our Bibles.

  64. on 02 Mar 2013 at 7:40 pmJas

    Ray
    You always had that right.

  65. on 03 Mar 2013 at 2:16 amWolfgang

    Sarah,

    Why then did Peter call for a water baptism in Acts 10:47-48? I would expect to find NO further water baptisms being performed by the apostles post-Pentecost if they had indeed understood Jesus to mean water baptism was defunct.

    where in Acts 10 do you read about Peter’s words about water baptism being performed? Have you noticed that there is no mention in the narrative in Acts 10 about Peter’s command being carried out?

  66. on 03 Mar 2013 at 3:22 amWolfgang

    Xavier,

    you will notice that a comparison (and actually not a smbolization) is made to the water of the flood at the time of Noah

    Agreed. The reference is to water both THEN and NOW. 😉

    seems you are winking at your own sillineess ?
    there is NO reference to water “both THEN and NOW” … is it really that difficult to simply read accurately?

  67. on 03 Mar 2013 at 3:29 amWolfgang

    Jas

    Just how could the flood be a reference to baptism? There was no immersion for Noah. Also It was his righteousness that kept him from immersion .

    indeed … this comparison made by certain theologians, preachers and other proponents of water baptism is an unfounded far stretch adding to the confusion on the matter …

    Another far stretch often heard is the one about river or pond or whatever other water symbolizing Jesus’ grave and water baptism being some kind of a symbol of death and resurrection … as far as I can read, such theology is adding confusion just as much as any other “interpretation” given by such “baptism preachers”

  68. on 03 Mar 2013 at 7:19 amtimothy

    Wolfgang,

    You are a “first responder” widerhallan:

    The Command to Baptize”

    on 04 Feb 2013 at 4:52 pm

    #1

    Wolfgang

    hi

    the author wrote above:

    “Baptism is a sacrament, a physical manifestation of a spiritual truth. The other sacrament commanded in scripture is communion.”

    this may be what protestant church denominations have kept from the 7 sacraments taught and observed by the roman church …
    when do folks who have such great interest in an accurate understanding of the Scriptures read what the Scriptures tell and realize that there are NO (that is, zero) “sacraments” taught in the Bible?

    on 04 Feb 2013 at 5:02 pm

    #2

    Wolfgang

    Hi

    forgot to add another point from the article above in my previous post
    Just before his ascension, Jesus gave his disciples the Great Commission, in which he commanded them to baptize (Matthew 28:19). Jesus gave this command 50 days before the Holy Spirit was poured out at Pentecost. Why would Jesus command his disciples to baptize if he knew baptism would be obsolete just 50 days later?
    good question … especially when observing the overall scope and context regarding the matter.
    The answer is rather simple => Jesus did NOT command his apostles to baptize … there is some textual evidence that the command of Jesus originally may not have included the command to baptize but was simply ” … make disciples of and teach all nations in my name” (cp critical apparatus of Nestle/Aland 25th ed.)
    This wording coincides with all the rest of the NT scriptures and with what the apostles indeed did according to the record we have in the book of Acts, etc.

    #4

    timothy

    Wolfgang,

    I agree:

    “when do folks who have such great interest in an accurate understanding of the Scriptures read what the Scriptures tell and realize that there are NO (that is, zero) “sacraments” taught in the Bible?”

    I have heard the “word” sacraments
    from RCC people, but never from my pastor as to something in the scriptures written for my obedience.

    “regarding the matter.
    The answer is rather simple => Jesus did NOT command his apostles to baptize … there is some textual evidence that the command of Jesus originally may not have included the command to baptize but was simply ” … make disciples of and teach all nations in my name” (cp critical apparatus of Nestle/Aland 25th ed.)
    This wording coincides with all the rest of the NT scriptures and with what the apostles indeed did according to the record we have in the book of Acts, etc.”

    Wolfgang, yes I too see that there are many “fishy” counterfeit verses. It is appalling, that with all the anti-trinity teachings coming from the Professor A Buzzards students, that the blatant 1-2-3, Father, Son, Holy Ghost, trinitarian myth is not seen with closed eyes.

    trinitarian=person or group adhering to the doctrine of trinitarianism

    trinitarianism (one deity in three persons) contrasts with nontrinitarian

    Matthew 24: (kjv)
    13 But he that shall [endure] unto the end, the same shall be saved.

    [endure]=have perseverance

    14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in [all the world] for a witness unto [all nations]; and then shall the end come.

    [all the world]=[all nations]=[end of the world]

    Matthew 28: (kjv)
    19 Go ye therefore, and teach [all nations]:…….(omitted)

    20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the [end of the world]. Amen.

    [end of the world] is not the same as “world without end”

    Ephesians 3:21
    Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, [world without end]. Amen.

    This is in harmony with and:

    “This wording coincides with all the rest of the NT scriptures and with what the apostles indeed did according to the record we have in the book of Acts, etc.”

    Acts 1: (kjv)
    4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

    The promise is for receiving the spirit of truth and parakletos, GOD being in Christ and being in them.

    5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

    And Jesus plainly says, there is no more water, and to the contrary you “SHALL” be baptized with holy spirit. No more water and only baptized by Jesus Christ with holy spirit.

    Acts 2: (kjv)
    3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

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

    The twelve were baptized by Jesus Christ with holy spirit and they were filled(plerousthe) to full capacity and to overflowing with
    “manifestation of speaking in tongues”=
    “proof they had received promised holy spirit of truth”

    plerousthe, pleroo=Greek word for “filled” and is in the passive voice indicating that it is an action, to fill to the top: so that nothing shall be wanting to full measure, fill to the brim absolutely

    Wolfgang, there is also something fishy with Peters rehearsing twice his experience with Cornelius being baptized by Jesus Christ with holy spirit, by merely hearing the Word of GOD spoken. And Cornelius, even was filled to over flowing with holy spirit, as he manifested by speaking in tongues. This wonderful beginning for the gentiles was witnessed without any water.

    A right cutting(orqotomounta [i.e. ortho + temno]), is that peter remembered what Jesus had said about “no more water”and that what was good with GOD was good enough with him(Peter).

    Peter before, just after pentecost, proved this: “faith comes by hearing and by hearing the word of GOD.

    Acts2: (kjv)
    22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

    23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

    24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

    Romans 10: (kjv)
    8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

    9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

    10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

    And there is no water baptism mentioned here either.

    agapao se’

    Timothy”

    End of widerhallan(yodel echo)

    Timothy

  69. on 03 Mar 2013 at 8:22 amXavier

    Wolfgang

    there is NO reference to water “both THEN and NOW” … is it really that difficult to simply read accurately?

    It appears it is.

    And yes, I laugh at myself all the time…don’t you?

  70. on 03 Mar 2013 at 9:47 amSarah

    Wolfgang,

    where in Acts 10 do you read about Peter’s words about water baptism being performed? Have you noticed that there is no mention in the narrative in Acts 10 about Peter’s command being carried out?

    Really? Come on. It should be obvious that a water baptism was performed. The question, so neatly sidestepped, was why Peter would have issued this command in the first place.

  71. on 03 Mar 2013 at 11:29 amWolfgang

    Sarah,

    regarding Acts 10 I asked if you had noticed that there is no mention in the narrative of Acts 10 about Peter’s command being carried out … to which you replied

    Really? Come on. It should be obvious that a water baptism was performed. The question, so neatly sidestepped, was why Peter would have issued this command in the first place.

    Yes, really … and I do “come on” and say that it IS OBVIOUS that there is NO mention of the water baptism being carried out.

    As for your question, why Peter would have issued this command in the first place, we are not directly told why he did. There is some indication in the context, but no direct statement á la “I am commanding these to be water baptized because this is what the Lord command us to do …” or whatever

    There is a second record in Acts about what happened at the house of Cornelius … it is not a narrative as in Acts 10 but rather a personal recounting by Peter of what he perceived and what he thought and/orremembered when he was “called on the carpet” by leadership at Jerusalem after his return from Cornelius … and Peter himself actually gives
    a hint at the reason why the command was not carried out.

  72. on 03 Mar 2013 at 11:46 amWolfgang

    Carlos,

    … is it really that difficult to simply read accurately?

    It appears it is.

    well… it shouldn’t be and really isn’t, even for someone whose first language is not English (such as me)

    And yes, I laugh at myself all the time…don’t you?

    No, I don’t …

  73. on 03 Mar 2013 at 11:59 amJas

    “Really? Come on. It should be obvious that a water baptism was performed. The question, so neatly sidestepped, was why Peter would have issued this command in the first place.”

    Sarah
    These verses are the only verses needed to prove water baptism was still being performed and commanded by the Apostles. The only thing that is not clear was the purpose. If you believe remmision of sins was accomplished at the cross then what was the purpose but if you see the sin of Adam being forgiving at the cross allowing us the opportunity to again be in the actual personal presence of God in the Heaven on earth then you will see we still need to cleanse our sins before entering into the Covenant relationship after we accept the Words of the Covenants as Acts 11:1. shows

  74. on 03 Mar 2013 at 1:10 pmJas

    11:15 Then as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on 24 them just as he did 25 on us at the beginning. 26 11:16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, 27 as he used to say, 28 ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 29 11:17 Therefore if God 30 gave them the same gift 31 as he also gave us after believing 32 in the Lord Jesus Christ, 33 who was I to hinder 34 God?”

    Wolfgang
    Just how does this verse redefine Acts 10 passage. Jesus was baptized with water by John and The Holy Spirit. These people were baptized by the Holy Spirit then still needed to be baptized by water according to Peter himself. In Acts 11 Peter is not stating anywhere that his command to baptize using water was not carried out.

  75. on 03 Mar 2013 at 1:34 pmSheryl

    I just printed most of this out and read through it last night. To me the big picture is that baptism is not necessary for eternal life because Jesus told the man at the cross that due to the man’s belief that Jesus was the son of God, he was going to see Jesus in paradise. I believe baptism, via water or not, is like an engagement ceremony. We are telling the world that we are connected with, serving, partnering, believing in, being loyal to our one Lord, Jesus. We will serve and walk with no other Lord but Jesus, and we have faith in no other god but our Father in Heaven.

    It also occurred to me last night reading through all the comments, that it’s energizing and fun to dig deep into scripture and try to discover its true meaning…but if we are arguing or proving a point…we need to be in the holy spirit and not speaking as prideful humans. If someone wants to be fully immersed, sprinkled or speak in tongues I think they are all correct. It’s the ceremony, not the method. Is a marriage more or less “legal” if it’s performed at a ballpark, at a hospital bedside, at a church or in your living room? The words are basically the same, the intent is the same.

    Then again…I certainly want to obey the commandments. So I’ve been baptized with water AND the fire of the holy spirit! 😀

  76. on 03 Mar 2013 at 1:49 pmWolfgang

    Jas,

    Just how does this verse redefine Acts 10 passage.

    who said anything about Acts 11 re-defining the Acts 10 passage?

    Jesus was baptized with water by John and The Holy Spirit.

    Now where in either Aczs 10 or Acts 11 is reference made to Jesus’ baptism by John ? I do not read anything which would indicate such in either Acts 10 or Acts 11 …

    These people were baptized by the Holy Spirit then still needed to be baptized by water according to Peter himself.

    Even though Peter initially did talk about water and commanded water baptism, the record in Acts 10 says nothing about these people NEEDING TO BE BAPTIZED in water. In addition, as I mentioned before, the record in Acts 10 does NOT state that Peter’s command was carried out.

    In Acts 11 Peter is not stating anywhere that his command to baptize using water was not carried out.

    It seems to me that the two records in Acts 10 and 11 complement each other and do not record the exact same details.

    The narrative in Acts 10 tells what happened and it tells about Peter’s (and his companions’) astonishment at what was happening and that the Gentiles had received (had been baptized with) holy spirit as they heard Peter’s words and believed what he had taught. It then adds that Peter – obviously in answer to his astonishment – brings up water baptism and issues the command to water baptize them …. NOW, I find it rather interesting that the narrative does NOT (!!) say a word about that command being carried out (with something like “and they went and were baptized by Peter.”). The record also does NOT tell us anything about Peter’s further thoughts or what he did after he had issued that command.

    The record in Acts 11 gives us not a narrative of what happened at Cornelius’ house but it gives us in Peter’s own words what he perceived and what he thought and did, etc … Here we now read that some time after Peter realized that the Gentiles had received (had been baptized with) holy spirit, he remembered the words of the Lord (as recorded in Acts 1:5ff) about John’s water baptism and the baptism with holy spirit which followed at Pentecost and afterwards. This remembering then caused Peter to do something (which is not stated) because he did not want to withstand God, in other words, he did not want to go against what the Lord Jesus had said (which he had just remembered) and which he regarded as being God’s will, and which he had just seen approved right before his eyes by God giving the Gentiles the like gift holy spirit.

    The question is, when exactly did Peter remember the Lord’s words … was it (a) before or (b) after he started talking about water baptism and gave the command to water baptize Cornelius and his household?

    When we read Jesus’ words again, which were the words Peter remembered and to which he was making reference when saying “who was I to withstand God”, it should be plain and clear that Peter must have remembered those words shortly AFTER he – in his obvious astonishment – had talked about water and given the command to water baptize. This is – as I see it – further corroborated by the fact that Acts 10 does NOT mention that the command was ever carried out …

    The picture I get from the two records is this:
    Peter spoke to the Gentiles there, they heard and believed and received (were baptized with) holy spirit which was evident to Peter and his Jewish believer companions because they heard them speak in tongues, etc. This caused great astonishment with Peter’s companions as well as Peter himself … and for whatever untold reason, Peter starts talking about water baptism and commands that they be baptized. Then, most likely not long after, Peter remembers what the Lord had said about baptism with water and baptism with holy spirit, which caused him to “take back the water baptism talk and command” because he did not want to withstand God (Whose words had been spoken by the Lord Jesus before, and Who had now already granted the Gentiles the like gift) … therefore the command was never carried out, and that is why there is no record of it being carried out in Acts 10 either.

  77. on 03 Mar 2013 at 2:08 pmJas

    “Now where in either Aczs 10 or Acts 11 is reference made to Jesus’ baptism by John ? I do not read anything which would indicate such in either Acts 10 or Acts 11 … ”

    Wolfgang
    10:37 you know what happened throughout Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism that John announced: 102 10:38 with respect to Jesus from Nazareth, 103 that 104 God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power. He 105 went around doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, 106 because God was with him.

    You do understand when and how Jesus was anointed
    Peter remember the words of Jesus when the Holy Spirit fell upon these people which was before He commanded them to be baptized with water.
    It is unbelievable that you would claim Peter’s command was not carried out just because Peter doesnt mention it to people who already understood the process.

  78. on 03 Mar 2013 at 4:12 pmtimothy

    Wolfgang,

    What does Acts 11:1 show you?

    Acts 11: (kjv)
    11 And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also [received] the word of God.

    [received]=δέχομαι—dechomai=verb=“to take, receive, accept, approve.

    It emphasizes the passive attitude of receiving.

    The word was used specifically in the sense of “receiving” words, i.e. to hear, understand.

    Acts 1: (kjv)
    8 But ye shall [receive] power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

    [receive]=λαμβάνω—lambano=verb=to take, to bring under one’s control on one’s own initiative, “to experience”, with the implication of something having been bestowed upon-to gain, to obtain,
    “to experience into manifestation”

    “There are two Greek words translated receive, in New Testament. These must be accurately defined and understood. These Greek words are dechomai and lambano.

    From checking each usage in the New Testament, the following are the exact meanings:

    dechomai=which is a subjective reception indicating that by a person’s own decision something spiritual has taken place;

    lambano=is an objective reception indicating that by a person’s decision he manifests outwardly that which has been received inwardly.

    There is a difference between, hearing receiving [dechomai] and
    hearing receiving [lambano] into manifestation by speaking in tongues.

    Wolfgang,…as well, Jesus Christ was the same kind of human kind as you and I when John Baptized him with water.

    He, was not, baptized with holy spirit by John. This, being baptized with holy spirit, first became available, for mankind, at Pentecost. And then and only then when, by Jesus Christ himself, began holy spirit baptism for mankind.

    Matthew 20: (kjv)
    22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.

    Colossians 2:12
    Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

    Timothy

  79. on 03 Mar 2013 at 4:14 pmWolfgang

    Jas

    yes .. .that reference to John’s baptism I know about in Acts 10

    However, the context of the discussion here in this thread was about water baptism / spirit baptism in regards to what was administered to the household of Cornelius and Peter’s command to baptize them … and in that context I do not think there is a reference made to them needing to undergo John’s baptism with water, nor could they undergo Jesus’ “baptism”

    As far as Jesus’ “baptism” is concerned, I would like to point out that it was obviously NOT even a “baptism” in the sense of the baptisms for repentance and forgiveness of sin as administered by John, seeing that Jesus needed no repentance nor remission/forgiveness of sin! What John and Jesus did in order to fulfill all righteousness was not a “baptism of John for repentance”, but the ritual “washing” as required by the Law for a high priest in preparation for his installation, etc.
    In Acts 10 the reference to this event at the opening of Jesus’ public ministry was part of Peter’s preaching on what might be called the topic of “Messiah Jesus” … for Peter’s sermon was not a preaching on the topic of “repentance and water baptism”.

  80. on 03 Mar 2013 at 4:26 pmJas

    “He, was not, baptized with holy spirit by John. This, being baptized with holy spirit, first became available, for mankind, at Pentecost. And then and only then when, by Jesus Christ himself, began holy spirit baptism for mankind.”

    Timothy
    Then you must not understand when and how Jesus was anointed with,by,in The Holy spirit. Maybe you should examine more closely Jesus’ baptism to see that Jesus received his anointing(type of baptism) after he was washed clean of Adam’s sin. Later at pentecost the already baptized in water received the anointing with,by,in The Holy spirit.
    Btw the word translated “received “in Acts 11:1 carries the meaning of ACCEPTED.

  81. on 03 Mar 2013 at 4:28 pmWolfgang

    Timothy

    you open a subtopic which is sort of extensive and requires perhaps more room than is available here as part of this thread about Mt 28:19 and whether the command to baptize in the name of 3 persons was originally part the text or was a later forgery …

    I’ll try and reply to points you raised … but will need a bit more time, and seeing that it is getting late over here 🙂 I’ll try and get back on this maybe tomorrow

  82. on 03 Mar 2013 at 5:45 pmJas

    ” What John and Jesus did in order to fulfill all righteousness was not a “baptism of John for repentance”, but the ritual “washing” as required by the Law for a high priest in preparation for his installation, etc.”

    Wolfgang
    Just how was Jesus ritually unclean? Yes it was a process for High Priest, King and Prophets to be cleansed before anointing which yes this was symbolic and also symbolic of the elect who are also to be Priest of God

  83. on 03 Mar 2013 at 5:46 pmTim (aka Antioch)

    I’m not even sure what it is being argued here. Wolfgang, is it simply your point that water baptism is not necessary? Or perhaps you are saying that water baptism is moot or even disrespectful once baptism by the spirit has occurred? Your thoughts on Acts 8 with respect to Phillip and the eunuch?

    I have not yet been water baptized (other than as an infant as part of the Catholic sacrament). I have held off because at my church, it would be done with the three fold formula and I am not comfortable with that. I wonder about my ‘disobedience’ though I have prayed about this often to God for guidance and have not received anything.

  84. on 03 Mar 2013 at 5:51 pmtimothy

    Jas,

    “Btw the word translated “received “in Acts 11:1 carries the meaning of ACCEPTED.”

    Yes indeed:

    [received]=δέχομαι—dechomai=verb=“to take, receive, accept, approve.

    It emphasizes the passive attitude of receiving.

    The word was used specifically in the sense of “receiving” words, i.e. to hear, understand.

    And the word translated received in Acts 1:8

    “[receive]=λαμβάνω—lambano=verb=to take, to bring under one’s control on one’s own initiative, “to experience”, with the implication of something having been bestowed upon-to gain, to obtain,
    “to experience into manifestation” ”

    Which is an active mainifestation of receiving, as is with those who speak in tongues when they receive holy spirit.

    Believe it or not. Thirty years ago, we all marked our bibles with an “L” for lambano and with “D” for dechomai. This gave a chance to more thoroughly read and study scriptures. This was done too with entensive word study’s, which reveal the full meaning of words by how they are used and the context of how they are being used in the text.

    A pitiful example, would be, if a gifted you with a “Banshee”, qua, off road toy…and, if you accepted the gift…it would be dechomai. Then, when and if you went trail riding with the awesome machine…it is lambano.

    Timothy

  85. on 03 Mar 2013 at 5:58 pmJas

    Timothy
    The Word of God they Accepted was what was their schoolmaster,The Words of the Covenants .

  86. on 03 Mar 2013 at 6:23 pmtimothy

    Tim (aka Antioch)

    I remember being baptized at the age of twelve at the family Congregational Church in Coconut Grove ,Florida.

    There were a lot of words which I do not remember. I do remember very very uncomfortable and embarrassed by the whole ceremony and sprinkled by some supposed holy water from Jerusalem and in the name of the father, son and holy Ghost. My, then living Grandmother gave me a very religious looking, black KJV of the bible.

    No tongues of fire, no speaking in tongues(which I did not hear about until I was 39 years old). I always thought that just having the bible was my protection and manage to keep it all those years.

    Then when I took a bible class with Wolfgangs ministry, I wore out the bible with felt tip markings and Spoke in tongues after a teaching like the one I am no longer going to give a link to.

    My sprinkle baptism is done and I cannot give it up any more than you can give up your sprinkling.

    Seem that the water baptizers here want a public display of a public commitment and so forth. Marriage in the church is also a public commitment and a custom. From what I learn from reading GODs word marriage happens when two are joined and become one flesh and is designed for a life long term. In the law there are examples.

    So having been divorced since 1977 and always hearing about one of two marriages ending in divorce. I feel experiences come and go, but the word of GOD liveth and abideth forever. However, the experience of being baptized with holy spirit is there as I continue to speak in tongues as at the begining.

    To some, the tongues is jibberish or tower of Babel language. All I will say is it even far more than the some 30 benefits written out in the bible.

    Tim, I would do what ever is needed to hold your marriage together.

    This thread is about Matthew 28:19 being counterfeit.

    Timothy

  87. on 03 Mar 2013 at 6:35 pmtimothy

    Jas,

    I do not understand what you mean by schoolmaster and in Acts 11:1.

    These are the only two occurrences of schoolmaster in kjv:

    Galatians 3:24
    24 Wherefore the law was our [schoolmaster] to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

    25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a [schoolmaster].

  88. on 03 Mar 2013 at 6:54 pmJas

    Timothy
    Do you really not understand or refusing to understand?

  89. on 03 Mar 2013 at 8:15 pmtimothy

    Jas,

    I really do not understand.

  90. on 03 Mar 2013 at 8:46 pmJas

    Timothy
    At the giving of the Commandments 50 days after the first Passover they were accepted by Israel by faith not by doing them .This was the first Covenant between God and Israel .
    The Galatians were uncircumcised and had not been preached the gospel before they were taught the Words of the Covenants and by faith they accepted them upon which they received the Holy Spirit by hearing and believing. During this time of hearing they were protected by the law and upon accepting the words of them the Anointer came upon them.
    Now did they receive this anointing by hearing and believing or by doing??
    Did Israel enter into the Mosaic Covenant 40 years after the Commandments and directly after the giving of the Mosaic law by hearing and believing or by doing??

  91. on 03 Mar 2013 at 9:06 pmtimothy

    Jas,

    Thanks for taking the time, for your explanation.

    I will spend time thinking it through.

    Timothy

  92. on 04 Mar 2013 at 1:42 amWolfgang

    Tim

    Wolfgang, is it simply your point that water baptism is not necessary? Or perhaps you are saying that water baptism is moot or even disrespectful once baptism by the spirit has occurred?

    as far as I understand the Scriptures, water baptism was ordained of God as part of the call to repentance as administered by John the baptist and his disciples, it was superseded with Jesus fulfilling his ministry and baptism with spirit becoming available at the day of Pentecost.

    Your thoughts on Acts 8 with respect to Phillip and the eunuch?

    We should carefully note what happened there …. in particular read the record to see if Philip demanded water baptism of the eunuch or taught about water baptism as being a requirement for the eunuch to become a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ (as is often argued and as oftentimes preachers today demand or require of anyone wanting to be a member of their congregation). Who brought up the matter of water baptism in Acts 8, Philip or the eunuch? Philip explained that there was no harm in the eunuch’s wish wanting to be water baptized since he knew and realized that the eunuch – in his own confession – had believed on Jesus as the Messiah.

    So then, someone wants to get into some water, AFTER having believed on the Lord Jesus as Messiah …. go into the water. . THe point is though, it adds nothing, takes nothing away, proves nothing, disproves nothing …

    HOWEVER, being taught and thinking that it is necessary in order to add or prove something is false teaching and misleading people …

    At least, some denominations are honest enough by having their preacher or pastor explain that the water baptism is an initiation rite to become a member in their denomination (such as RCC, where the water baptism rite is what makes a child a member of the RCC). Some denominations however want to make it essential as “something spiritual” happening when you get under water, be sprinkled by some water, or whatever wet experience … thereby perhaps even disguising the real issue, namely making new members for their group. This point then becomes obvious when someone coming from a different denomination and having been already water baptized there is asked to again undergo a water baptism (this time of course with the “correct” ritual in the “correct” manner) in the new group ..

    Eh, perhaps the whole water baptism discussion shows that folks are not really believing in all believers in Christ being part and a member of the biblical church of God, the body of Christ (another spiritual reality), and instead insisting on earthly “churches” competing amongst each other as to who of them might be the “right or real church”?

  93. on 04 Mar 2013 at 5:10 amWolfgang

    Timothy,
    you mention above

    From checking each usage in the New Testament, the following are the exact meanings:

    dechomai=which is a subjective reception indicating that by a person’s own decision something spiritual has taken place;

    lambano=is an objective reception indicating that by a person’s decision he manifests outwardly that which has been received inwardly.

    over the years I have looked at the NT passages where these words are used and re-evaluated previously heard teachings and beliefs.
    While I would agree that there indications that the words “dechomai” and “lambano” carry such meanings as you mention, I would be far more careful now to try and anchor a teaching about “receiving holy spirit” on those two words …. for one, if memory serves me right, the word “dechomai” is actually not used in direct connection with “holy spirit” (such as “dechomai/receive holy spirit”).

    Instead of basing a doctrine on word studies and definitions made on conclusions drawn from such word studies, I have found it more reliable over the years to carefully read the context of passages and to observe carefully the overall scope of Scripture relating to a topic.

    If the English translations had the word “receive” as translation of dechomai and “take” as the translation of lambano, it could well have been that we would have never had any such big “studies” on the two words, because there would not have been a need for making distinctions between “receive” and “receive”. Reading the Bible in other languages, makes such type of word studies almost irrelevant …. because the words are translated differently and the problem some people may have in understanding does not even arise …

  94. on 04 Mar 2013 at 7:43 amXavier

    FYI: Wierwille was an Ultra-dispensationalism who taught that water baptism should no longer be practiced. He wrote:

    Since Pentecost, we are indeed free from the law; and part of that law was water baptism…[This] was only for Israel and the kingdom, and then for only for a limited time.

    It seems Wierwille wanted to be seen as more than just a “revisionist” but as some sort of “new Biblical pioneer”, with NEW interpretations.

    They are designed to generate doubts about historic orthodoxy in general. Another Gospel: Cults, Alternative Religions, and the New Age Movement, Ruth A. Tucker, p 227.

  95. on 04 Mar 2013 at 7:54 amtimothy

    Jas,

    You have a wealth of information to share and a great knowledge about these topics which you are always presenting here on KR.

    To start, the first Passover, was in Egypt at evening before the cut and run exit of the Hebrews. I remember something about them owing their firstborn child as payment for Pharaoh’s firstborn’s death and that a perfect lamb could be substituted for a Hebrew child.

    Right now, adding these things to our most important and even more important to you, fight, for accuracy verses religion against the religious folks. This, your VIP topic, is like a red herring(right now).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exdK7Lirngg

    I elect to, stay on, the trail of the FOX.

    The reason I imagine this topic of baptism is most important to you, is because you have written that you have not been baptized yet, and although you suspect Matthew 28:19 as maybe a forgery, still think with water is the way you want to go. Or something.

    And you know, as well, I believe, according to Jesus Christ and to the recorded details of Acts 2:4…that baptism with holy spirit, not water is what the twelve and all after receive. This is the “lambano” receiving, into manifestation, by speaking in tongues.

    Their parakletos, the holy spirit in Christ in them gave them the utterance, Acts 2:4. To the best of my knowledge and from my personal experience…..the holy spirit does not speak in gibberish, but in a metaphysical and spiritual speech. And this is not any private interpretation, however, but from the context of all the scriptures written by the revelation of Jesus Christ and GOD.

    It appears that just Wolfgang and myself believe “what is written” and the ones who care about religious traditions still want to promote the non spiritual water and trinity formula(and some even the absence of manifestation by speaking in tongues)

    I do not leave out speaking in tongues, because it is part of the whole ball of wax.

    Again, I commend you for your self study and acquired knowledge of the OT law, covenants, and rules and regulations related to the transition to today’s Christian church.

    Timothy

  96. on 04 Mar 2013 at 8:46 amtimothy

    Wolfgang,

    I agree with all you bring to the table this morning.

    I the early dawn of our church, a sudden switch was made from water to holy spirit. Jesus has gone and the twelve now have their own parakletos, Christ in and along side and even more power than he had while here on Earth, because he now was at the right hand of GOD.

    So it is apparent, that they were playing it, “by ear”, for the first period of their, each his own new ministry. They could now, truly walk by the spirit, as Jesus had demonstrated.

    As the book of acts proceeds, the twelve grew up in a hurry. The Ethiopian chamberlain got what “he” ask for…..water.

    Peter saw that the holy spirit baptism manifestation occurred, as demonstrated by GOD, with just hearing the Romans 10: 8,9 & 10 words. And said, if this is good enough for GOD, I am not going to resist GOD, no not me.

    Progressive manifestation took place, with GOD, in Christ, revealing the great holy secrete mystery to Paul as he recorded in Ephesians.

    Jesus gave Paul, “the operators manual” for spiritual matters(pneumatikos) in 1 Corinthians 12,13 & 14.

    UZW

    I cannot be grievous for the hours of reading GODs word while doing word studies. I certainly learned more that had I read, being ignorat of the meanings. It becomes ex-potential with one word in Greek having 7 different words in English and then finding one English word translated from 5 different Greek words. These things have I hid in my heart.

    Wolfgang and Timothy are the last of the Dog Soldiers(do you remember). We are staked to the ground, and alone, stand against dozens of ABC Georgia students and their Director, who have been trained to propagate the erroneous water baptism and trinity formula. Perhaps the some 30K denominations are a result of the past 2k years with/of the same.

    No Wolfgang, I am happy to have dechomai and lambano in my bag of tricks.

    Luther 1545

    Apgst 1:8 “empfangen”=

    Apgst 11:1 “angenommen”=

    agapao se’

    Timothy

  97. on 04 Mar 2013 at 10:39 amJas

    Timothy
    The main reason I feel water baptism is still a part of the process comes from my understanding of the bible as a whole. Acts 10 just confirms it. Whether or not Matt 28:19 is original couldnt effect my understanding of baptism or just who is the Most High. The timeframe of Acts 10 is about 4 years after Acts 2 which tells me that Peter was lead by Holy Spirit many years before which would make it impossible for him to issue a false command plus I cant accept your interpretation of the recount in Acts 11. This is like saying the apostles were ignorant of what the scriptures and Jesus taught about the restoration of the Nations of Israel as one nation.The reason I see John baptizing for remission of sins was because the priesthood was polluted with edomite jews rendering it in effective.John was actually the true High Priest till Jesus was anointed. It is very possible water baptism was the means of remission of sins during exiles also. I do not deny that there is also a spiritual baptism by,with,in the Holy Spirit that manifest gifts necessary for ministry and do not deny speaking in tongues is one of them but can not agree with you interpation of that gift for many reasons which I have already mentioned elsewhere .This doesnt mean that oneday I will not agree just at present I dont but I am still in discovery so who knows what might be revealed as I continue.

  98. on 04 Mar 2013 at 12:21 pmtimothy

    Jas,

    I admire your hearts candor and faithfully respect what you believe too.

    Eight of the, “parakletos’ pneumatikos”, nine manifestations are for benefit of “heterous”(a different one). GOD is no respecter of persons, so each person receives the same nine abilities. However, the eight are operated when GOD authorizes and SIT is for benefit of “homo”, the one operating the gift and when, as the persons wills.

    This manifestation is perfect praise to GOD and perfect prayer, which can be for the one SIT or another saint heavy on the operators heart.

    All the information is found in Paul’s church epistles.

    And I hope your week goes as well as your sharings today.

    http://peppers.com/cube/images/uploads/New%20Pictures/T160%203%20pack.png

    agapao se’

    Timothy

  99. on 04 Mar 2013 at 2:46 pmWolfgang

    Carlos,

    who here is talking about Wierwille ??? YOU ! Why? are you trying to follow in the footsteps ofyour father-in-law who sort of does the same when you have no biblical arguments and don’t want to agree with what someone else has written and explained in detail from Scripture?

    I am beginning to be suspicious as to why your and your clan are such “Anti-Wierwille-ites” ?

    As for me, I don’t care whether preacher/teacher named Wierwille or Buzzard wrote or writes … I do care about WHAT they write and if I have something to comment on their interpretations I will do so with and based on MY OWN reading, interpretation and conclusions.

    Now, what’s the real reason for you and your clan acting the way you do and constantly harping on Wierwille when he’s been dead for almost 30 years and doesn’t write on this blog? Seems your clan has a personal issue against Wierwille … why not be honest and tell the story?

  100. on 04 Mar 2013 at 2:53 pmWolfgang

    Timothy
    you wrote above

    It appears that just Wolfgang and myself believe “what is written” and the ones who care about religious traditions still want to promote the non spiritual water and trinity formula(and some even the absence of manifestation by speaking in tongues)

    I would not state things in this way … because I am pretty sure that others here also will be of the opinion that they too believe “what is written” …

    The real question in this regard is more: “what is written?” Only when someone’s understanding and interpretation is accurate and in harmony with what the author / writer of the Scriptures meant to communicate with what is written in the Scriptures, can anyone claim that what they believe is indeed what is written. All too often I have experienced over the years that claims are made that one believes or even teaches what is written … and a little later it turned out that what was taught and believed was not necessarily “what is written”, but was a wrong understanding of what was written and needed to be corrected.

  101. on 04 Mar 2013 at 3:46 pmtimothy

    Wolfgang,

    Yes indeed and Jesus Christ knew and taught what was written and according to Peter he rightly divided the word of GOD.

    Acts 2: (kjv)
    22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

    And jesus was found studying the word when he was 12 years old.

    Luke 2: (kjv)
    46 And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.

    47 And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.

    2 Timothy 2: (kjv)
    15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

    You wrote:
    “and a little later it turned out that what was taught and believed was not necessarily “what is written”, but was a wrong understanding of what was written and needed to be corrected.”

    Well, you are currently sorting that out here and now.

    When confronted by the devil, Jesus coined his phrase “it is written”.

    Matthew 4: (kjv)
    4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

    2 Timothy 3: (kjv)
    16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God(every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

    Be aware, the devils know the word of GOD too.

    Matthew 4: (kjv)
    6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

    And Jesus “rebuked” the devil again.

    7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

    James, Jesus half brother has written:

    James 1: (kjv)
    13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

    Timothy

  102. on 04 Mar 2013 at 4:25 pmJas

    Timothy
    I am sure Jesus was studying the Word of God even before he was 12. At the age of 12 a jewish boy would be coming of age to accepting the Words of the Covenants and entering a Covenant relationship with God which would require several years of studying .
    There is reading what is written and believing what you interpret to mean and there is reading what is written and believing what is written. Both of these are needed but many just use one or the other which is the cause of their confusion. The bible is filled with clear verse after another which need only to be read in a proper translation but there is other verses that need support of other verses to understand which in some cases are because it was directed at certain groups or issues. Then there is some symbolic verses which some may be obvious and some may never be revealed in this life. I myself can not claim to believe what is written because I have not understood everything at present and may never in this life. And I can safely say without a doubt neither you,Wolfgang or anyone I have ever encountered has.

  103. on 04 Mar 2013 at 5:43 pmtimothy

    Jas,

    Yes, and it seems that there is something like a cypher hiding the true meanings. Even Jesus said he spoke in parables to hide the truth from some.

    However and praise the LORD, to the contrary, Jesus promised:

    John 14: (kjv)
    26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

    So you too, being of sound and logical mind, can perceive the need to study, read and hold fast what Jesus Said or quoted fromOT sxcriptures.

    1 Corinthians 1: (kjv)
    10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

    1 Corinthians 2: (kjv)
    16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.

    2 Corinthians 4: (kjv)
    4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

    How fortunant the Christian is to have holy spirit.

    1 Corinthians 2: (kjv)
    13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

    14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

    15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

    You claim, and do too:
    “I myself can not claim to believe what is written because I have not understood everything at present and may never in this life. And I can safely say without a doubt neither you,Wolfgang or anyone I have ever encountered has.”

    But certain subject aeras, I have studied, as you have too, and believe what I have learned.

    Timothy

  104. on 04 Mar 2013 at 6:40 pmJas

    Timothy
    Yes I study the words of Jesus and OT quotes ,I also make sure they have been properly tested as accurate the best I can.
    Yes there are some areas I feel I understand very well and some areas I find either there is not enough clear verses to claim I completely understand or I am missing something. As for the subject of water baptism this discussion has brought about almost certainty that its is necessary for a Christian to enter into a Covenant relationship with God and is not necessary for Grace. I still feel I need to understand the indwelling spirit more.

  105. on 04 Mar 2013 at 7:04 pmSarah

    Wolfgang,

    Eh, perhaps the whole water baptism discussion shows that folks are not really believing in all believers in Christ being part and a member of the biblical church of God, the body of Christ (another spiritual reality), and instead insisting on earthly “churches” competing amongst each other as to who of them might be the “right or real church”?

    Speaking for myself, I have always held the understanding that baptism is not what saves you, but that it is a sign or symbol of your commitment to Christ. I don’t see anyone here arguing that baptism is a requirement for salvation.

    I know you disagree, but a straightforward reading of Acts leaves little doubt in my mind that water baptisms were being performed after Pentecost. And water baptisms continued being performed from that time onward with no significant dissent that I am aware of. That has nothing to do with promoting some religious denominational tradition, and it certainly doesn’t mean I am rejecting the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

    The one thing I do appreciate about this discussion is that it has led me into a deeper study of water baptism in both the OT and the NT to understand it with more clarity.

  106. on 04 Mar 2013 at 7:07 pmSarah

    Timothy,

    It appears that just Wolfgang and myself believe “what is written” and the ones who care about religious traditions still want to promote the non spiritual water and trinity formula(and some even the absence of manifestation by speaking in tongues)

    I respect your viewpoint and I enjoy reading your comments. But it would be wonderful if you could refrain from impugning the character of others who hold equallly sincere beliefs about what scripture says.

  107. on 04 Mar 2013 at 7:28 pmXavier

    Wolfgang

    who here is talking about Wierwille ??? YOU ! Why?

    Because he was the ONLY one teaching non-water baptism. Or is there someone else you studied under?

    PS: about “the clan” thing…don’t know why you keep bringing others into our posts. Its just you and me bud.

  108. on 04 Mar 2013 at 10:56 pmJas

    1. The Word of Knowledge
    2. The Word of Wisdom
    3. The Gift of Prophecy
    4. The Gift of Faith
    5. The Gifts of Healings
    6. The Working of Miracles
    7. The Discerning of Spirits
    8. Different Kinds of Tongues
    9. The Interpretation

    Timothy
    Do you claim you have received all of these?

  109. on 05 Mar 2013 at 1:00 amtimothy

    Jas,

    You question is some what related to this:

    Ones parakletos, comforter, holy spirt received when baptized with holy spirit by Jesus Christ is a package deal…like a Swiss army knife with nine blades. Each person receives the same. GOD is no respecter of persons.

    Jesus Christ, during his Earthly ministry, had holy spirit with seven manifestations:

    word of wisdom
    word of knowledge
    faith
    gifts of healing
    prophesy
    working of miracles
    discerning of spiritsd

    Reading, Genesis through Malachi these are to be seen.

    Reading, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John one can also see Jesus Christ manifesting the seven. He did not speak in tongues or speak in tongues and interpret. He had a 100 % hook up with GOD, where as ours goes through Jesus Christ as mediator to GOD. I cannot explain further.

    Now, to our advantage, Jesus Christ is seated at the right hand of GOD making intersession.

    1 Corinthians 12: (kjv)
    4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the [same Spirit].

    7 But the manifestation of [the Spirit is given to every man] to profit withal.

    8 For to one is given by the [Spirit] the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the[same Spirit];

    9 To another faith by the [same Spirit]; to another the gifts of healing by the [same Spirit];

    10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

    In verse 10 [“same spirit”] is to be supplied in our thinking by the
    figure of speech = “ellipsis”.

    11 But all these worketh that one and the [selfsame Spirit], dividing to every man severally as he will(as the man wills to operate).

    13 For by [one Spirit] are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into [one Spirit].

    The point is that regardless of how the spirit is
    manifested, we all have the same spirit.

    12:4 the same spirit
    12:7 the spirit is given to every man
    12:8 same spirit
    12:9 same spirit, same spirit
    12:11 selfsame spirit
    12:13 one spirit, one spirit

  110. on 05 Mar 2013 at 2:02 amWolfgang

    Carlos
    about bringing up “Wierwille” all the time, you wrote

    Because he was the ONLY one teaching non-water baptism. Or is there someone else you studied under?

    Yes, there have been quite many I have learned from …

    BUT it doesn’t matter who I studied under, whose books I have read, or whom I learned from in some other form … because I myself am responsible and will be accountable for what I understand and believe! There will be no hiding behind with “But Prof. so and so, Dr. so and so, Pastor so and so taught this …”

  111. on 05 Mar 2013 at 2:08 amWolfgang

    Sarah,

    Speaking for myself, I have always held the understanding that baptism is not what saves you, but that it is a sign or symbol of your commitment to Christ. I don’t see anyone here arguing that baptism is a requirement for salvation.

    where in Scripture do we read that water baptism is a sign or symbol of our commitment to Christ? Was that the reason or purpose for why John baptized with water? where in Scripture do we read that there is even a sign or symbol needed to show one’s commitment to Christ? is being committed to following Christ and living according to his words not sufficient?

  112. on 05 Mar 2013 at 3:30 amWolfgang

    Sarah,

    I know you disagree, but a straightforward reading of Acts leaves little doubt in my mind that water baptisms were being performed after Pentecost.

    I don’t disagree that there were water baptisms continued after Pentecost … Acts 8, Acts 19 record such. BUT these records do NOT teach that after Pentecost the previous baptism with water was either required (as it had been in the case of John baptizing with water) or was prescribed as a necessity of any kind (such as making a symbolic more or less public statement about one’s beliefs).

    And water baptisms continued being performed from that time onward with no significant dissent that I am aware of. That has nothing to do with promoting some religious denominational tradition

    well, a look at church history since then provides sufficient evidence that there have been plenty of discussions about the modes and method of the actual baptism act, as well as differences about its meaning and significance. And I would think that you are aware of today’s many varieties among water baptism adherents … some consider it a sacrament, some consider it an entry ritual into their church, some consider it a sign of commitment to Christ, some a necessary ritual to be saved, some require it when someone comes to their church even though he/she has already been baptized in water previously in some other church, etc. etc. etc.

    … and it certainly doesn’t mean I am rejecting the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

    what do understand baptism with holy spirit to be? when does it occur? is something needed for it to occur?

  113. on 05 Mar 2013 at 9:09 amXavier

    Wolfgang

    Yes, there have been quite many I have learned from …

    You mean apart from Wierwille? Who? Please correct me.

  114. on 05 Mar 2013 at 9:23 amWolfgang

    Carlos,

    You mean apart from Wierwille? Who? Please correct me.

    are you always that blatantly nosy ? and what difference would it make that I tell you about from whom I have learned things about the Scriptures?

    I’ll tell you this one name: Prof. A. Buzzard (in his case, mostly by means of his books, aside from attending a conference where he taught and reading articles on his website and contributions on this blog )

    Now, I will tell you another important thing: “Studying under someone” or “learning from someone” is NOT identical to “accepting what a teacher says or writes as being correct and then following them more or less blindly” …
    You give the impression that you consider only those to be one’s teacher whose views one accepts and believes …

  115. on 05 Mar 2013 at 11:00 amJas

    Timothy
    If the gift of languages that was seen at pentecost was a manifestation of the Holy Spirit how do you claim this gift was not given to Jesus? Do you believe the multitude that followed Jesus were of one language ?
    As far as the other gifts concern have you healed and performed miracles and if so why are you not making rounds across the world healing children?
    If you have the word of wisdom how come you are still seeking it?
    If the Holy Spirit teaches a person all things why is there not a single person today that knows all things?

  116. on 05 Mar 2013 at 1:36 pmXavier

    Wolfgang

    Just trying to find out who else taught you the non-water baptism.

  117. on 05 Mar 2013 at 3:43 pmWolfgang

    Carlos,

    Just trying to find out who else taught you the non-water baptism.

    as I mentioned before, several people have, and among them also Prof. Buzzard …

    See, I happen to learn not only from people who are teaching in favor of something, but also from those who are rejecting something. Other folks would claim that they only learn from those who share their views … I don’t, but rather I evaluate anybody’s contribution and consider what others write and then compare it in order to determine what would best fit with the overall scope of the Scriptures I have at the time.

  118. on 05 Mar 2013 at 3:56 pmWolfgang

    Jas,

    you write in reply to Timothy

    As far as the other gifts concern have you healed and performed miracles and if so why are you not making rounds across the world healing children?

    I would like to briefly comment on 2 points:

    (a) I would not call what you term “the other gifts” as “GIFTS [of the spirit]” but rather use the term which is used by Paul in 1Co 12:7 for these and which is “MANIFESTATION [of the spirit]”.
    Considering other passages in the NT which speak about holy spirit matters, it appears to me that believers receive one “gift”, holy spirit, which is spirit power to be utilized in order to bring about the “manifestation” of the spirit (such as what is mentioned in 1Co 12:8-10) as well as the “fruit” of the spirit (such as is mentioned in Gal 5:22).

    (b) as for “making rounds across the world healing children”, I would ask, why did Jesus not do that ? Did Jesus go around on healing campaigns or did Jesus go around on preaching the gospel and if and when sick came or were brought to him he at times performed a healing miracle? Not every sick person living in Galilee, Samaria or Judea at the time of Jesus was healed by him either …

  119. on 05 Mar 2013 at 4:06 pmXavier

    Wolfgang

    as I mentioned before, several people have

    Can we get at least 1 name? Why be so protective?

  120. on 05 Mar 2013 at 4:08 pmJas

    Wolfgang
    I didnt ask why Jesus didnt, I asked why wouldnt someone with that gift do it. We have no idea how many Jesus,his disciples or the 70 did heal if in fact they didnt all children in the LIMITED area they were in. If someone with that power,manifestation ,gift or whatever you want to call is not worn to stub atleast trying to heal atleast children then it is a great waste.

  121. on 05 Mar 2013 at 4:28 pmJas

    35 For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home. 36 I was naked, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me.’ 37 “Then these righteous ones will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 Or a stranger and show you hospitality? Or naked and give you clothing? 39 When did we ever see you sick or in prison, and visit you?’ 40 And the King will tell them, ‘I assure you, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!’ 41 “Then the King will turn to those on the left and say, ‘Away with you, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the Devil and his demons! 42 For I was hungry, and you didn’t feed me. I was thirsty, and you didn’t give me anything to drink. 43 I was a stranger, and you didn’t invite me into your home. I was naked, and you gave me no clothing. I was sick and in prison, and you didn’t visit me.’ 44 “Then they will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and not help you?’ 45 And he will answer, ‘I assure you, when you refused to help the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were refusing to help me.’

    And yet these gifts could do much more than whats in these verses

  122. on 05 Mar 2013 at 4:35 pmWolfgang

    Carlos

    Can we get at least 1 name? Why be so protective?

    I already gave you one name … seems like you did not like that name?
    In addition, don’t be so nosy! You somehow don’t seem to get that it’s not about people but about the Scriptures …

  123. on 05 Mar 2013 at 4:41 pmWolfgang

    Jas

    I didnt ask why Jesus didnt, I asked why wouldnt someone with that gift do it.

    my reply was, for the same reason Jesus didn’t …

    Thinking that because healing by means of God’s holy spirit power must be available in all cases because it is available in some instances appears to be an incorrect conclusion …

  124. on 05 Mar 2013 at 4:44 pmJas

    Wolfgang
    Yep that answer was just a copout .

    I am working off of a claim not a presumption.

  125. on 05 Mar 2013 at 5:07 pmJas

    “Did Jesus go around on healing campaigns or did Jesus go around on preaching the gospel and if and when sick came or were brought to him he at times performed a healing miracle?”

    Wolfgang maybe instead of just calling a copout I could show you it was.
    10 Now after this the Lord appointed [a]seventy others, and sent them in pairs ahead of Him to every city and place where He Himself was going to come. 2 And He was saying to them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore beseech the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest. 3 Go; behold, I send you out as lambs in the midst of wolves. 4 Carry no money belt, no [b]bag, no shoes; and greet no one on the way. 5 Whatever house you enter, first say, ‘Peace be to this house.’ 6 If a [c]man of peace is there, your peace will rest on him; but if not, it will return to you. 7 Stay in [d]that house, eating and drinking [e]what they give you; for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not keep moving from house to house. 8 Whatever city you enter and they receive you, eat what is set before you; 9 and heal those in it who are sick, and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’

  126. on 06 Mar 2013 at 1:21 amWolfgang

    Jas
    you quoted a passage from the gospels

    … 7 Stay in [d]that house, eating and drinking [e]what they give you; for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not keep moving from house to house. 8 Whatever city you enter and they receive you, eat what is set before you; 9 and heal those in it who are sick, and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’

    I emphasized in bold print some points which do show that Jesus and/or his disciples did NOT necessarily go every place there was and heal every without exception who was sick …

  127. on 06 Mar 2013 at 9:05 amXavier

    Wolfgang

    Apart from Wierwelle who else taught you non-water baptism?

  128. on 06 Mar 2013 at 9:13 amJas

    Wolfgang
    I was showing you that Jesus did command and sent them to heal with the powers they had.
    Who knows who they actually healed but the bolded references do not leave out all since it deals with eating with them

  129. on 06 Mar 2013 at 9:15 amJas

    Xavier
    Who taught you?

  130. on 06 Mar 2013 at 9:33 amtimothy

    Xavier,

    Ref. # 127

    My finale teachings, on the subject come from Jesus Christ, via my comforter/παράκλητος/parakletos.

    So now then, which teacher is teaching you, that Jesus Christ does not:

    John 14: (kjv)
    26 But the Comforter(παράκλητος–parakletos), which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.(red letters)

    Acts 1: (kjv)
    5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.(red letters)

  131. on 06 Mar 2013 at 10:03 amWolfgang

    Carlos (#127),

    I already answered your question … just accept the answer and get on with the subject matter …

  132. on 06 Mar 2013 at 10:06 amWolfgang

    Hi,

    I am still waiting for answers to some questions I asked of Sean … why the silence ?

  133. on 06 Mar 2013 at 11:56 amJas

    NASB ©
    “But whenever they persecute you in one city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes.

    Wolfgang
    This is one of your proof text but it seems it doesnt because the 12 were sent to the towns of Israel and the 70 was sent out to whole area ahead of Jesus. So this verse has to do with Jesus coming after to these towns while the disciples had not quite finished what he commanded them.
    Luke 9:6 Then 22 they departed and went throughout 23 the villages, proclaiming the good news 24 and healing people everywhere.
    declares the 12 were commanded to heal everywhere they were sent. Matthew 10 also shows this command

  134. on 06 Mar 2013 at 1:13 pmXavier

    Wolfgang

    Okay so only Wierwelle.

    Thanks.

  135. on 06 Mar 2013 at 1:29 pmWolfgang

    Carlos,

    I already gave you another name .. but you seem not to like that one … why?

    And since you are so obsessed with “Wierwelle”, I would have thought that you could at least spell his name correctly … but you seem unable to even do that.

  136. on 06 Mar 2013 at 4:10 pmXavier

    Wolfgang

    What other name did you give? I’m only seeing Anthony’s name since you seem to have a fixed, personal fascination with him and now my family in general it seems.

  137. on 06 Mar 2013 at 4:21 pmJas

    Xavier
    Wolfgang

    Can you hate eachother somewhere else?

  138. on 06 Mar 2013 at 4:33 pmWolfgang

    Jas

    Can you hate eachother somewhere else?

    hate each other?? I’ve provided plenty of scripturally based comments and made contributions to the topics at hand … Carlos however plays “the name game” and happens to cause an echo of his manner of going about things …

  139. on 06 Mar 2013 at 4:37 pmWolfgang

    Carlos,

    What other name did you give? I’m only seeing Anthony’s name since you seem to have a fixed, personal fascination with him and now my family in general it seems.

    well, it seems you at least saw the other name … but somehow refuse to recognize it as the other name (other than the one of a man who has been dead for more than 25 years which you’ve been constantly throwing in here) ?

    Why don’t you write something regarding the subject(s) being discussed instead of trying to play the name calling game?

  140. on 06 Mar 2013 at 6:34 pmXavier

    Wolfgang

    I did comment regarding this thread and you started with the usual non-water baptism talk.

    Anyways, we’re going around in circles here so I’m out.

  141. on 06 Mar 2013 at 7:47 pmtimothy

    Xavier,

    You have not acknowledged my post # 130.

    So then, here I will re post it and give your some names, places and places where I have further learned about holy spirit baptism by Jesus Christ and more for your learning. And some more.

    130 timothy
    Xavier,

    Ref. # 127

    I first learned, the full truth about Jesus Christ and receiving holy spirit and of his church, from the one and same Victor Paul Wierwille at Miami, Florida in 1981. This would certainly include, your thorn in the flesh, baptized with holy spirit, being, the Pentecost and after, only method of/to receiving holy spirit today. Maybe you actually do believe this, but are still overly zealous for the “religious”, full below the water immersion baptism.

    How did you miss the “Jesus Freak” days, with “Woodstock”, hippy VW buses and flower children loving and witnessing for Jesus Christ?

    There are 20ties of thousands of X TWI splinter group christians.

    http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/tw_splintergroups.htm

    I have fellowshiped with many of these and continue to learn and grow in my spiritual understanding of the scriptures.

    I would say that the most important human being, I laud as my teacher is the founder and senor pastor of LHIM/LHCC. Also a TWI, PFAL, graduate just as Wolfgang and myself are.

    Back on the subject of baptism today.

    My finale teachings, on the subject come from Jesus Christ, via my comforter/παράκλητος/parakletos.

    So now then, which teacher is teaching you, that Jesus Christ does not:

    John 14: (kjv)
    26 But the Comforter(παράκλητος–parakletos), which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.(RED LETTERS)

    Acts 1: (kjv)
    5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.(RED LETTERS)

    Here is a principal to think on.

    John 20: (kjv)
    29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.(RED LETTERS)

    I only can read the scriptures to see and believe and this blesses me.

    When Jesus Christ, my Paraclete, brings to my remenbrance, what he, Jesus said(RED LETTERS) and what Apostles Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John James, Peter and Jude have written by the revelation Of Jesus Christ through their Paraclete..Then my Hearts, minds ears hear the words as I read them or from my memory.

    Psalm 119: (kjv)
    11 Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.

    Now peter certainly was at an advantage as he was standing right there when Jesus spoke these words:

    Acts 1: (kjv)
    5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.(RED LETTERS)

    Peter, did not have the Aristocrats advantage, of having gone to fancy all boys Boarding Schools, like Winchester, Eaton, Charterhouse, or McDonogh Military as did I. He was a fisherman, sailmaker, net maker and surely a shipwright as well. He had received personal one on one training( διδασκαλία) by Jesus Christ and received holy spirit along with the twelve at pentecost.

    Time period Acts 10 and 11

    Peter knew and heard quite well what Jesus had spoken in Acts 1:5.

    He now had his own Paraclete which brought to his remembrance:

    Acts 11: (kjv)
    16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

    17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

    So Peter, a man with a logical thinking mind, realized that he and the twelve received holy spirit into manifestation by speaking in tongues. Here now, he was seeing and hearing the same and just as Jesus Christ was bringing to his rememberance, he realized that if GOD through Christ had poured out holy spirit on these too, without any water, then who was he “to stand against GOD”.

    No water baptism was carried out, even though in the narative it was spoken about.

    And Xavier, I do not want any arguments from you.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YMh8orMNqc

    ego agapao se’

    Timothy

  142. on 06 Mar 2013 at 7:53 pmXavier

    Tim

    Great song. 😉

  143. on 06 Mar 2013 at 8:08 pmtimothy

    Xavier,

    So is this one:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oKh12qmALQ

    Timothy

  144. on 06 Mar 2013 at 8:14 pmXavier

    tim

    Now you’re getting weird bro. :/

  145. on 06 Mar 2013 at 8:26 pmJas

    So Peter, a man with a logical thinking mind, realized that he and the twelve received holy spirit into manifestation by speaking in tongues. Here now, he was seeing and hearing the same and just as Jesus Christ was bringing to his rememberance, he realized that if GOD through Christ had poured out holy spirit on these too, without any water, then who was he “to stand against GOD”.

    No water baptism was carried out, even though in the narative it was spoken about.”

    Timothy
    So you are saying that Peter some 3 years after he received the Holy Spirit that taught him all things and remembrances of Jesus’ words issued a false command to baptize with water. Wow Luke must have hated Peter to make him out such a fool or maybe you are just reading into it what you want.
    I ask you some very important questions pertaining to gifts you claim to be manifested in you. Wolfgang tried to throw me off the trail of the fox but was shown by passages he was in complete error anyway.

  146. on 07 Mar 2013 at 3:02 amWolfgang

    Jas

    So you are saying that Peter some 3 years after he received the Holy Spirit that taught him all things and remembrances of Jesus’ words issued a false command to baptize with water.

    are you thinking that by that time Peter had become infallible ? The record in Acts 10 actually indicates a reason as to why Peter may have issued his water baptism command … astonishment at the fact that Gentiles (without first becoming proselytse to Judaism and undergoing a water baptism) had been baptized with holy spirit. I see the greater character displayed by Peter in changing his mind after remembering the words of Jesus about water baptism being superseded by holy spirit baptism.

    Wow Luke must have hated Peter to make him out such a fool or maybe you are just reading into it what you want.

    WOW … what are you reading into the record? “Luke must have hated Peter …” ???? Luke did not at all make out Peter as a fool (maybe you are reading that into the record, due to your judgment of what happened?!) rather, he did record Peter’s own words in Acts 11 of how Peter acknowledged his error as soon as he remembered the words of the Lord!

    I ask you some very important questions pertaining to gifts you claim to be manifested in you. Wolfgang tried to throw me off the trail of the fox but was shown by passages he was in complete error anyway.

    you did not show any compete error on my part at all …. you only showed that you were apparently not able to read what I had written …. perhaps for the same reason you are regarding Luke to have been hating Peter or Peter to have been infallible, etc …?

  147. on 07 Mar 2013 at 8:56 amJas

    Wolfgang
    Peter issued the command because for 3 + years it was the practice of the apostles. All Acts 11 shows that these uncircumcised received the Holy Spirit upon hearing and accepting the Word of God. It does not state whether these men were water baptized or not. Acts 10 does make that clear that they were. I accept Luke’s account and motives but you for some reason can’t.
    Yes on the subject of using manifestations to heal I completely showed you were in error with your explanation that Jesus was not concerned with going about healing so why should Timothy

  148. on 07 Mar 2013 at 9:02 amWolfgang

    Jas,

    Yes on the subject of using manifestations to heal I completely showed you were in error with your explanation that Jesus was not concerned with going about healing so why should Timothy

    you showed that Jesus went about doing healings …. BUT those texts did NOT say that Jesus went about on healing “trips” healing every sick person everywhere without exception … I even emphasized the particular phrases in those verses which indicate that !

  149. on 07 Mar 2013 at 9:14 amWolfgang

    Jas

    Peter issued the command because for 3 + years it was the practice of the apostles.

    this is what you read into the records, but it is not what the records in Acts say … cp. Acts 2 and what happened at Pentecost … where does Acts 2 say that the multitude there was water baptized in the temple area after they heard Peter’s sermon and adhered to his command to repent ?
    Other records of later events with baptisms in Acts simply state that those who believed were baptized … no mention of water there either, and the context mentions places as locations where there certainly was no pond, river or such.
    Believing what Jesus told his apostles in Acts 1:5 about water baptism and holy spirit baptism should make it rather plain what type of baptism the believers were baptized with after Pentecost when no water is mentioned.

    All Acts 11 shows that these uncircumcised received the Holy Spirit upon hearing and accepting the Word of God. It does not state whether these men were water baptized or not. Acts 10 does make that clear that they were.

    Indeed, Acts 10 and 11 indicate that the Gentiles received (were baptized with) holy spirit upon hearing and believing the Word of God. Now, you in your understanding actually add a second baptism (one in water) to the baptism which had already occurred and thus you insist that those who had been baptized by the lord with holy spirit needed to still be baptized with water afterwards ? So you think that even though hearing and accepting the Word of God had been fully sufficient for the lord to then baptize them with holy spirit, it was not sufficient (for whom) after all ???

    Acts 10 does NOT mention any water baptism … how can you say it makes clear that they were water baptized ??? What is made clear in Acts 10 is that they were spirit baptized by the Lord !

    I accept Luke’s account and motives but you for some reason can’t.

    Seems to me to be exactly the other way around … see above!

  150. on 07 Mar 2013 at 9:17 amJas

    Wolfgang
    Jesus commanded the 12 and also the 70 to heal everywhere they went when he sent them out.
    So yes he commanded healing trips for his disciples ahead of his own comings. My guess is you also claim the manifestation that heals .

  151. on 07 Mar 2013 at 9:27 amJas

    Wolfgang
    Acts 10 clearly states these men were commanded to be baptized in water by Peter. What Acts 11 shows was they didnt need to be baptized first or were not unclean. Water baptism was not performed on these men to make them jews or else all the baptizing done by Jesus and John would have been senseless. All Acts 11 shows was God was also giving the Spirit to the uncircumcised

  152. on 07 Mar 2013 at 11:33 amWolfgang

    Jas

    Acts 10 clearly states these men were commanded to be baptized in water by Peter.

    I have pointed that out plenty of times now … BUT you seem to not want to acknowledge that Acts 10 does NOT record that this command was ever carried out …

    What Acts 11 shows was they didnt need to be baptized first or were not unclean.

    What Acts 10 together with Acts 11 shows is that God made rather clear that water baptism was not necessary for baptism with spirit (which had superseded water baptism from Pentecost onwards) had occurred.

    According to your understanding, since water baptism was not needed first, why was it needed at all ?? What purpose did it serve? And where do we read that Peter taught these folks about that particular purpose?

    Water baptism was not performed on these men to make them jews or else all the baptizing done by Jesus and John would have been senseless.

    Why then — according to your understanding — was water baptism even performed ? What did water baptism of these Gentiles accomplish, for them, for Peter or for anyone else?
    Indeed, they needed not be water baptized in order to become proselytes … nor did they need water baptism in order to help them repent or demonstrate their repentance, etc ….
    So then what do you mean with your “else all the baptizing done by Jesus and John would have been senseless”?

    All Acts 11 shows was God was also giving the Spirit to the uncircumcised

    That is what Acts 10 shows and what obviously was a rather “astonishing” matter for Peter as well as his Jewish companions. Acts 11 shows that Peter at some time during the event remembered the words of the Lord (which we can read in Acts 1:5ff) in which the Lord had plainly declared that water baptism was to be superseded by baptism with holy spirit … which first occurred then at the day of Pentecost. Now this also means that prior to that “ah ha” moment when he remembered, he (for whatever reason) had NOT been thinking along those lines and obviously had considered water baptism … rather than fully realizing that the Gentiles had been baptized with holy spirit and therefore no water baptism was needed (as the Lord himself had told them !

    I certainly do not see how you read Acts 10 and 11 and come up with the ideas you have been proposing above …
    It might help if you could show from those records (and not from assumptions) in Acts 10 and 11 what the purpose or need for water baptism was? Why did the Gentiles need to be water baptized and on what did Peter base his water baptism command?

  153. on 07 Mar 2013 at 1:33 pmJas

    “I have pointed that out plenty of times now … BUT you seem to not want to acknowledge that Acts 10 does NOT record that this command was ever carried out … ”

    Wolfgang
    You can point all day but without proof it was not then what you Claim is a baseless presumption

    “According to your understanding, since water baptism was not needed first, why was it needed at all ?? What purpose did it serve? And where do we read that Peter taught these folks about that particular purpose? ”

    It was the means of signing the covenant. What comes first the words of a covenant or entering a covenant by accepting the words of it.

    Wolfgang I do not need to provide anything other then Peter commanding these people to be baptized with Water. But you can twist what you want ,maybe even you will convert someone here or there.

  154. on 07 Mar 2013 at 2:15 pmJas

    NASB ©
    And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.

    Wolfgang
    This verse is perfectly clear that at the time of their water baptism they then asked him to stay on for a few days.
    .

  155. on 08 Mar 2013 at 1:54 amWolfgang

    Jas

    It was the means of signing the covenant.

    so then water baptism is the means of signing the covenant? which scripture would you have in support of this idea?

    was it the means of signing the old covenant …if so, where does Scripture says so? if not, was there a different means given for “signing” the covenant?

    If it is the means of signing the new covenant, where are we told that water baptism is the means of “signing” the new covenant? If it was not the means for signing the old covenant, where are we told that the means changed to water baptism?

  156. on 08 Mar 2013 at 1:59 amWolfgang

    Jas,

    that Peter stayed on for a few days says nothing about them being water baptized.

    Taking Peter’s own testimony in Acts 11 into consideration, we can see even from Peter’s own words that there was no water baptism administered, because he does NOT mention anything about water baptism either being commanded nor carried out in his testimony about what happened with the houshold of Cornelius !! IF water baptism was the means of Gentiles entering the covenant (by the way, which covenant? the old or the new or some other?) one would most certainly have to expect that Peter would mention it in his testimony about the first time that Gentiles entered into the covenant

  157. on 08 Mar 2013 at 7:32 amWolfgang

    oops …. in rewriting the above comment, I failed to change a sentence. Where it reads

    … because he does NOT mention anything about water baptism either being commanded nor carried out in his testimony about what happened with the houshold of Cornelius !!

    I intended to write

    ” … because he does NOT mention anything either about the water baptism he had commanded being carried out in his testimony about what happened with the household of Cornelius !”

  158. on 08 Mar 2013 at 8:39 amJas

    “so then water baptism is the means of signing the covenant? which scripture would you have in support of this idea? ”

    Wolfgang
    Why was John baptizing for remission of sin when there was a sacrifice for remiision? when you understand this you will understand water baptism in a age without a temple or during a time when the temple priesthood was polluted with edomite blood.

    ” … because he does NOT mention anything either about the water baptism he had commanded being carried out in his testimony about what happened with the household of Cornelius !”

    Why should he mention water baptism when he was explaining that these uncircumcised had the holy spirit come upon them just like it had come upon them. God was just making a point to Peter that holy spirit could be given to uncircumcised without faith at the very hearing of the word. If God would not have done this teaching to Peter than he would not baptize with water the uncircumcised without circumcising them. So all this is showing God was accepting people into the Covenant without circumcision . These people were most certainly baptized with water

  159. on 08 Mar 2013 at 9:06 amWolfgang

    Jas,

    so then from your idea regarding the meaning of water baptism, it would follow that God would have taken holy spirit away from them again had they not “signed” the covenant by being water baptized?
    In other words, someone who hears the gospel and believes it, must be be water baptized or else forfeits their inclusion in the covenant?

  160. on 08 Mar 2013 at 9:08 amWolfgang

    Jas,

    aside from the above questions which arise from your take on the signigicance of water baptism, you did not give any scriptural support for God having determined water baptism to be “the means of signing the covenant” … where do we read about such either in OT or NT scriptures?

  161. on 08 Mar 2013 at 9:15 amJas

    “In other words, someone who hears the gospel and believes it, must be be water baptized or else forfeits their inclusion in the covenant?”

    Wolfgang
    Yes you can refuse to enter into a Covenant relationship or even break the covenant
    Answer the question why John was baptizing for remission of sin.

  162. on 08 Mar 2013 at 11:43 amJas

    Wolfgang
    You seem to think that no one other than Jesus ever had the Holy Spirit come upon them before pentecost . Many throughout the OT had it come upon them even a donkey, the 12 received it before they were sent ahead in Israel by Jesus,the 70 received it before they were sent ahead to areas surrounding Israel by Jesus, John was filled with it. Just because it came upon those doesnt mean t stayed . It was given for a purpose for ministry then removed. The Renewed Covenant promised the indwelling upon acceptance of it. In OT Entering the Covenant required the covering provided by the sacrifice which was to be made perfect by the blood of Jesus by faith that he would come in the future. John baptism was given the status of the sacrifice for remission of sin which pointed to Jesus’ sacrifice the same as the OT sacrifice which was for the washing away of sin. When some of the jews came to John to be baptized John ask them how they knew the Temple sacrifices were not valid because the High Priest was an edomite not a Levite.
    Water baptism was at the time of John the only valid way to enter the Covenant and after pentecost still is allowed as the way if you have faith it is the blood of the Lamb washing you clean and providing a more permanent covering then the yearly OT sacrifice

  163. on 08 Mar 2013 at 1:44 pmtimothy

    Wolfgang,

    And here is their problem:

    1 Corinthians 2: (kjv)
    14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

    And here is how they may cure their problem:

    http://www.amazon.com/Receiving-Spirit-Today-Victor-Wierwille/dp/0910068003

    and

    http://archive.org/details/ReceivingTheHolySpirit_75

    PS…Xavier has the ABC library

    Timothy

  164. on 08 Mar 2013 at 1:50 pmJas

    “And here is their problem:”

    Timothy
    I rather doubt this is our problem. Matter of fact this statement is offending

  165. on 08 Mar 2013 at 1:57 pmWolfgang

    Jas

    Water baptism was at the time of John the only valid way to enter the Covenant ….

    Indeed … and God had ordained it that way … in connection with “preparing the way”

    and after pentecost still is allowed as the way if you have faith it is the blood of the Lamb washing you clean and providing a more permanent covering then the yearly OT sacrifice

    why all of a sudden the change to “is allowed” … ? Are you indicating that it is NOT necessary ?
    I agree that the way is by having faith in Christ’s accomplished work of redemption and salvation … which has NOTHING to do anymore with an outward physical symbolic washing, but with the spiritual inward cleansing reality if one has faith in Christ’s work!
    Jesus words in Acts 1:5ff ring loud and clear ….

  166. on 08 Mar 2013 at 2:09 pmJas

    Wolfgang
    No I am not indicating it is not necessary , I am showing you it is the means of entering a Covenant Relationship with God when there is no temple or valid priesthood.
    Without shedding of blood there is no remmision of sin yet John’s baptism provided for remission of sin. After Jesus shed his blood as the sacrifice water baptism is showing our acceptance of that blood symbolically for remission of sin and as the blood required to enter into ANY Covenant

  167. on 08 Mar 2013 at 3:52 pmJas

    I would be very careful with subjecting yourself to the teachings of Wierwille .I have been reading up on him and have read many reports that he could brainwash people into doing anything. It has been charged that he brainwashed women to do sexual favors for him. So do your own research before subjecting yourself to him.

  168. on 08 Mar 2013 at 11:49 pmXavier

    Tim

    ABC library?

  169. on 09 Mar 2013 at 1:42 amWolfgang

    Jas

    No I am not indicating it is not necessary , I am showing you it is the means of entering a Covenant Relationship with God when there is no temple or valid priesthood.

    is there now a valid priesthood with a spiritual temple and a high priest after the order of Melchisedek?

    … After Jesus shed his blood as the sacrifice water baptism is showing our acceptance of that blood symbolically for remission of sin and as the blood required to enter into ANY Covenant

    Where does Scripture teach such symbolism?
    Jesus — after his sacrifice, his resurrection and shortly before his ascension — taught his disciples the following about baptism: “Acts 1:5 – For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.”
    Jesus did not teach that water baptism administered by John was to be followed by water baptism administered by pastors, apostles, preachers, teachers, or fellow brethren with the meaning of it being changed from providing remission of sin to symbol of accepting Jesus’ sacrifice … did he?
    Jesus taught that there would be a different baptism, a baptism with holy spirit, which would follow and supersede the baptism with water by John

  170. on 09 Mar 2013 at 1:51 amWolfgang

    Jas,

    I would be very careful with subjecting yourself to the teachings of Wierwille .

    My suggestion is to not subject yourself to the teachings of anyone … but rather follow this principle: “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1Th 5:21)”

    As I have mentioned a few times already, each one will be responsible for what they believe … and there is no hiding behind excuses such as “But Prof. so and so, Dr. so and so, Bishop so and so, Pastor so and so taught ….”

    As far as people and their personal sins and pointing fingers … perhaps someone is without sin here and can cast the first stone ?

  171. on 09 Mar 2013 at 9:47 amtimothy

    Xavier,

    ABC

    Atlanta Bible College

  172. on 09 Mar 2013 at 11:58 amJas

    is there now a valid priesthood with a spiritual temple and a high priest after the order of Melchisedek?

    Wolfgang
    Jesus only entered once. John baptism pointed foward to that just as all blood sacrifices did.After the ascension water baptism points back to it. There can be no ression of sin without the shedding of blood yet God provided water baptism pre resurrection as valid and all the Apostles used it after Pentecost . Peter even commands it for uncircumcised some 3+ Years after he was indwelled. So water baptism was symbolic of blood sacrifice in John’s baptism , it must have also be when Jesus performed and commanded it during his ministry. It was and is still for remission of sin and the symbolic means of the blood required of entering a Covenant with God.

    Wolfgang there is still no reason to subject yourself to the teaching of a man who had the power to deceive so many. I read that deprogramming from this cult surpassed all other cults in the 70’s

  173. on 09 Mar 2013 at 12:10 pmXavier

    timothy

    I still don’t know what you mean.

  174. on 09 Mar 2013 at 12:18 pmWolfgang

    Jas,

    your “explanation” about the meaning / symbolism of water baptism after Pentecost makes no sense and flat out disregards the words of the lord Jesus (as recorded in Acts 1:5, and as remembered by Peter in Acts 11) .

    As for your “Xavier type hype” about Wierwille … did you NOT read what I wrote about subjecting oneself to man’s doctrines and traditions in my earlier reply? Why are you implying that I am subjecting myself to someone when I have plainly told you and everybody else here what I think about subjecting to someone’s doctrine (no matter who that man might be) and that I obviously am promoting a NON-SUBJECTION to any teacher, whether he be a Prof, Dr., Pastor, Pope, etc ?

    In addition, I will give you a good advice … it is NOT a good idea to go by “hear say” and by what only one side of a story provides … Also, what is your definition of “brain washing” or “deprogramming” ? what is your definition of “deceiving” ?

  175. on 09 Mar 2013 at 12:39 pmJas

    “your “explanation” about the meaning / symbolism of water baptism after Pentecost makes no sense and flat out disregards the words of the lord Jesus (as recorded in Acts 1:5, and as remembered by Peter in Acts 11) .”

    Wofgang I really didnt think it would make sense to you anyway

    “In addition, I will give you a good advice … it is NOT a good idea to go by “hear say” and by what only one side of a story provides … Also, what is your definition of “brain washing” or “deprogramming” ? what is your definition of “deceiving” ?”

    Wolfgang
    My warning was not to you, it was to others. After reading actual testimonials of how he brainwash women into sex and also one that he lured into his motorhome then drugged them. Also read what happened to some when they tried to leave. This was a very dangerous cult. I am not accusing you or him of anything just saying it would be wise to read about him before reading from him.
    My definition of those words are standard.

  176. on 09 Mar 2013 at 5:12 pmXavier

    Jas

    Apparently even murder…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uH-fa15q8M

  177. on 09 Mar 2013 at 5:35 pmJas

    Xavier
    I just think people should research this man before possibly reading something that could deceive. I am not saying this group was a cult or not but they were very good in manipulation people thoughts.

  178. on 10 Mar 2013 at 2:28 amWolfgang

    Jas,

    “your “explanation” about the meaning / symbolism of water baptism after Pentecost makes no sense and flat out disregards the words of the lord Jesus (as recorded in Acts 1:5, and as remembered by Peter in Acts 11) .”

    Wofgang I really didnt think it would make sense to you anyway

    fine … but did you also think that it flat out contradicts Jesus’ own words in Acts 1:5?

    As for your warning that it was not to me but to others … you certainly gave a different impression from what you now claim. My comment advice to you was about a rather general principle of truth to not just go by one side of a story when giving any warnings or making judgmental comments about someone or something.

    I’m still awaiting your answers to what is your definition of “brain washing” or “deprogramming” ? what is your definition of “deceiving” ?

  179. on 10 Mar 2013 at 2:30 amWolfgang

    Jas,

    I just think people should research this man before possibly reading something that could deceive. I am not saying this group was a cult or not but they were very good in manipulation people thoughts.

    what do you mean with “manipulation people thoughts”?

  180. on 10 Mar 2013 at 2:39 amWolfgang

    Carlos,

    do you always fall for propaganda? trying to be the henchman?

    Just for clarification, so you and others don’t get a false impression: I am not involved with TWI or any other denominational group … thus I have no need to propagate any or defend any, unlike those who are involved in such “group” or “church” or “conference” or whatever.

    You should learn read and listen more carefully and on your own … so as to not be “brain washed” or “manipulated” (perhaps without even noticing it)

  181. on 10 Mar 2013 at 11:01 amJas

    Wolfgang
    I dont see any contradictions since both baptism take place in Acts 10 even though I really dont think the Holy Spirit causing them to Praise God in foreign languages was actually when they were baptized with HS. Peter had just began to speak so these people had not even heard the Word. God once actually caused a donkey to speak in tongues to prove a point.
    The definitions for all those words are found in any english dictionary .
    I do not understand why you would want any to read the book by Wierwille that Timothy said was a cure all for all our problem unless you are still promoting his doctrines.I am not telling people to not read it but be aware of the power to deceive this man possessed if you do.

  182. on 10 Mar 2013 at 11:56 amWolfgang

    Jas,

    I do not understand why you would want any to read the book by Wierwille that Timothy said was a cure all for all our problem unless you are still promoting his doctrines.I am not telling people to not read it but be aware of the power to deceive this man possessed if you do.

    could you point out where I wanted someone to read the book by Wierwille that Timothy mentioned?

    I have again and again stated that I am NOT promoting anyone’s doctrine but rather share my own understanding for which I take full responsibility … how is it, you somehow can’t get that into your head?
    Are you also claiming that – for example – folks here are promoting JW doctrine because they propagate a non-trinitarian doctrine similar in some aspects to the non-trinity doctrine taught by that particular group?

    Now, I would be interested to know what seemingly “special power to deceive” this man possessed? what did he supposedly do – apart from teaching his particular understanding? Are you trying to tell us that those who heard him speak or those who read his books are somehow “spell bound” or “bewitched” so that they can’t properly hear or read and think and decide anymore?

    Would it not be more appropriate to “shut up and be quiet”, unless you really know more and can substantiate what you propagate with more than what you’ve been fed by one-sided “propaganda” against that man and/or his group?

    And for clarification, as I have mentioned before, I am neither promoting nor defending the man Wierwille or Wierwille doctrine … just as I am not promoting or defending JW doctrine, or RC doctrine or Prof soandso or Preacher soandso doctrine.

  183. on 10 Mar 2013 at 12:13 pmJas

    Wolfgang
    Your defense of this man is the only thing you have done. My warning was about Timothy’s claim that this book was a cure all for our false beliefs which sounds like to me Timothy has raised this mans words to the status of God’s words. I think God’s word is very clear on the subject of water baptism and speaking in languages .
    So either this book has a way to deceive people or some have been deceived it is biblical.

  184. on 10 Mar 2013 at 1:36 pmWolfgang

    Jas,

    Your defense of this man is the only thing you have done.

    now where have I defended this man? and where has this been the only thing I have done?

    You seem to be deceived into thinking that when someone questions you and your position, they are defending someone with whose position you disagree …

    I have indeed cautioned you concerning your manner of how you have gone about with your accusations and one-sided propagandistic way of writing regarding this man … thus I have written concerning YOUR writings, while not commenting at all about the man’s books or writings. Why are you unable to recognize this rather simple fact?

    Just because he may be of a similar or same opinion as the one I hold regarding some aspects on baptism, does not make me “defend this man”, no more so than one would accuse Prof. Buzzard – just for example – of “defending the JW group” or some other “non-trinitarian group” because they do not – and as he does not either – believe in the trinity.

  185. on 10 Mar 2013 at 1:43 pmJas

    Wolfgang
    Ok It just seemed you were defending this deceiving man.
    So you would not agree with Timothy that this book was a cure all for our false beliefs .

  186. on 10 Mar 2013 at 4:20 pmWolfgang

    Jas

    Ok It just seemed you were defending this deceiving man.

    it should not have seemed that at all …

    So you would not agree with Timothy that this book was a cure all for our false beliefs .

    I say that no book of anyone will be a cure for false beliefs of someone … the cure is rather that a person with a false belief realizes their error and cures it by a more careful reading, study and comparison with Scripture.

  187. on 10 Mar 2013 at 4:30 pmJas

    Wolfgang
    I was only speeking about one person so how could it not seem that way.
    It is funny that you key on false beliefs while dancing around the question.
    Do you agree with Timothy or not in this post

    163 timothy
    Wolfgang,

    And here is their problem:

    1 Corinthians 2: (kjv)
    14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

    And here is how they may cure their problem:

    http://www.amazon.com/Receiving-Spirit-Today-Victor-Wierwille/dp/0910068003

    and

    http://archive.org/details/ReceivingTheHolySpirit_75

    PS…Xavier has the ABC library

    Timothy

  188. on 10 Mar 2013 at 5:44 pmJas

    From all my reading about this very dangerous cult I believe their founder was lead by spirit but that spirit was not of God. I believe this spirit was a deceiving spirit that 1Timothy 4 speaks of

  189. on 11 Mar 2013 at 8:25 amWolfgang

    Jas,

    From all my reading about this very dangerous cult I believe their founder was lead by spirit but that spirit was not of God. I believe this spirit was a deceiving spirit that 1Timothy 4 speaks of

    I looked up the youtube video to which Carlos had posted a link .. and listening to a little of the video and reading the first few comments, it seemed clear that the video itself is more bad propaganda than anything else …. firthand witness comments of people who were at one time in this group and who no longer are declared what the video claims as false …

    As For Timothy’s post to which you make reference above, I refer to what I already wrote previously … what I wrote in a more general way applies just as much in the individual case …

    Also, I have a different understanding of 1Co 2:14 and would not apply that in the manner Timothy did …

  190. on 11 Mar 2013 at 9:19 amJas

    Wolfgang
    Of course they claimed it false ,it would be incriminating if they didn’t .

  191. on 11 Mar 2013 at 10:29 amWolfgang

    Jas,

    really? now, IF their comments were the truth, what should they have commented and how should they have told their experience in order to not be accused as liars by you (since that is, what you in fact make the out to be)?

    How does one tell the truth and show that false accusations are false and not be accused in the manner you say above?

    I am astonished how easily you are “brainwashed” by such a video and similar propaganda … I would have thought you would be capable of more objective judgment on situations by more carefully considering and weighing what is actually said and stated.

    And to clarify again: I am NOT defending TWI or Wierwille !!
    I am in favor of truth and objectively evaluating information and arriving at a clear picture seeing through deception and one sided propaganda

  192. on 11 Mar 2013 at 11:03 amJas

    Wolfgang
    This video was not the only source for my conclusion, I have read many testimonials of the same plus many about authority influenced sex and drugged sex by the leader of this cult. Just how high up were you in this group?

  193. on 11 Mar 2013 at 12:36 pmWolfgang

    Jas

    I am sure you have read “many testimonials of the same” plus some others … as I mentioned before, I am in favor of truth and seeing through one sided propaganda (btw, a “one sided view” is problematic from either side)

    You ask how high up I was in this group … I don’t know, since I was not into “climbing a ladder” nor into “power games” and obviously “ruined” any opportunities for “going higher” by opening my mouth perhaps a few times too often and questioning the truth of what was taught on certain matters, etc. even in leaders’ meetings …

    Eh, perhaps I can’t blame “brainwashed” as an excuse because I took the principle of “make things your own” and “prove all things and hold on to that which is good” which was taught by the group more to heart than others and questioned things by comparing scriptures (sort of like I am doing here on the blog, and for which here I get the same flack and cross fire as I did then) …. on the other hand, this shows that many who claimed being “brainwashed” or whatever were a major part of their own problem, because anyone could at any time walk out and leave and also speak up …

    As for sexual misconduct … there most likely was much going on in certain circles — I do not know about it, was not in such circles. I do know this about sexual relationships: A woman can resist and refuse a man’s advances … if she doesn’t she gives her consent, except if she is physically forced against her will, which then is called rape. I have read some stories like the ones you may have read … and knowing the people involved, I have rather big doubts about them being raped … some may at the time even have consented rather easily in order “to gain something” and only later then changed “their story” …

    Again, I am not defending TWI or Wierwille … but I am in favor of a search
    for the truth and not being “brainwashed” by one sided propaganda.

  194. on 11 Mar 2013 at 12:37 pmWolfgang

    Jas,

    I’d like to hear your answers to my questions in #191

  195. on 11 Mar 2013 at 12:58 pmJas

    I have the right to draw my own conclusions based on the evidence presented. I also take into considerations the motives for making such charges and the motives of those who deny this ever happened. My conclusion is it happened but everyone should do their own research and draw their own conclusion.

  196. on 11 Mar 2013 at 1:56 pmWolfgang

    Jas,

    I have the right to draw my own conclusions based on the evidence presented.

    you most certainly hae such a right … and no one is trying to prohibit you from drawing your conclusions. Unfortunately though, some of what you regard as evidence is a far cry from evidence … as a careful evaluation of what is stated brings to light.

    I also take into considerations the motives for making such charges and the motives of those who deny this ever happened.

    It certainly is a good idea to take into consideration what motives people may have behind the claims they make …

    And for this reason I asked you my questinos in #191 about how you suggest someone should communicate the truth so that others can and will recognize it as truth rather than accusing the person of being a liar because they have already made up their mind and disregard motive in their conclusions. Now then, on what basis do you call those who speak up and question some (or even all) of the propaganda liars and basically judge their motive to be “not wanting to incriminate themselves”?

  197. on 11 Mar 2013 at 2:13 pmJas

    Wolfgang
    You have no idea the extent of evidence I am using. I would say if you throughly researched you would find a library of accounts about it. When I research something I use everything on both sides of the Issue to make my conclusion.

    “how you suggest someone should communicate the truth so that others can and will recognize it as truth ”

    No matter which side someone is on in this one of the accounts must be a lie. I think that having other independent accounts weighs very heavy on the charge being true. Yes there is a chance that someone heard about the other charges then made a false charge but that doesnt dispute other charges .

  198. on 11 Mar 2013 at 3:55 pmWolfgang

    Jas

    You have no idea the extent of evidence I am using.

    one doesn’t need to have an idea … just reading what you write is sufficient.

    I would say if you throughly researched you would find a library of accounts about it. When I research something I use everything on both sides of the Issue to make my conclusion.

    From what you have written so far, you have not been on both sides of the issue in the first place …

    No matter which side someone is on in this one of the accounts must be a lie.

    Most likely that would be the case … but then, how do you determine which one is exaggerating, making false accusations, etc. and who is telling the truth?

    I think that having other independent accounts weighs very heavy on the charge being true.

    which “other independent accounts” would there be … ? Over the years, I have not seen that many independent accounts … most had definitely an agenda and were not interested in the least about being “independent”!

    Yes there is a chance that someone heard about the other charges then made a false charge but that doesnt dispute other charges.

    There have been false charges made by people who were involved first hand … some for the purpose of trying “to take revenge”, some to make themselves look overly important, some perhaps even to get some financial gain, some to simply shift the blame for own stupidity on someone else, etc … and I can tell you, I KNOW without any need to read a library of false reports or true reports.

  199. on 11 Mar 2013 at 4:09 pmJas

    Wolfgang
    You obviously have an agenda in defending this group. Seems you were very high up in this group that you were considered the head over german groups and other european groups.
    To all concerned there is a virtual library on this group so please do your own research before exposing yourselves to their teachings

  200. on 11 Mar 2013 at 4:42 pmJas

    http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/spl_bibelCenter.htm

  201. on 12 Mar 2013 at 3:03 amWolfgang

    Jas,

    I can only laugh at the stupidity or incompetence of some folks … including that “Dr J.” website to which you refer folks here in order to slander me … and all because you have been shown that your theological take on certain things aint’t quite what the Bible says …

    Now, that well known “cult accuser” has been informed of his errors and the false accusations made about me … and continues with his false and slanderous propaganda. The LORD will repay him.

    Btw, if you want to believe that Dr. J. fellow, according to him and his “research” (should be called more accurately “outdated and unforgiving fantasy”) KingdomReady / Living Hope Church is in the same boat as I am … an offshoot splinter group of TWI. And we all are the devil’s workers for promoting the non-trinitarian doctrine of TWI …. as if TWI invented non-trinitarian teaching (just shows the level of knowledge this “Dr.” has)

    Maybe you should immediately leave this blog and denounce that you ever dared to participate here in such a “cultist blog” … but then, most likely, Dr. J would not believe you because you stepped foot on this ground … and his take on such things is “once involved, always the same”.

  202. on 12 Mar 2013 at 3:11 amWolfgang

    Jas,

    You obviously have an agenda in defending this group.

    eh sure …. ever thought that perhaps folks like me have suffered far more from having been involved at some time with this group than some folks who go on video and try and take revenge by “getting back at this group” for what might be sort of “peanuts” compared to what others endured ?

    Also, why are you calling me a liar? I have repeatedly stated here that I am NOT (can you read this word?!) defending either TWI or Wierwille) … and yet you continue to call me a liar! False accusations will not get you very far with the Lord … even if you supposedly meant it “good” in only harping along the same lines as some other more or less ignorant posters here who initiated this “TWI / Wierwille” when they were unable to answer straight forward arguments based on detailed exegesis of Scripture texts … the Lord will “reward” you …

  203. on 12 Mar 2013 at 8:46 amJas

    I was only interested in your rank. Are you saying you werent that high up in this , that all this about you is pure lies?
    How does this effect this blog when other than you and Timothy I have not seen any one promoting the invented doctrines of Wierwille .

  204. on 12 Mar 2013 at 10:37 amWolfgang

    Jas,

    according to Dr. J and his “cult warning propaganda”, the group hosting this blog is a splinter group of TWI and according to Dr. J. all those splinter groups are promoting Wierwille doctrines; in addition Prof. Buzzard who has posted here a few times on different subjects is also names right alongside TWI splinter groups as promoting a non-trinitarian doctrine (one of Wierwille’s “deadly sins” in the eyes of the Lutheran preacher Dr. J)

    You are on a blog where the major sectarian doctrine taught by Wierwille is upheld by quite a number of posters … and according to Dr. J. (as well as you ??? ) such folks are cultists and one must strongly warn against them.

    Your major problem with the above is, that you — just as the “cult expert” Lutheran preacher Dr. J. — seem unable to accept that people can change, unable to accept that people who may be wrong on a number of things could be correct in other points, unable to accept that people do not subject themselves to some “guru”, unable to accept that there are folks who for their own gain falsely accuse others, etc etc etc …

    A question: Would you refuse Paul’s epistles on the basis that at one time earlier on he was holding some high rank among those persecuting the church? I mean, how could anything he wrote be right on seeing that he went about imprisoning believers and killing them (btw, something Wierwille even according to the worst false accusers did not do) ?

  205. on 12 Mar 2013 at 10:52 amJas

    “A question: Would you refuse Paul’s epistles on the basis that at one time earlier on he was holding some high rank among those persecuting the church?”

    Yes if He continued to promote the manmade doctrines of the pharisees . Rejecting the trinity did not come from the way or even from here because even before I came here I rejected it. For the most part I have not seen anyone here promote the invented doctrines of Wierwille. Could Satan use part of the truth to lure people into his deception ? Yes

  206. on 12 Mar 2013 at 1:05 pmWolfgang

    Jas,

    but it doesn’t matter when you rejected the trinity doctrine … You now adhere to a core Wierwille teaching, a core Buzzard teaching … and according to the “cult expert” Dr. J’s way of judging you must have been brainwashed by some “cult” in order to deny such fundamental Christian doctrine as the trinity.

    So you are very much against Wierwille because he “invented” certain doctrines? I’ll tell you, some of your doctrines certainly seem to have been “invented” by you and haven’t been seen anywhere else …

    Getting back to the main points of the matter here: Some folks here – such as Prof. Buzzard and his son-in-law Carlos (Xavier) – obviously had no scriptural arguments when their understanding about certain passages of Scripture on the topic of baptism were questioned and they then decided to throw “Wierwille” in order to discredit me, false accuse me of propagating “Wierwille doctrine”, etc ….

    You jumped readily on their wagon … you know what, such action was often called “being brainwashed” in decades past and in connection with TWI / Wierwille.

  207. on 12 Mar 2013 at 3:05 pmJas

    “but it doesn’t matter when you rejected the trinity doctrine … You now adhere to a core Wierwille teaching, a core Buzzard teaching …”

    Wolfgang
    I dont care what Wierwille used as bait.

    ” I’ll tell you, some of your doctrines certainly seem to have been “invented” by you and haven’t been seen anywhere else ”

    I follow no doctrines, I do have some beliefs that I am trying to prove by reproof through discussion. I have state my purpose for discussing here and recommend that people prove and reprove themselves .
    I have no idea what Buzzard teaches other than the video Timothy posted which I didnt agree with on certain meanings of verses

  208. on 13 Mar 2013 at 2:09 amWolfgang

    Jas
    in reply to the point that you believe a core teaching of Wierwille, you wrote

    I dont care what Wierwille used as bait.

    Eh … neither do I care what Wierwille taught or wrote. I have already mentioned this a fwe times … and each time you reply with further comments about Wierwille which were obviously intended to discredit me and my beliefs.

    I follow no doctrines, I do have some beliefs that I am trying to prove by reproof through discussion. I have state my purpose for discussing here and recommend that people prove and reprove themselves.

    Neither do I follow other man’s doctrines, as I have also stated here before … I am not propagating nor defending anyone else’s doctrines. So then, why would you not allow others the same privilege as you desire for yourself and instead throw them in a “Wierwille box” and in effect calling them a liar when they state that they are no Wierwille propagators or Wierwille defenders?

  209. on 13 Mar 2013 at 8:13 amJas

    Wolfgang
    You put yourself defending this man and cult. I understand he decieved many good people that have now moved on.
    If you are one of those then dont push one of his manmade doctrines or books.

  210. on 13 Mar 2013 at 10:51 amWolfgang

    Jas,

    once again you do NOT give to others what you claim for yourself …

    eh, you are believing one of this man’s main doctrines … so what if you claim you came to that belief on your own or learned it somewhere else, doesn’t really matter, does it?

    Is it my fault that “this man” came to the same or similar conclusions as mine on certain passages of Scripture or certain topics ? Are you demanding that I forsake my belief on a certain matter because someone else has believed the same? Why don’t you forsake all those beliefs of yours which happen to also be part of the beliefs of different groups or individuals who are accused of misconduct or sectarian beliefs?

    Since you still don’t seem to have gotten it: I am NOT (repeat: NOT) defending “this man” and “cult” !

    Btw, you currently behave more like a “cultist” here on the blog than anyone else, demanding that I give up an understanding and belief I consider to be truth after many years of own personal study.
    Unless you want to forsake your beliefs which happen to be the same or similar to “this man’s” or his “cult’s”, why should someone else go so because of your suggestion or demand ?

  211. on 13 Mar 2013 at 3:29 pmJas

    Wolfgang
    This all started with me warning people to research TWI and Wierwille before subjecting themselves to their teachings. It wasn’t even an book posted by you but you came guns blazing defending them like I insulted you. When I posted the warning I had no idea you were a former leader so I ask just how high up you were and you claimed you were basically a nobody there. So I dug a little deeper to find you were pretty high up till your “man of God ” died. I have read a lot of your website and find 99% of it just parrots Wierwille with just a few exceptions. I dont care what you post here or there and will discuss anything you like but if you recommend that reading Wierwille is a cure for false doctrines like Timothy did then expect that I will post a warning that Wierwille had the power of deception so be on your guard reading him.

  212. on 14 Mar 2013 at 4:40 amWolfgang

    Jas,

    guess what … just about 99 % of what you have written here “parrots” what someone else in different Christian circles has written or taught over many years … some was taught by main line Christian religion, some by what those folks condemn as “cults”, etc etc ….

    Such is the nature of things when dealing with the Bible … there have always been others who have understood things and taught things in the same way as anyone of us does! Even some who were called heretics and cults by others had some things right, just as much as those who claimed to almost be infallible had some things wrong.

    It’s a big cop out when folks have no real answers when their belief is challenged and they then resort to what they want to call “well meant warnings” (such as “you are in a cult”, “you follow a dangerous man”, “you should forsake that heretic teaching”, etc.) … they should either acknowledge their error or else show from Scripture (without basing their understanding on “Prof. soandso, Dr. soandso, Preacher soandso, Scientist soandso, or the Church denominations all …”)

    Thus you won’t find me hiding behind anyone as far as my understanding and beliefs are concerned … I need no “Prof. / Dr. / Preacher / Writer” to resort to in order to blame them should an understanding turn out to be faulty … I take responsibility for what I understand and what I believe.

    That you – who know NOTHING first hand about “Wierwille” – would want to warn me amounts to “a luny tunes joke”. As I have mentioned before, which you perhaps conveniently have not even read or did not see while “reading”, I have pointed out to him on some occasions what did not appear to me to be correct in his teaching … (even in public meeting, when he asked what the audience thought of what he had just presented) … and I can tell you, that the reactions I got for doing so were not always pleasant (just as has been the case with some folks here who have given me equally unpleasant reactions when I pointed things out to them to be terrible fellows as well )

  213. on 14 Mar 2013 at 9:03 amJas

    Wolfgang
    I think I covered everything already.

  214. on 20 Mar 2013 at 11:00 amWolfgang

    Sean,

    as I gather from your note in another thread, you are writing again on the blog.

    I would like to read your answers to the questions I asked of you in the early comments to your article …

  215. on 24 Jun 2013 at 12:19 pmGigi

    There is only a baptism in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, because He was crucifed, died and was buried, and God rose Him from the death. We are going into this water baptism ,because we bury our own life with Jesus in the water and come out of the water beginning a new life with our Lord Jesus Christ. After our believing, repetance and baptism we come to our Heavenly Father. There is NO baptism in the name of the Father, Son and holy Spirit.

    According to the Biblical historian Dr. C. R. Gregory:

    The Greek manuscripts of the text of the New Testament were often altered by the scribes, who put into them the readings which were familiar to them, and which they held to be the right readings.

    More on these changes will be addressed later. Another writer said:

    A great step forward is taken when we propose to give manuscripts weight, not according to their age, but according to the age of the text which they contain. By proving how honest a text is rather than strictly how old it is provides us with a text which has content that is truly ancient. When we verify that a text is older than the fourth century, that it was current in the third or better still the second century, we still cannot be sure that it has not been altered. We need to try to verify that the text is pure text. There is reason to believe that the very grossest errors that have ever deformed the text had entered it already in the second century. What we wish to ascertain, however, is not merely an ancient text but an accurate text.

    Of course, “the grossest errors,” that this writer is referring to are not doctrinal errors, but the errors in the text itself. Not surprisingly tho, some of these textual corruptions occurred simultaneously with the respective doctrinal changes as they were being introduced in the early church. This historic falling away will be addressed later.

    Just as with the manuscripts, all extant Versions, containing the end of Matthew, also contain the Triune name. But, of course, there is more to be considered than what is present in a document. One must also take into consideration what is absent. Again quoting from the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics: “In all extant versions the text is found in the traditional [Trinitarian] form …though it must be remembered that the best manuscripts, both of the African Old Latin and of the Old Syriac Versions are defective at this point.”

    F.C. Conybeare further elaborated:

    In the only codices which would be even likely to preserve an older reading, namely the Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest Latin Manuscript, the pages are gone which contained the end of Matthew.

    So then, though all early Versions contain the traditional Triune name in Matthew 28:19, the earliest of these Versions do not contain the verse at all. And curiously, not due to omission, but due to removal! We can not be certain of the motives why these pages were destroyed, but for the sake of our study we are now compelled to consult the early historical writings

    Internal Evidence

    “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21) In this verse, the Greek word translated as “prove” is dokimazo, and it means, “to test, examine, prove, scrutinize (to see whether a thing is genuine or not), to recognize as genuine after examination, to approve, deem worthy.”

    In our efforts to determine which reading of Matthew 28:19 is original, we will submit both renderings to ten “tests”. In doing so, we will be able to recognize the genuine, and expose the spurious.

    1. The Test of Context

    When examining the context, we find that today’s Trinitarian wording lacks logical syntax, that is, the true understanding of the verse is obscured by a failure of the varying concepts to harmonize. If however, we read as follows, the whole context fits together and the progression of the instructions is comprehensible:

    All power is given unto me…go therefore…make disciples in my name, teaching them…whatsoever I have commanded …I am with you… (Matthew 28:18-20)

    2. The Test of Frequency

    Is the phrase “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” used elsewhere in the scripture? Not once.

    Did Jesus use the phrase “in my name” on other occasions? Yes, 17 times to be exact, examples are found in Matt. 18:20; Mark 9:37,39 and 41; Mark 16:17; John 14:14 and 26; John 15:16 and 16:23.

    3. The Test of Doctrine

    Is any doctrine or concept of scripture based on an understanding of a threefold name, or of baptism in the threefold name? None whatsoever. Is any statement in scripture based on the fact of baptism in the name of Jesus? Yes! This is clarified in 1 Corinthians 1:13: “Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?” These words, when carefully analyzed, suggest that believers should to be baptized in the name of the One who was crucified for them. The Father, in His unfathomable love, gave us His only Son to die in our stead, He being later raised to incorruptibility by the Spirit of God. But it is the Lord Jesus Himself who was crucified, and therefore in His name believers must be baptized in water.

    According to Dr. Thomas, in Revealed Mystery Article XLIV:

    There is but one way for a believer of ‘the things concerning the Kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ’ to put Him on, or to be invested with His name, and that is, by immersion into His name. Baptism is for this specific purpose.” “As for it’s significance, baptism is linked inseparably with the death of Christ. It is the means of the believer’s identification with the Lord’s death. – God’s Way, pg. 190. The Father did not die, nor the Holy Spirit. As the scripture says, “buried with Him (Jesus) in baptism,” not with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (Romans 6:3-5)

    R. Roberts used this explanation in “The Nature of Baptism”, page 13):

    According to trine immersion, it is not sufficient to be baptized into the Son. Thus Christ is displaced from His position as the connecting link, the door of entrance, the ‘new and living way.’ And thus there are three names under heaven whereby we must be saved, in opposition to the apostolic declaration, that ‘there is none other name (than the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth) under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.’ (Acts 4:12).

    This, of course, is the same reasoning offered by Paul. Were ye baptized in the name of Paul? Or in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or in any other name that replaces Christ from His position as the sacrificial Lamb and the only name given to us for salvation?

    Based on the above understanding alone, we can ascertain the genuine text of Matthew 28:19 confirming the use of the phrase, “in my name.”

    4. The Test of Analogy

    Does any other scripture make reference to baptism in the Triune name? No. Does any other scripture reference baptism in the name of Jesus? Yes! The Father baptized the disciples with the gift of the Holy Spirit, a promise that came according to Jesus “in His name.” (John 14:26) This is because Jesus is the “common denominator” [Literally: Name] in both water baptism and baptism of the Holy Spirit, as made apparent by the following scriptures:

    John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

    John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (See also John 7:39).

    Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

    Notice that they were baptized as a result of the preaching of the name of Jesus Christ, not the titles “Father, Son and Holy Ghost.” By analogy, we should therefore be baptized in Jesus’ name, because the invoking of His Name is the catalyst of understanding that prepares us for the baptism of the Spirit, which is also given in His name. (Acts 2:38-39, 19:1-5, John 3:3-5)

    5. The Test of Consequence

    When we are baptized, do we “put on” the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost? No. Do we put on the name of Jesus? Yes. When we are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, according to all baptismal accounts recorded in scripture, we are quite literally being baptized “into” the name of Jesus Christ.

    Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

    No mention is made in scripture of any baptism being related to the titles of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Every actual account mentions a clear connection with the person of Christ, and His atoning sacrifice.

    6. The Test of Practice

    Did the disciples, as they were implementing the “Great Commission” ever once baptize into the Trinity? Never! Did they baptize in the name of Jesus? Always! (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48 (inferred); 19:5, etc.) The argument has been made when defending Triune immersion; “I would rather obey Jesus, than to imitate the Apostles.” This kind of reasoning though, places the Apostles in rebellion, and makes all Apostolic baptisms contrary to the word of God. If all of God’s Word was inspired, and it was, then we should not try to pit one verse against another, but rather seek to reconcile all of God’s Word in proper context, and rightly apply it to our lives. It is easier to believe that the disciples followed the final instructions of Christ, than to believe that they immediately disobeyed His command.

    7. The Test of Significance

    What significance is mentioned in scripture for baptizing believers in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost? None. What significance is conveyed toward being baptized in the name of Jesus? First, scripture teaches that baptism in the name of Jesus is an act of repentance leading to the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). Second, baptism in His name alone is associated with the promise of God’s Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38, 19:1-5). Third, baptism in the name of Jesus is compared to our personal willingness to be living sacrifices or even die with Christ. (Romans 6:1-4 and Colossians 2:12). Fourth, being baptized into Christ is how we ‘put on’ Christ (Galatians 3:27). Fifth, baptism in His name is called the “circumcision of Christ,” and reflects our “putting off” of the man of sin, therefore becoming a “new creature in Christ Jesus.” (Colossians 2:11-12, 2 Corinthians 5:17). Baptism in the name of Jesus expresses faith in the physical life of Jesus, the crucifixion of the Son of God for our sins, and the remission of sins through His name. Trinitarian baptism can only express faith in Catholic theology itself.

    8. The Test of Parallel Accounts

    Matthew 28 is not the sole record in the gospels of the “Great Commission” of the Church. Luke also recorded this event in great detail. In Luke 24:46-47, he wrote of Jesus speaking in the third person: “And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations.” This passage alone, in contradiction to the falsified text, establishes the correct wording of Matthew 28:19, where Jesus spoke in the first person, “in my name.” Further, the Gospel of Mark also records another version of the “Great Commission,” using some of the same patterns of speech: “Go ye…all the world…preach the gospel…every creature …baptized…in my name…” (Mark 16:15-18) Of course, it is not baptism that “in my name” refers to here, but rather the works that the disciples would do. Yet compared to Matthew, the similarity is striking, for neither is baptism explicitly mentioned there, but that disciples should be made, “in my name.”

    9. The Test of Complimentary Citation

    While there is no text that offers a complimentary citation of Trinitarian baptism, there is a striking resemblance between the actual wording of Matthew 28:18-20 and Romans 1:4-5. Matthew contains the Commission of Christ to His Apostles, while the Romans account is Paul’s acceptance of his own commission as an apostle. Consider the following similarities:

    Matthew 28:18-20………………………………….Romans 1:4-5

    “all power is given unto Me”……………………“the Son of God with power”

    “Go ye” ………………………………………………. “received…apostleship”

    “teaching them to observe”………………………“for obedience to the faith”

    “all nations”…………………………………………..“all nations”

    “in My name”…………………………………………“for His name”

    10. The Test of Principle

    It is written: “whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus…” (Colossians 3:17). In this principle laid down by Paul, the implication is clear. The word “whatsoever” would of certain necessity include baptism, which is a command involving both word and deed. The traditional wording of Matthew, containing the Trinitarian wording, is clearly not in accordance with the above principle. The shorter wording, without the falsified insertion, follows this principle. This establishes which of the two wordings is the contradictory one. God’s Word does not contradict itself; rather it compliments and completes itself. Paul not only expressed this principle, but he applied it specifically to the topic of baptism. In Acts 19:1-6 there is an account concerning the disciples of John who had been baptized under his ministry. Like baptism in Jesus’ name, John’s baptism was one of repentance for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4, Acts 2:38). John message, which accompanied his baptism, was that One would come after him, who would “take away the sins of the world” and “baptize with the Holy Spirit.” Paul introduced these disciples to that One, and applied the above principle re-baptized them. “When they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came upon them…” And so, applying the test of principle to our two readings in Matthew 28:19, we find very strong support for the phrase “in My name.”

    Should you be Re-Baptized?

    After restoring the text of Matthew 28:19 to its original form, I.e., “Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations in my name,” the following question naturally arises: “I was baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Since this is not Biblical, should I be re-baptized?” Rather than answer according to our own wisdom or bias, let us find the answer to this important question in the Word of God itself, for that alone is the true standard against which to measure our experience with the Lord. Turning to Acts we find the answer.

    Acts19:1-6 And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” So they said to him, “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?” So they said, “Into John’s baptism.” Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.” When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

    By reading the above narrative, it is easy to discover the answer to our question. Paul found disciples, who like most of us today, had heard the message of the Kingdom of God, and had responded to that message by being baptized following our repentance. However, in this situation, these “disciples” had yet to hear the full gospel message, namely that Jesus, in His death, burial and resurrection had purchased salvation for all mankind by becoming the very Lamb of God that John had preached about. Because of this, their baptism, under the ministry and authority of John (who preceded Christ) did not reflect an association with the death and burial of Jesus that made baptism in His name effective.

    While we responded to the complete gospel message, they affirmed their belief by a baptism that only associated them with a doctrinal creed, rather than the atoning blood of Jesus that is only appropriated through His name. For Paul, the next step was obvious. Knowing that the promise of the Holy Spirit was given to those who through the obedience of faith had repented of their sins, and been baptized in the name of Jesus, he instructed them to be re-baptized:

    Acts 4:12…for there is no other name under heaven, given among men by which we must be saved.

    Was Paul mistaken? Or have we been? Certainly Paul was not, for according to God’s promise, He laid hands on the people and they received the Holy Spirit only moments after being baptized in His name. Remember, baptism in the name of Jesus expresses faith in the Incarnation, the authentic human life of Jesus, the death of the Son of God on the stake for our sins, and the remission of sins through His name. In summary, using the name of Jesus in the baptismal formula expresses faith in:

    1. The Person of Christ (who He really is);

    2. The Work of Christ (His death, burial and resurrection for us); and

    3. The Power and Authority of Christ (His ability to save us by Himself).

    For these very reasons, baptism was then, and should continue now to be administered in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. His Word, not the tradition and fabrications of men, should be the standard which we teach, believe and obey.

  216. on 25 Jun 2013 at 9:46 amGigi

    I agree with the article I have send to you, I have forgot to write the name of the person ..Lon Martin…

    If Matthew 28:19 is not a formula, like Sean and Anthony is teaching about, then I would like to know from both of them… When the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, why is God’s Spirit a second person? ( a person has a name,right) Matthew 28:19 does not make any sense, because all the other verses in Acts about baptism are in Jesus Name.

    We have to know why should we get a water baptism? In the authority of Jesus Christ or to claim that we died ( symbolic) with Jesus our old life and get resurrected ( out of the water ) going with Jesus into our new life.

    Only Jesus died on the cross, NOT the Father and Holy Spirit.

    God bless

    God bless

  217. on 25 Jun 2013 at 10:15 amJas

    Gigi
    Actually many names are just statements which have meanings especially in the bible . Jesus’ actual name Yahshua carries the meaning “Yah saves” or if Yeshua “He Saves” , Elijah means “Yah is my God” and even YHWH is a statement. So the Holy Spirit could also be a name

  218. on 16 Oct 2013 at 8:07 pmGary

    I am not an expert in this field of study but, so far as I have read there is not an existing papyrus for Matt. chap. 28. All we have to go by in general is what some historians have written. The theory that these writings are correct is no guarantee. Would that mean that Matt 28: 1-20 does not exist?

  219. on 17 Oct 2013 at 8:56 amXavier

    Gary

    Yes, just that one verse does not exist…the one after it is legit.

    I’m being flippant of course. :/

  220. on 17 Oct 2013 at 8:56 amJas

    Gary
    There are plenty of Greek and Latin MSS that have Matt 28 from mid 4th century up but there is no earlier witness other than the church fathers of which we have a major variant of Matt 28 19. The church fathers were completely ignorant of long reading in Matt.

  221. on 17 Oct 2013 at 3:14 pmXavier

    “There are now more than 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the NT. Add over 10,000 Latin Vulgate and at least 9,300 other early versions (MSS) and we have more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today. No other document of antiquity even begins to approach such numbers and attestation. In comparison, the Iliad by Homer is second with only 643 manuscripts that still survive. The first complete preserved text of Homer dates from the 13th century.

    Of the 142 books of the Roman history of Livy (59 BC-AD 17), only 35 survive; these are known to us from not more than 20 MSS of any consequence, only one of which, and that containing fragments of Books II-IV, is as old as the fourth century. Of the 14 books of the histories of Tacitus (ca. AD 100) only four and a half survive; of the 16 books of his Annuals, 10 survive in full and two in part. The text of these extant portions of his two great historical works depends entirely on two MSS, one of the ninth century and one of the eleventh.

    The extant MSS of his minor works (Dialogues de Oratoribus, Agricola, Germania) all descend from a codex of the tenth century. The History of Thucydides (ca. 460-400 BC) is known to us from scraps, belonging to about the beginning of the Christian era. The same is true of the History of Herodotus (BC 488-428). Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest MSS of their works which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals.” FF Bruce, The New Testament Documents.

  222. on 17 Oct 2013 at 4:14 pmXavier

    Was the New Testament Written in Hebrew?, David Maas of Seattle:
    http://youtu.be/aiMnAtmSyBY

  223. on 17 Oct 2013 at 10:23 pmJas

    Xavier
    I realize people like to claim the 5000+ Greek Mss as more than ONE witness but the fact is they are just copies of one witness but sometimes very poorly copied. Most of the Latin are also copies of some post 4th century source. David as usual leaves out many witnesses for a Hebrew Matthew original and also uses a fallacy when explaining the Greek text shows no sign of being translated from Hebrew ,a statement which many scholars of the hebrew language will dispute. The current english translation are in perfect english because they were translated and interpreted into good english which if they were word for word translations of the Greek or even the Hebrew OT they would almost impossible for an english reader to understand . You can not tell whether the current ones use the Greek, Latin or Hebrew because along side the translation comes the interpretation . So claiming the whole Greek NT does not show signs of being translated is a less then honest statement.
    I think God wanted us to prove and reprove and that is how His Word was to be preserved . Satan could also be using the Greek NT is without flaw statement to keep people from searching for the truth

  224. on 18 Oct 2013 at 12:30 amtimothy

    Hello JAS,

    I remember in times past where you,JAS, Wolfgang and myself had a wonderful discussion going about the Matthew 28:19 harmony. My position is still based on John the Baptist prophesy that someone was coming to baptize with holy spirit rather than water and Jesus Christ, the man himself, saying that the disciples would be baptized with holy spirit soon. And they were at Pentecost.

    Jesus spoke to the disciples about how the parakletos would bring to their remembrance words he had spoken.

    He, Jesus, did just that, after Cornelius’ holy spirit baptism, when he, Jesus, brought to Peters remembrance about:

    Acts 11: (kjv)
    16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy[hagios] Ghost[pneuma].

    There is not a single verse where a disciple or even the apostle Paul says:

    Then remembered I the word of the lord:

    Matthew 28: (kjv)
    19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

    Our discussion came to a screeching halt when a “moderator” intervened with his opposing opinion, which supports water baptism.

    Wolfgang and I have faithfully followed your comments ever since.

    PEACE

    timothy

    PS JAS, what do you think about this:

    http://video.foxnews.com/v/2746895256001/is-the-cosmos-telling-us-the-end-is-near/

  225. on 18 Oct 2013 at 2:04 pmJas

    Timothy
    Its very interesting that 2013-14 these events fall upon these times but as far as Israel becoming a nation and the six day war it would not be of any importance because they were not God sanctioned events. I do however see we are in the middle of Last 49 year(120th) Sabbath and the 70th week(week of weeks 49years each) of Israel’s existance which may mark the last 1260 Sabbath days(42 months worth of Sabbath days)of which the beast is allowed to exercise ruling authority.
    I do however believe satan and Zionist will stage a second coming in the next 4 years which will deceive almost everyone upon the earth.

  226. on 18 Oct 2013 at 2:23 pmJas

    Timothy
    I do miss yours and Wolfgangs input even though we we not in agreement on some things. I have learned much because of the challeges you two have presented to my beliefs plus the unity in some.

  227. on 23 Mar 2014 at 3:43 amGiselle

    I had a debate about Matthew 28:19, and nearly I did believe that Matthew ist not corrupt.All Trinitarian take the verse to proof that the trinity is biblical, and now Unitarin say..it is biblical!. When they baptized in the Name of the Father, Son and holy Spirit they immersed the person three times. The Apostolic Tradition by Hippolytus ( a.d 200-235) chapter 21.12-18…..I believe and so he is baptized the THIRD time.
    In Ephesians 4:5 one Lord, one Faith, ONE Baptism.

    This does not mean, that we can’t get a re baptism because we did not know the right meaning about baptism when we where first baptized. NO, it means that the Church was baptism the person three times, because according to the words… in the Name of the Father ( first baptism) in the Name of the Son ( second baptism) in the Name of the holy Spirit( third baptism) and this is not biblical. The bible declared itself.

  228. on 05 Apr 2014 at 12:39 amWinstonCapilitan

    we back the history of the counsel of nicaea 325 A.D,that the trinitarian theologian very dominant on that council like Athanasius and tertullian and other trinitarian defenders,but the original Hebrew Bible did not mention the word-Father,Son and the Holy Ghost.this is added words during the great controversy between trinitarian defenders and Ariansim,the demons change and penetrate even the translation of the Bible,remember the book of ISAIAH 44:8-God said.there is no God:I know not any.ISAIAH 43:10-11,before me there was no God formed,in Baptism-i ask anybody why the APOSTLES ignored of the great commission in MATTHEW 28:19-we can’t read even single verse in the Bible that the APOSTLES their baptism in the Name of the Father.Son and the Holy Ghost,therefore the 28:29- this is corrupted verses-Luke 24:47-the Bible said repentance and forgiveness in his Name beginning at Jerusalem-trinity doctrine beginning at the council of Nicaea,open your mind-Authority is common noun is not Name of a person-FATHER,SON and the HOLY GHOST is not Names they are titles of the only God of ISRAEL,the baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ is not confession that’s the actual word and acts in the water,ACTS 8:12-

  229. on 05 Apr 2014 at 12:57 amWinstonCapilitan

    you know trinitarian preacher during their baptism ceremony they said i baptized you in the Name of Father,Son and the Holy Ghost-i ask anybody who;s the Name of the Father? who’s the Name of the Son? who’s the Name of the Holy Ghost?28:19-trinitarian preacher said this is the word of Jesus.why are you copyright words from Jesus unto the water?they used the titles in actual water baptism and they are not used the proper Name in Actual baptism, therefore this is a false added words by the Pagan Religion,

  230. on 08 Apr 2014 at 1:03 amWinstonCapilitan

    The Catholic University of America in Washington,
    D.C.1923,New testament Studies Number 5,
    by Bernard Henry Cuneo.
    page 27,

    the Lord’s command to Baptized an Historical investigation,
    A.the passage in Acts and the letters of St,Paul.the passages seem to point to the earliest form as baptism in the Name of the Lord”also we find”is it possible to reconcile these facts with the belief that Christ commanded his Disciples to baptize in triune form?had Christ given such a command,it is urged,the Apostolic Church would have followed him,and we should have some trace of his obedience in the new testament.no such trace can be found.the only explanation of this silence,according to the Anti-traditional view is this Christological{JESUS NAME}formula was{the}original,and the longer triune formula was a later Devlopment,

    CATHOLIC CARDINAL:Joseph Ratzinger,

    A.He make this confession as to the origin of the chief trinity text of MATTHEW 28:19-the basic form of our{MATT.28:19 trinitarian}profession of faith took shape the during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism,so far as its place of origin is concerned,the text{MATTHEW 28:19}came from the city of Rome,the trinity baptism and text MATTHEW 28:19-therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around A.D.33-it was rather as the evidence proves a later few know about these historical facts,

    we back the time of Eusebius.he was present during the first council of Nicea in 325 A.D.and he knows what the real event and hidden agenda during that council.remember Catholicism was very powerful on that time,execution very rampant of the Roman nation they are persecute their enemy without mercy,

    A Critical and Exegetical Commentary
    of St.Matthew.
    third Ed.1912,
    page 307-308,

    the Eusebius:quotation”GO DISCIPLE YE ALL NATION IN MY NAME,

    Baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins,

    because the early preachers preaches that the Name of JESUS CHRIST is the Name above every Name…
    Acts 3:5-6,and he gave heed unto them,expecting to receive something of them-then Peter said,Silver and Gold have i none:but such as i have give i thee:in the Name of JESUS CHRIST of Nazareth rise up and walk,……….the entire book of Epistles of the Apostles you did not find-the word Father,Son,and the Holy Ghost for remission of sins,i tell you frankly your sins or the sins of the people are not forgiven unless you receive the Baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ in the Water-Acts 4:11-12,Acts 10:47-48,Gal.3:27,Col.3:17,

  231. on 10 Apr 2014 at 6:27 amTimoteo

    WinstonCapilitan,

    We are in concert?

    Acts 1: (kjv)
    5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

    1 Corinthians 9: (kjv)
    24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.

    Philippians 3: (kjv)
    14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

    keep an eye on *THE PRIZE*

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMsueOnu0kY

  232. on 21 Jun 2014 at 9:33 amGigi

    ( Jas )
    Jesus’ actual name Yahshua carries the meaning “Yah saves” or if Yeshua “He Saves” , Elijah means “Yah is my God” and even YHWH is a statement. So the Holy Spirit could also be a name
    Yeshua is a person, Elijah is a person does it means the Holy Spirit is a person, if it is a name? I believe that the Holy Spirit is God’s Spirit.

    If Matthew 28:19 is the right scripture, then it say that God’s Holy Spirit is an extra person. Only the catholic church is teaching that the Holy Spirit is a person and many other churches are following this statement.

    ( Winston Capilitan)

    CATHOLIC CARDINAL:Joseph Ratzinger,

    A.He make this confession as to the origin of the chief trinity text of MATTHEW 28:19-the basic form of our{MATT.28:19 trinitarian}profession of faith took shape the during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism,so far as its place of origin is concerned,the text{MATTHEW 28:19}came from the city of Rome,the trinity baptism and text MATTHEW 28:19-therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around A.D.33-it was rather as the evidence proves a later few know about these historical facts.

    Anthony told me that Cardinal Ratzinger was lying about this topic, but why should he ?
    Everybody knows that the earler MSS where burned. I believe in the scripture and I did not find any baptism in the scripture.. in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, than in Matthew 28:19. That’s why I believe Jesus did not spoke these words, they were added by the catholic church.

    God bless

  233. on 21 Jun 2014 at 10:31 amJas

    Gigi
    Whether or not The Holy Spirit is a person it does not make it equal to God like the catholic church taught.
    Btw welcome back

  234. on 21 Jun 2014 at 2:51 pmGigi

    Jas

    I do not know if I did understand you the right way, because english is not my mother language.

    Do you believe the Holy Spirit is a person?
    I believe the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, because the Holy Spirit came as a shadow over Mary and the Son she has given birth to is the Son of God. Am I right?

    That’s why I believe the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God and God has given His Holy Spirit to His Son Jesus , and Jesus has given the Holy Spirit to us. Am I right ?

    I am not a catholic.

    God bless

  235. on 21 Jun 2014 at 3:32 pmJas

    Gigi
    Yes I believe the Holy Spirit is a person seperate from God’s person. I believe it came in the Yhwh many times in the OT as the visible Yhwh. I believe it is spoken of as Lady Wisdom but can manifest as either masc or fem. I believe It was the first created by the One and Only Most High. God could not be in the presence of man after the fall there every instance had to be a different spiritual being to work as a mediator .
    I also believe It indwelled the body of Jesus at his baptism and was the source of knowledge and miracles . I do not believe It indwells others but believe they receive a holy spirit which teaches and guides them. These are just spiritual beings commonly refered to as angels. From Rev 5 I see Jesus is still indwelled by The Holy Spirit. Yes Jesus was given authority over the angels so yes I believe he could send them.. The Fact is you can not have a visible Yhwh on earth while having an invisible YHWH in Heaven without atleast two persons existing.

  236. on 22 Jun 2014 at 9:35 amRay

    I’ve heard some tell of how the Holy Spirit is a person, because he can be grieved, and to be grieved one must be a person.

    So if that is their definition of what a person is, something or someone that may be grieved, then to them the Holy Spirit is a person.

    It seems to me that the Spirit of God may manifest itself as a being, if that’s what God wants to do.

    I found it rather disappointing to hear about how wonderful a weekend class was on the Holy Spirit, how people learned so much, but when I asked if anyone spoke in tongues…well, I guess they didn’t.

  237. on 22 Jun 2014 at 9:36 amRay

    My soul can be grieved. Is my soul a person? It is a part of me.

  238. on 22 Jun 2014 at 11:49 amGigi

    Jas,

    God spoke to Mose in Exodus 7:1 Then the Lord said to Moses, “See, I make you (as) God to Pharaoh, and your brother AAron shall be your prophet.

    Do you think Jas that Mose were God, because God told him he will be God to Pharaoh?

    God always needed a person who did His will on earth. The last person was His Son Jesus Christ.

    It was not the Holy Spirit who walked on earth, it was someone God has chosen to do His will on earth.

    If you think the Holy Spirit is s separate person, then the Holy Spirit is the Father of Jesus Christ and not God.

    This is not the truth, because God is the Father of Jesus Christ and God overshadowed with His Holy Spirit Mary.

    Jas, we have a spirit it belongs to me without my spirit I can’t do anything. The Holy Spirit is God’s Spirit He is doing everything. With His Spirit He created the earth. Read it in the Old Testament.

    Ray, christians who got the Holy Spirit, you are able to see it in their doings and not in their talking in tongues. When we understand the bible and we are doing God’s will, then we have the Holy Spirit inside of us. God’s holy Spirit tells us when we are doing wrong. God is warning, comforting us, love us… with His holy Spirit.
    The holy Spirit is not a person it belongs to God.
    In Moses God was visible on earth and in Jesus God was visible on earth.

    God bless

  239. on 22 Jun 2014 at 12:12 pmJas

    Gigi
    God never told Moses he could say he was Yhwh. Abraham was visited by someone who identified himself as Yhwh. This Yhwh was accompanied by 2 other spiritual beings we later find our were angels of Yhwh.
    I realize many groups have tried to explain this but never in truth of what the bible says.
    Jesus was the Son of God in many ways but was not the biological son. The virgin birth myth was added to attract pagans into the apostate church some hundred years after Jesus’ ministry.
    Why not just believe what is said about Lady Wisdom Aka The Holy Spirit which Jesus himself called Mother in the original gospel of Matthew which was in Hebrew.
    Why not understand “Let Us” and the word Elohim in the plural as used in Creation account . Why not understand how mankind was created in the image of the Elohim(plural) male and female. Why try to explain it away baselessly.

  240. on 22 Jun 2014 at 3:40 pmGigi

    Jas,

    God spoke to Mose in Exodus 7:1 Then the Lord said to Moses, “See, I make you (as) God to Pharaoh, and your brother AAron shall be your prophet.

    Yes, God always send someone that people know God was with them. He send His Son at last.

    Jas, it is unbelievable to me what you are telling about the birth of Jesus.

    I do not know where you are from. Before Jesus comes back there will be a lot of false religion. I believe God beget Mary with His Holy Spirit and that’s why Jesus is the Son of God.

    How did God created the world? With His word, right?

    In Christ.

  241. on 22 Jun 2014 at 3:48 pmRay

    I believe the scripture teaches that God begat Jesus through Mary, and that this divine conception is part of his being the Son of God.

  242. on 22 Jun 2014 at 5:29 pmJas

    God spoke to Mose in Exodus 7:1 Then the Lord said to Moses, “See, I make you (as) God to Pharaoh, and your brother AAron shall be your prophet.

    Gigi
    God told Moses “See, I make you (as) Gods(Elohim) to Pharaoh” not the singular El.
    Actually long before the virgin birth doctrine Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew. Before the end of 1st century Bartholomew had already went as far as India with this gospel. This gospel was lacking the birth narrative . The first mention of Luke’s gospel was when Marcion brought it to Rome .This gospel was lacking birth narrative also. In the Catholic version of bible no one other than these 2 books has a clue, not Luke of Acts,Paul ,Peter etc. which if it were true would have been a great great thing to mention.
    There is no prophecy pointing to it other than a bad translation Of Isaiah .
    False religion started very quickly after the church began and has not stopped since . I will take the oldest source over what the catholic church claims.
    But you have liberty to choose for yourself

  243. on 22 Jun 2014 at 9:06 pmSheryl

    Hi Jas and all….

    I considered the account in Isaiah a “foreshadowing” of Jesus’ birth via a virgin. I believe the account in Isaiah was describing a child born of a “young woman”…not a woman who had never known a man which is how Jesus’ virgin birth is described.

    Whether or not Mary was a virgin really makes no difference to my faith…I still believe Jesus is the Son of God as well as Son of Man, as he described himself. I don’t recall Jesus correcting the Pharisees when they accused him of saying he was THE Son of God. I think there is a difference between THE Son and A Son…as we are all “sons” of God.

    Jesus was The Son in a particular and special way…and as such was the first born of a new creation of resurrected humans. Those who die “in Christ” will be resurrected at Jesus’ coming and will be brothers and sisters in true spirit with Jesus.

    On that resurrection day there are going to be a lot of people with a lot of questions, no doubt!! God bless.

  244. on 22 Jun 2014 at 9:36 pmJas

    Sheryl
    You are absolutely right that there is a major difference between The Son and A Son. The fact is Solomon was called The Son Of God directly by God but fell from this status later in life. He chose fame and riches over his Father God.
    Jesus however was offered all this by Satan but turned it down chosing his Father. The fact is every Davidic king was anointed The Son of God but none remained true to their Father.
    It was the Pagan religions that required the virgin birth because without it their God was greater and the church of Rome seeing the riches of the pagans gave them what they wanted

  245. on 23 Jun 2014 at 8:59 amGigi

    Jas,
    in my bible it say in Exodus 7:1…See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh… and the Amplified Bible writes 7:1.. Behold I make you as God to Pharaoh ( to declare My will and purpose to him)

    There you can see that God took a man to declare His will and purpose.
    God took Mary to beget her that He has a Son who did God’s will and purpose.

    In Christ
    Gigi

  246. on 23 Jun 2014 at 9:06 amJas

    Gigi
    In your bible it has been translated god but in fact in Hebrew it is plural masc-fem.

    This is from a fellow unitarian who has been spoken of highly here

    http://www.torahofmessiah.com/virginbirth.html

  247. on 23 Jun 2014 at 1:37 pmJas

    Gigi
    I realize the virgin birth is an important part of your faith .You seem to think that not blieving is something new and rare. Well it is not new ,many councils were called over this subject and many christians were murdered, imprisoned ,exiled and writings burned by the romish church who needed this myth to propagated the lie that Jesus was God in the flesh. Century after century the true unitarian church in the wilderness denied the virgin birth with many going to their death. It was not till the reformation that Unitarians allowed this myth to be part of their faith .
    There are 10’s if not 100’s of million christians who do not believe in virgin birth which all are unitarian. If God literally fathered Jesus then Jesus was a god not a human and did not really die .

  248. on 24 Jun 2014 at 2:23 amGigi

    Jas,

    Jesus is a human and His Father is God. Jesus told this too. He knew that God is His Father. He spoke this to Mary and Joseph when He was in the temple( I am in my Father’s house)

    Jesus died on the cross and there is only one God..the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacobs, and God has a Son and this is the human Jesus who was born from a virgin woman. This is the only miracle in the bible, and it is not important for Jesus because He knew everything. For us it is important to love God through Jesus Christ to stay with His commandments and to listen what Jesus taught about the Kingdom of God.
    When people put everything before this, then they want to put their eyes not on the gospel. They want to discuss and discuss, and this makes people tired and sometimes they go away from God and Jesus, because they do not like to discuss anymore. Satan is clapping his hands, and is joyful that he can make christian people looking away from the gospel. Jesus is sinless, thats why He could not get beget from a human.

    What does the bible is teaching? BELIEVE!!!!!!

  249. on 24 Jun 2014 at 5:29 amGigi

    Jas,

    it is more correct to say if we focus on debate, and it say…we should have more Faith.

    Jas, if you do not believe in the virgin begetting, then you do not believe either that Eve came out of a rip from Adam? Or do you believe that Eve came out of a rip from Adam?

    My Faith is that God can do everything, and because God beget a young virgin woman That does not mean that Jesus is God.

    God can’t beget himself. God wanted a Son and He spoke about His Son in the Old Testament. Jas, why should God choosen Jesus( as you believe he was beget
    from Joseph) He could choose any other human, but God wanted a real Son, that’s why He beget Mary.

    As I said before satan is twisting christians mind, and they believe what they want to believe, and not what God is telling us through Jesus His only begotten Son.

    May God bless you.

  250. on 24 Jun 2014 at 9:11 amJas

    Gigi
    This is too emotional of subject for you. I gave you reasons why I dont believe and gave you an excellent article.
    As far as Eve I dont believe God took a rib from Adam but did use the DNA of Adam to form Eve from the elements. Do you believe the myth that a woman has 1 more rib than a man?
    I do believe what the bible says as a whole ,just dont believe all is authenic or without corruption. This is why I also study the histories of the books that make up the bible to find the oldest proof of what was written.

    “. Jas, why should God choosen Jesus( as you believe he was beget
    from Joseph) He could choose any other human, but God wanted a real Son, that’s why He beget Mary.”

    Gigi
    Actually at that point in time Joseph was the Only way the prophesied Messiah could come and any woman of Israelite blood could have been his mother. Without Joseph as literal father than Jesus was not qualified..

    “and God has a Son and this is the human Jesus who was born from a virgin woman. This is the only miracle in the bible, and it is not important for Jesus because He knew everything.”

    Gigi
    If you accept Isaiah 7:14 as a messianic prophecy of virgin birth then you must Accept that Isaiah’s wife had The Son of God with God.

  251. on 25 Jun 2014 at 5:29 amGigi

    Jas, Isaiah 7:14 is a preview that Jesus will be born, nothing else.

    It is good to dig for the truth, but it is not good to analyze everything, because this will take your Faith away.

    This is what James is telling us..James 1:6-7.

    I read my bible and I pray and ask for wisdom to understand the word of God.

    Sometimes we find a great website and what this man is teaching is good, but if you follow without looking into your bible you will be surprised how false teaching is among good teaching. That’s wy we have to be alert in this times.

    May God bless you.

  252. on 25 Jun 2014 at 9:24 amJas

    Gigi
    Isaiah 7:14 is speaking of a sign to the King of Judah that Syria and Israel who were threating to invade Judah will fall before the child born of the young woman grows to know right from wrong.
    Absolutely nothing in this prophecy matches Jesus life.
    Why dont you read to whole story, its faith building when you see God protecting his anointed ones.
    The is no analyst needed , just a little history for time and context.
    Btw I follow no man but may agree with many ,several here in fact on a few subjects.
    As for faith trinitarians have great faith but its blind to the truth because they dont analyze what they have been taught .

  253. on 25 Jun 2014 at 12:19 pmJas

    Gigi
    James was not dealing with corruptions by the romish church he had the original writings or had knowledge of them. Paul says to test ,prove and reprove because corruptions had already started.
    My FAITH is increased everytime I expose a false teaching .
    All analyst can do is strengthen truth and expose lies, it can only cause you to loose faith in a false doctrine

  254. on 26 Jun 2014 at 2:23 amGigi

    Jas,

    I am sorry to tell you, but you are wrong about Isaiah 7. This chapter is talking about King Ahaz despondency and disbelief , and now important the PROMISE ( in german Verheißung) of Immanuel ( and this is Yeshua ..Jesus..)

    In Isaiah 9 you can read forward about Jesus.

    By the way I am NOT a Trinitarian!!!!

    God bless.

  255. on 26 Jun 2014 at 8:17 amJas

    Gigi
    The sign to King Ahaz has context in the time period of around 700bc. This prophecy was COMPLETELY FULFILLED including the child being born of the young woman.
    Jesus being born 700 years later was no help to Judah or King Ahaz.
    No Isaiah 9 is speaking of that time period too
    I know your not trinitarian but they have great faith in something they failed to analyze properly.

  256. on 26 Jun 2014 at 9:32 amJas

    Gigi
    One more thing to consider is there is absolutely no 2nd temple writing that expected the messiah to be born of a virgin. WHY?
    Because it would contradict every real prophecy made about him!

  257. on 26 Jun 2014 at 5:53 pmGigi

    Jas,
    we are not like minded in ths topic, let us stop this discussion about it, because I do not follow your believe about the virgin birth.

    It is so clear in Isaiah 7, but you don’t see the truth.

    The old Testament five books of Moses was given to the Jews and not to the Nations.
    The new bondage through Jesus Christ with God is also for the Nations we are stick into the tree.

    You see Jas there are so many teachings from Churches and Teachers and everyone say… I am teaching the truth…

    You have your faith and I have my faith and it is important to love God through Jesus Christ
    , to love each other and ask for forgiveness if we fail. God wil forgive us.

    It is normal that people have their own interpretation of the scripture. It is ok with me, I believe that the holy Spirit reveals the scripture to me. Sometimes I need time to understand, and sometimes I know exactly what is wrong or right.
    God bless

  258. on 26 Jun 2014 at 6:10 pmJas

    Gigi
    I have no problem with you believing in the virgin birth, nor do I have a problem with trinitarians as long as they dont condemn other who do not believe.
    Knowing both are false has not gave me any advantage as a christian . I still only have Grace and have fell short of being one of the elect but that is ok with me but not my first choice.
    Any one who has done the research will tell you the sign of Isaiah 7:14 was completely fulfilled in Isaiah’s day but some will claim some mystical dual prophecy .
    Believe what you want just dont condemn or make conditions using this myth

  259. on 27 Jun 2014 at 9:07 amGigi

    Jas,
    if you do not believe me, maybe you believe Craig Bluemel.
    I know many men believe a woman is not allowed to teach.

    You should have something in mind. Jews who do not believe in Yeshua as the Messiah will always explain the Old Testament different as Christian does. We believe in Yeshua( Jesus) that’s why we can understand Isaiah 7:14 in the right way.

    God bless

    Isaiah 7:14 Explained
    Immanuel, God With Us
    By Craig Bluemel

    Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

    Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
    Isaiah 7:14 Immanuel fulfilled in the Old Testament

    This study is aimed at finding the true meaning of Immanuel in Isaiah 7:14. Often this messianic prophecy is used as proof texts for the deity of Jesus Christ because of the words, “Immanuel,” (God with us). Contrary to popular belief, this passage does NOT affirm Jesus as God. In fact, once interpreted in context with the historical setting THE verse emphasize Jesus as a man.

    Isaiah 7:14 is set in a context of prophetic words uttered during Old Testament days when the kingdom was divided and at war against each other. At this time the probable date was 735 BC and the ten northern tribes were called Ephraim or Israel, while the southern tribes were known as Judah or the House of David, since the bloodline of their patriarch David was from Judah. The king of Israel was Pekah and the king of Judah was Ahaz. Both of these kings acted wicked and both had forsaken the way of Yahweh.

    · Isaiah 7:1-2 And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, but could not prevail against it. 2 And it was told the house of David, saying, “Syria is confederate with Ephraim. And his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind.” KJV

    Syria and the Northern Kingdom of Israel had formed an alliance against the menace of a revived Assyrian empire, and were determined to bring Judah into their alliance, overthrow Ahaz, share the spoils of defeating Jerusalem and substitute a Syrian puppet king there, the son of Tabeel. Gathering together their armies for the invasions (2 Chronicles 28), Syria leagued with Israel sent a shudder of fear through the outnumbered forces of Judah. The first attack was unsuccessful but it was all but certain they would not fail a second time.

    · Isaiah 7:3 Then said the LORD unto Isaiah, “Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shearjashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller’s field.” KJV

    God’s promise of deliverance came to Judah via the prophet in Isaiah 7:3-9.

    To prepare for the attack on Jerusalem Ahaz inspected the city’s water supply. God revealed to the prophet the precise thoughts running through the king Ahaz’s mind, and told him go to meet Ahaz, taking along his son Shear-jashub, presumably because of the gracious promise contained in his name, “a remnant shall return from captivity.”

    · Isaiah 7:4-9 And say unto him, “Take heed, and be quiet; fear not, neither be fainthearted for the two tails of these smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin with Syria, and of the son of Remaliah. 5 Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil counsel against you, saying, 6 ‘Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeel.’ 7 Thus saith the Lord GOD, It shall not stand, and neither shall it come to pass. 8 For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people. 9 And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah’s son. If you will not believe, surely you shall not be established.” KJV

    Even though Ahaz was an unrepentant and wicked king, God uses Isaiah to assure Ahaz of His deliverance, treating him with kindness altogether undeserved. Within sixty-five years Ephraim (Israel) shall be broken in pieces; by 669 BC. (Ezra 4:10) a large-scale immigration of Samarian (Israel) residents as the Northern Kingdom was truly, “broken in pieces,” and scattered by Asnapper the king of Assyria.

    Pekah king of Israel would be assassinated by his own kingly court as God’s judgment for the evil he plotted against Judah and Jerusalem. By the year 721 BC Damascus was forsaken (having been captured by Assyria in 732) and likewise Samaria, (which fell in 722 BC).

    · Isaiah 7:10-12 Moreover the LORD spoke again to Ahaz, saying, “Ask for a sign of the LORD your God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.” 12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD.” KJV

    In Isaiah 7:12 God’s offer of a sign of His deliverance is ridiculed by the arrogance and unbelief of Ahaz. The Lord offered a positive miracle to bolster Ahaz’ faith, inviting him to name whatever sign he desired. It could be anything from heaven above to earth beneath. But Ahaz, having made up his mind to put his trust in Assyria, put Isaiah off with a hypocritically pious pretext by misquoting and distorting the meaning of the commandment in the Law of Moses not to tempt the LORD (Deuteronomy 6:16). Later Ahaz would pay tribute to the king of Assyria with the sacred Vessels of the Temple in exchange for his help in defeating Israel and Syria. For this he would pay with his life and hasten judgment upon Judah and Jerusalem.

    · Isaiah 7:13-16 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. 16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that you abhor shall be forsaken by both her kings. KJV

    In Isaiah 7:14 the phrase, “a virgin shall conceive,” is most likely mistranslated; the Hebrew word for virgin is `alma and does not necessarily signify an untouched virgin (or maiden); rather `alma is used in the Hebrew Scriptures for a very young woman that has never been married, and therefore the assumption is that she is also a virgin.

    The man child born was to eat butter (curds) and honey as the standard diet, the result of the coming Assyrian destruction of the crops, as well as those of the neighboring nations (cf. 2 Chronicles 28). This diet would continue as the result of God’s judgment also upon Judah until the time stated in verse 16, “before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.” This was considered by the Jews as the age of legal accountability (doubtless twelve years of age) and would come about in the year 721 BC after the destructive campaigns of Shalmaneser V and Sargon.

    At this point we can begin to form conclusions as to the meaning of Isaiah 7:14 and the use of the word for the promised child’s name as Immanuel. The literal meaning of the text must first be applied. Within a short time after this prophecy was spoken Isaiah’s wife, a virgin at the time this prophetic promise was given, gave birth to a son as the “sign” God promised (Isaiah 8:1-4). Judah’s deliverance from Syria and Israel was the birth of her son, whom she later named Maher-shalal-hash-baz as God commanded her husband Isaiah in Isaiah 8:1.

    The boy’s name Maher-shalal-hash-baz means, “hasten to the booty, rush to the spoil,” and was to be the fulfillment of the “sign” God gave to Judah as a token of the successful Assyrian assault upon Damascus and Samaria. This assault would crush both those kingdoms before the infant boy shall have knowledge to cry, “My father, and my mother,” and the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria were taken away by the king of Assyria (Isaiah 8:4) within three years. This prophecy was completely fulfilled in the capture of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria in 732 by Tiglath-Pilesser III.

    Two questions must first be answered before we can properly discuss the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 and the name Immanuel as it applies to the birth of Christ in Matthew 1:23. First, why didn’t Isaiah name his firstborn son Immanuel? Second, some discrepancies are involved in the time sequences given, such as Isaiah 7:3, when Isaiah was commanded by Yahweh to take his “son” named Shear-jashub with him before Isaiah actually spoke the prophecy to Ahaz. Did Isaiah have more than one wife? That is very doubtful. How could he have another son then, especially since God said the sign to Judah would be the birth of a son to a woman that was chaste?

    This potential contradiction can easily be resolved by the Hebrew use of the word for, “son,” (Isaiah 7:3) as characterization or as members of a certain group, such as prophets. It is probable that Isaiah’s “son” named Shear-jashub is really one of his disciples, not a birth son.

    The only other mention of Immanuel is found in Isaiah 8:8. In Isaiah 8:5-8 God sends the prophet to rebuke Ahaz and Judah for its own wickedness, and their MISUSE of the words, “O Immanuel,” to boast that God’s favor was with them. You see, when God promised the sign that a virgin with child would give birth, He did not specify what HE wanted the child to be named, but instead He warned what the child would be “called.” Yahweh did not specify what He wanted the child to be NAMED until afterward. Compare the two texts below:

    · Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. KJV

    · Isaiah 8:3 Then said the LORD to me, “Call his NAME Maher-shalal-hash-baz.” KJV

    In Hebrew culture the father always named the firstborn son, and so God came to Isaiah, and told him what name he was to give the boy. In Isaiah 7:14 there is an open-ended statement concerning the name of the son to be born, perhaps allowing the House of David (Judah) one last chance to repent and make things right before complete destruction swept over them. Apparently instead of repenting Judah used the name, “O Immanuel,” as a sort of boast that God was “with them” because Assyria had brutally destroyed Samaria (Israel).

    Isaiah 8:8 is Yahweh’s burning anger against Ahaz and Judah for abusing the name of the promised sign (Immanuel) and using it as a sort of chant for their piety, when in reality they had bribed the king of Assyria by giving him the gold implements used in the Temple to attack and defeat Samaria. Yahweh brought heavy judgment upon Ahaz and his people. Because they refused to trust Yahweh the king of Assyria assaulted the House of David with unparalleled oppression and the tyranny of the Assyrian Empire.

    Immanuel may also have been the thankful cry when both parents (Isaiah & his wife) when they beheld the fulfillment of God’s word (i.e. – the birth of their son). But from this time on Judah lost its physical blessing as the heritage of the House of David. The prophecy would find fulfillment in the spiritual land of the promised Redeemer, the Messianic antitype of Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

    Scourged by Assyrian invasion Judah (as the House of David) would later realize its physical blessings vicariously thru Joseph, son of David and husband of the virgin Mary. Judah’s genetic ties (as the House of David) remained in place to be fulfilled in the life of Joseph who would be granted the privilege of raising Jesus to prepare him from childhood to one day become the promised Messiah and descendent of the throne of David.

    Matthew 1:23 Immanuel fulfilled in the New Testament

    When Joseph was betrothed to Mary she was a virgin and this was especially important in Hebrew culture where virginity is not taken lightly. When he discovered his new wife was pregnant before they’d even had conjugal relations, Joseph was devastated, hurt, broken, angry, worried at the shame it would bring to her, to her family, to him and to his family, and yet he was such a kind and merciful man of God, he decided to put Mary away privately, which involved transporting her far away where no one would recognize her.

    God had carefully handpicked this young married couple for a myriad of reasons, all of which cannot be discussed in the short length of this study. Three primary criterions had to be met in order for Yahweh to fulfill his promises to the patriarchs in the OT, especially to the House of David. David was a man after God’s own heart that was so beloved by Yahweh that God gave him a promise that one of his future descendents would one day ascend to his throne and rule over Israel in righteousness from that day forward. Joseph was descended from the line of Judah, from whence David came, so he met this important requirement according to the flesh.

    You can read more about the lineage of Joseph as it applies to Judah and the House of David in my study titled The Genealogy of the Messiah

    The second primary criterion was the need for a virgin woman to conceive the child. I discuss these reasons in my study titled Jesus, Descendent Of David, Resurrected Seed Of God

    The third primary requirement was for God to find a righteous man and wife who would raise the Messiah (or Christ) in such a way that would prepare him for his life’s purpose. Yahweh knew He would have to find someone whose faith was unshakeable and who would listen and obey implicitly. Mary gets the lion’s share of attention because of Christmas and Catholic influences upon Christian thought, but Joseph is deserving of no less recognition and in many ways, deserves more. How many men would embrace a pregnant wife and raise the child as his own on the basis of instructions given him by an angel in a dream?

    This is in fact exactly what Joseph did, and this foundational understanding is vital to comprehend the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 in the conception and birth of Jesus. Matthew 1:16-25 chronicles the events surrounding this discussion; also important to this discussion is Luke 1:26-2:52, & Luke 3:23. In Luke 3:23 is the proof that Joseph raised Jesus as his own son in the text that reads, “Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph.” (NKJV)

    Before describing how Isaiah 7:14 gets fulfilled and what part Immanuel plays, first it is necessary to explain things from Mary’s perspective. All the Jewish women of her time were anticipating the birth of the Christ to Israel and yet no one realized that his birth would come by any other means than regular conception.

    Mary was cousin to Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, and Elizabeth and her husband Zechariah were both descended from Aaron’s line. Therefore Mary was most likely from the priestly line as well. This might have been a problem for the fulfillment of the birth of Messiah who was to come from the House of David, who was from the tribe of Judah. Recall to mind also that Isaiah 7:14 was actually given to the, “House of David,” and therefore “Immanuel” had to somehow descend from this line.

    God sent the angel Gabriel to Mary to inform her of what the Lord was going to do in her. Luke 1:27 holds an important key in the aforementioned discussion of the House of David; compare all three relevant scripture verses below:

    · Luke 1:26-27 Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary.

    · Isaiah 7:13-16 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David

    · Matthew 1:20 But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. NKJV

    The purpose for comparing these three verses is to demonstrate that the LITERAL fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy concerning the virgin that shall conceive a child was initially directed at Ahaz, but in a larger sense, all of the House of Judah, of whom he was king. Therefore Matthew 1:20 and Luke 1:27 affirm that JOSEPH vicariously serves as the recipient of God’s initial promises on behalf of fleshly bloodline of Judah, aka the House of David. If it were not so, then Gabriel would certainly have mentioned Mary’s genetic bloodline, which is completely omitted from scripture.

    God first sent the angel Gabriel to Mary in Luke 1:26-38 to announce to her that she had been chosen to bear the Christ-child, and explaining to her the miraculous form of conception that God would use to generate the new life in her womb. For the purposes of this study, it is important that we look at what Gabriel told her for two main reasons.

    First to understand the nature of the child conceived and decide from the text of scripture whether “God” is being born, as purported by Trinitarian theology that uses, “Immanuel,” (meaning God with us), as proof text for the deity of Christ. Or second, to understand if the message Gabriel gave to Mary has ties to the House of Judah and whether or not her understanding of the nature of the child is solely human or divine (Read Luke 1:30-38).

    In Luke 1:30b Gabriel told Mary you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a son, and shall call His name Jesus. To “conceive: means to “procreate” according to the definition of the Greek word used to translate this word; this is solely a human being, not divine. Though unique in HOW Jesus was conceived (i.e. – by God) the simple fact he WAS conceived eradicates any notion he is divine.

    In Luke 1:32 32 Gabriel told Mary, “He will be great, and will be called the son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David.” This ties the birth of Jesus from Mary’s perspective to the same instructions concerning David’s line and fulfilling God’s promise to David concerning his descendent.

    When Mary asked Gabriel how she could conceive without having had sexual relations with a man, she was told in Luke 1:35-37, “the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that holy one who is to be born will be called the son of God. Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren. For with God nothing will be impossible.”

    By comparing Elizabeth’s conception and her child John to Jesus’ conception and birth (in that both are miraculous in origin) the text clearly aligns Jesus with the human species to de-myth the myth that he is somehow divine. Next is the text of what happened to Joseph when God sent the angel to him in a dream and instruct him what to do.

    · Matthew 1:16-17 …and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. 17 So all the generations from Abraham unto David are fourteen generations; and from David unto the carrying away to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the carrying away to Babylon unto the Christ fourteen generations.

    · Matthew 1:18-25 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. 19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privately. 20 But when he thought on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son; and you shall call his name JESUS for it is he that shall save his people from their sins. 22 Now all this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, 23 ‘Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us.” 24 And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife; 25 and knew her not till she had brought forth a son: and he called his name JESUS.”

    One glaringly obvious highlight of this passage is the fact God instructed Joseph to name the child, “Jesus,” and NOT,” Immanuel.” This fact is punctuated by verse 25, “…and he called his name JESUS.”

    Thus we conclude this study with one last simple explanation with regard to Immanuel. First, in both Old and New Testament accounts, (i.e. – Isaiah 7:14 & Matthew 1:23), Immanuel was understood by the parents of both sons both as more of a surname because neither Isaiah the prophet nor Joseph the husband of the virgin Mary named their sons Immanuel. They both recognized this name Immanuel was something that would characterize what OTHERS would say about the child, as opposed to his proper personal name.

    In the Isaiah account as described earlier, the tribe of Judah foolishly used Immanuel to boast, “God was with them,” when in reality Yahweh was about to judge them by using the Assyrian army whom Ahaz had allied with to strip Samaria of all they had.

    In the NT account of Matthew’s gospel God sent an angel to give Joseph, son of David, the message instructing him to name his son, (that was conceived by the spirit of Almighty God), by the proper personal name of “Jesus,” BECAUSE it was he (Jesus) that would save his people (i.e. – both bloodline & spiritual Judah) from their sins.

    To the point, the ONE that was called, “Judah,” or the “House of David,” or the, “son of David,” to whom the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 was LITERALLY fulfilled is in fact the man named Joseph, husband of Mary. Why? Because he is the only one that the angel gave this message to in a dream saying TO Joseph, “So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they (Joseph & Mary) shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.” Wouldn’t you think God was “WITH” you if He did the same thing to you He did for Joseph, son of David and Mary his virgin wife?

    When Joseph learned that it was GOD that conceived the child in Mary’s womb, to him (Joseph) it was a “sign” from on High that, “God is with us,” (the “us” referring to Joseph and his pregnant virgin wife Mary).

  260. on 27 Jun 2014 at 9:39 amJas

    Gigi
    The fact is the child was born to Isaiah, was called Immanuel and was later renamed.
    Complete fulfillment and if a virgin was to conceive without a human Father then Isaiah was just a stepfather which does not jeopardize any other prophecies like it does to the promised messiah spoke of by many prophets
    As I said ask anyone and they will tell you it was completely fulfilled just as this author showed before they mysteriously moved it to some 700 years later to be fulfilled again but completely out of the entire context of how.

  261. on 27 Jun 2014 at 10:40 amJas

    Gigi
    Here is another reason .
    Peter’s sermon in Rome did not include it and not even a hint. If it was true Peter would have taught it to new converts.

    http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/is-marks-gospel-an-early-memoir-of-the-apostle-peter/

  262. on 27 Jun 2014 at 1:51 pmJas

    Gigi
    I realize you would like to convince me to return to the belief in the virgin birth.
    Let me list all the reasons why I can’t .
    1. There is absolutely no prophecy in the hebrew text of OT
    2. Absolutely nobody in 2nd temple judaism knew of such of a prophecy
    3. No Samaritan who were the replacement people installed by the Assyrians of which were converted to and were taught the hebrew faith knew of it.
    4. Matthew original wrote the gospel in Hebrew which was without a birth narrative .
    The ebionites under the leadership of James knew nothing about it. A large portion of these ebionites(poor men) were probably eyewitness to Jesus..
    5.Mark the scribe of Peter’s gospel claimed he left nothing out in Peter’s sermons in Rome.
    6.When Marcion brought the gospel of Luke to the church in Rome he was received with open arms by Justin and the whole church. In the Luke he delivered there was no birth narrative . Marcion latter developed a perverted view of the God of OT and was exiled from church.
    7. Justin is the first to mention the Virgin birth as applied to Jesus but before Justin converted, his pagan religion had a virgin birth.
    8. The Protoevangeline(Gospel of James) which was created in early 2nd century and is the source of the both narratives but is so outlandish in the whole story it is rejected as truth..
    9. The virgin birth totally removes Jesus from the true prophecies of the promised Messiah .

  263. on 27 Jun 2014 at 4:00 pmGigi

    Jas,

    no I do not want to force you to go back. Maybe you should think again about it, because a young woman who was not married was a virgin at this time.

    So when you read the hebrew word it says a young woman … and a young woman is the same as a virgin.
    If you do not believe that God beget Mary with His holy Spirit how could Jesus be the first fruit from a new generation. We are children of God through Jesus Christ, and Jesus is the first beget Son of God.

    All the other who are talking about have a virgin mother and were beget from ???? This is a lie. Only Jesus is a beget Son of God.

    The time is close that people are believing in false teachings, and the Jews who do not believe in Jesus wants us to go back to their Faith.

    It is up to you what you want to believe. I put my faith in God’s hand and the holy Spirit reveal the word of God to me.

    If I am wrong then I will find the truth one day reading my bible.
    Nobody told me that there is no trinity I found it from the bible. John 17:3

    I am very allert, because I do not want to go away from my truth. I love God and His Son Jesus Christ with all my heart and I want to live a life for God’s glory . I am still a sinner, and I am allert too not to sin. I am in my flesh so I have to regret and go away from sin.That’s what I am doing and believe.

    One day we know the truth exactly when Jesus comes back.
    God bless

  264. on 27 Jun 2014 at 4:15 pmJas

    “If you do not believe that God beget Mary with His holy Spirit how could Jesus be the first fruit from a new generation.”

    Gigi
    Jesus is the firstfruit by the resurrection of the dead
    Actually nobody told me the virgin birth was false but questioned it because it totally removes Jesus as the promised messiah which was from reading my bible. Much to my surprise was all the things above in my last post all of which are verifiable through historical study of the bible and early church.I may not have the whole truth or ever have it but one by one I will continue to remove the lies. The trinity and the virgin birth has been the easiest so far to expose

  265. on 27 Jun 2014 at 9:13 pmRay

    Jas, So are you saying that God isn’t one, in three persons, or entities, or beings?

    He certainly isn’t divided in those three is he?

    And now you have a doctrine of man as concerning the virgin birth?

    I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised.

  266. on 27 Jun 2014 at 9:38 pmJas

    Ray
    The Most High is the only sovereign God, he is just one person with one personality .The Holy Spirit was the first person ever created by God and Jesus was declared the son of God by the resurrection of the dead before that he was the seed of David through his biological father Joseph.
    Considering we have had this discussion atleast once then you shouldn’t be surprised .
    Actually I have just historical evidence not a doctrine

  267. on 28 Jun 2014 at 1:38 amRay

    Jas,

    Where does it say in the Bible that the Holy Spirit was the first person God ever created, and what is your doctrine about the virgin birth that so easily exposes something about the virgin birth being a lie as you claim in #262 above?

  268. on 28 Jun 2014 at 8:47 amRay

    If someone asks what a Christian should be filled with the fullness of, and his answer is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is that a good answer?

    If we say that when we get to heaven, what we expect to experience is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, would our expectation be correct?

  269. on 28 Jun 2014 at 9:13 amJas

    Ray
    Wisdom aka the Spirit of Yhwh
    Try reading the OT
    I have absolutely no doctrine on virgin birth considering it was not mentioned in the original book of Isaiah or the NT writings.
    Actually Jesus said there would be a different comforter to anoint(indwell),teach and keep covenant christ

  270. on 29 Jun 2014 at 3:40 amRay

    Jas,

    So what is it you say you find easy to expose about the virgin birth(262) What is it you find wrong about what people are saying about that?

  271. on 29 Jun 2014 at 8:59 amJas

    Ray
    I gave a list in post 260.

  272. on 29 Jun 2014 at 10:47 pmGigi

    Jas,

    the holy Spirit is not a created person by God. It is the holy Spirit of God.

  273. on 29 Jun 2014 at 11:30 pmJas

    Gigi
    Glad we are back to subject.
    Why do you deny is it because you think that accepting will put you on Par with trinitarians. How can one grieve,lie to,forsake a none person. Wisdom the first CREATED is the Holy Spirit the very same that in dwelled The Man Jesus, was the Word that tabernacled in the flesh of Jesus. She is the Christ(anointer). She is justified by HER chidlren,she is the Tree of Life, the breth of life, the chavvah(mother of all things living) the very one Eve was named after before she had a single child, she is the Us in let us Create, she is the female image. She was the first begotten before creation, when Jesus was baptized she is the one who spoke you are my son ,today I have begotten you but she is not the comforter that covenant christians receive.
    You say that Wisdom is just a personification of God spirit but nothing about the Most High was begotten or created. The Most High was complete. Wisdom( HS) is the Tree of Life which always is portrayed seperate from the Most High.
    Now it is up to you to chose what you believe but there is no way you got The Wisdom was not a person from reading your bible but was told so.
    Dont get me wrong I dont worship The Wisdom nor do I Jesus but I do give credit where credit is due but only Worship the source of ALL creation who is The Most High known as the Father

  274. on 30 Jun 2014 at 6:35 amGigi

    Jas,
    may I ask you from which Church do you come from?

  275. on 30 Jun 2014 at 8:29 amJas

    Gigi
    I grew up in a orthodox church but walked away when I realized they were teaching a lie that Jesus was God.
    The last 10 years I have dedicated to seeking out the truth through extensive research.
    Now may I ask why, do you think maybe there is the cause?
    Everything above is completely out of the bible I don’t just gloss it over. Do you object to archangels especially Michael which means “like God” which was Probably just Wisdom manifest as a man .

  276. on 30 Jun 2014 at 12:48 pmJas

    Gigi
    The facts are
    1.Matthews Gospel originally started with the baptism of Jesus by John of which this is the anointing of The HS spoken of in Acts 10:38
    2.Lukes Gospel started with the baptism in which it was said “You are my son,today i have begotten you
    3. Peters gospel aka Mark started with baptism with Peter not knowing of any narrative .
    4.John’s gospel started with identifying the Indwelling spirit then shows the possesion of Jesus by it,her at his baptism.
    5. David was also anointed and Possessed by the Holy Spirit but fell in disobedience
    6.Solomon attributes the name WISDOM to the Holy Spirit and by inspiration speaks of its,her beginning and purpose for creation.
    Why do you think God had to create a perfect human to atone for the first Adam’s disobedience ? Why not just create the first perfectly obedient ? Why wait 4000 years unless God wanted his creation to love him enough to be perfect in his will of their own freewill?
    The Fact is it took 4000 years for mankind to produce a perfect human being to replace the first who was not perfect.

  277. on 03 Jul 2014 at 8:55 amRay

    Jas,

    You ‘ve really gone the wrong way haven’t you? Not going to believe in the virgin birth for the “reasons” you list? Incredible. Amazing.
    Not going to be a Christian?

  278. on 03 Jul 2014 at 9:38 amJas

    Ray
    You are absolutely right, I am not interested in being a so called “christian” . I have been told by way smarter people than you that if I don’t believe in the trinity then I am not a christian like them .
    The truth is the truth and a lie is a lie which everyone has to dtermine for themselves which is which unless they just want to believe what they were told or led to believe by a man.
    That was a pathetic attempt to shame me

  279. on 04 Jul 2014 at 7:44 amGigi

    Jas,
    first in Luke 3:22 it says…. You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased. And NOt I have begotten you.

    Jas, I don’t know who your teacher is, so he is teaching you wrong about holy Spirit and wisdom and virgin birth.

    If you do not want to be a christian, this is ok, because we are children of God if we follow Jesus and we are one of His disciples. Men has given the followers of Christ the name christians.

    The spirit is God’s Spirit, everything the spirit is doing, God is doing or do you think the person spirit is doing everything and God is laying back and rest?

    If one is going away from God and doing a sin God griefs , and NOT the person holy Spirit.
    If one deny God this is a sin God will not forgive, all other sins He forgive if one regret. If one deny the holy Spirit he/ she denys God. Before Jesus came God has given His holy to a person Spirit and He took His holy Spirit aways from the person and give it to the next person( in the old Testsament, that’s why David was frighten that God will take His holy Spirit away from david, because of david’s sin)) when one believes in Jesus than the holy Spirit stays with one, but if one fall into a sin the holy Spirit is not working in one,God is not forsaking His children

    God worked through people ( Mose,Isaiah,His Son Jesus)
    God’s spirit one can’t see, so it looked for others like a dove, as it came from God to Jesus. God’s spirit is like a wind too, one can’t recognize God’s Spirit without a thing . This all you can read in the bible.
    If you read the bible only with your spirit and mind you may read it wrong.

    It takes time to understand the bible one has always asking for God’s spirit to understand his word. satan is mixing the truth with the lie, that’s why you have to be very alert reading.
    This what the catholic and orthodox Church is doing they are mixing the truth with the lie.

    Wisdom is a gift from God that one understands the revealing of God’s Spirit. If someone do not have this widom from God he/she is not able to understand the revealing from God’s holy Spirit and can’t act.

    The Hellenistic Judaism is teaching,it can even be presented personified as female figure dancing in front of God. This is not biblical.
    I believe when you are coming out of the orthodox church you still believe their teaching on other topics.

    I hope my english is good enough that you are able to understand what I want to tell you.

    May God bless you.

  280. on 04 Jul 2014 at 10:13 amJas

    Gigi
    My only teacher is the bible as it was originally written .
    I would love nothing more than to be a christian as it originally started but still have not shed all the deceptions of 2nd temple judaism and the romish church.

    “It takes time to understand the bible one has always asking for God’s spirit to understand his word. satan is mixing the truth with the lie, that’s why you have to be very alert reading.”

    Gigi this is exactly what Satan did in the mid to late 2nd century and maybe these men of the romish church were disciples of Satan or were just deceived by a lying spirit.
    Unholy spirits can indwell a person as also Satan himself can appear righteous to a man .
    The fact is I test and retest everything with the whole bible not parts and pieces that were added or reinterpretated to support an unbiblical doctrine.

    I believe the 20th century almost put true christianity into extinction driving them to the most remote areas on earth with the 2 major holocaust ,the one in russia which took 100 milion christians lives and the one in germany which attacked anything that seemed jewish which from the 2nd century on the true church was labeled as. Nowhere does God Promise that christianity would survive and in fact says there would come a time when the whole world would be deceived. Does that mean all mankind is doomed? NO! God instituted Grace so that all man can be raised and judged by their own actions but this comes after the reward of Israel who took hold of God ways and used either the Old Priesthood Covenant before Jesus or the New Priesthood Covenant after Jesus to maintain that special relationship with God.
    I have no condemnation for any belief when it comes to the salvation of the gentiles but I would still love to uncover the truth for a shot at the reward of Israel.
    what I do hate when people condemn others who belive differently saying they are not christian like ,like themselves.

  281. on 04 Jul 2014 at 4:23 pmGigi

    Jas,

    did you understand what I tried to tell you that we are follower(disciples) of Jesus when we believe in Him.
    Men has given the name christians to the disciples of Jesus. A Jew is still a Jew when he has faith in Jesus ( Yeshua).

    Jas, if one is seeking and seeking for what ? The truth? You can find the truth in the bible, that Jesus is the Son of God beget through God’s holy Spirit. Born from a young woman who was in a young age ( about15 or 16, that’s why she was a virgin)

    Jesus came to bring back the people of God( The Israelite) to God. He was teaching them about the coming kingdom on earth.

    They forsake the Son of God, and He had to die on the cross.
    This was God’s plan that everybody who believe in the Son of God has eternal life.

    The old covenant was not good, so God made a new covenant through Jesus with His people. After the resurrection of Jesus He told His dicsiples to go to the Jews AND to the Nations ( Gentile) to teach them about the Kingdom and teach them everything Jesus told them.

    Jesus has given us a new law, that we have to love each other. This law is telling the same as the 10 commandments.

    If the Old covenant was perfect, we would not get a new covenant. Every dicsiple of Jesus ( child of God) who follow the covenant God has given to Moses denys Jesus and God’s people deny Jesus. This is the truth and you can read it in the bible.

    satan thinks he is clever and tell people the bible is not the truth it is a kind of story telling book, but as you know this is not true.

    Paul was send by Jesus to the gentiles to teach them.

    There is NO trinity in the bible. There is only ONE God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and His Son Jesus Christ… John 17:3

    Who is a christian? If we stay with this word.
    Are you a Jew? We have to have Faith in Jesus Christ in His death and resurrection and the Kingdom of God.

    We have to have Faith in our resurrection when we believe in Jesus and love God through His Son.

    What do you need more ? Did Jesus not tell us, that we have to have faith like little children?

    As Jesus said to Thomas.. John 20:29 Jesus said to him,” Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed (are) they who did not see, and ( yet) believed.

    Read the NASB, it is a very good bible.

    Moses is lower that Jesus that’s why the law of Moses is under Jesus law.

    We do not have to believe in Moses, we have to believe in Jesus who is the beget Son of God through God’s holy Spirit.

    Everything else is a lie and it takes one away from God.

    When you do not believe that Jesus is the beget Son of God, but the beget son of Joseph then you believe in the wrong Jesus.

    By the way only God knows the truth and what He is doing with His Israelit people. It is not you ( or anyone else) who is able to uncover the truth of the Israelit people.

    There is only ONE WAY FOR EVERY GENTILE TO COME TO GOD…THROUGH JESUS THE anointed SON OF GOD.

    If you say ..any belief.. you are very wrong there is no other belief coming to God through Jesus.

    Jas, you told me your Teacher is the bible. If this is true then you know that there is only ONE true belief and not any belief.

    The churches have their own doctrine to put people under their power. To have Faith in God through Jesus Christ is no doctrine.

    Some condemn. I do not condemn you I want to show the right path as Jesus told us. I believe that You do not have an open heart for it, because you believe only what you reveal from your reading the bible.

    God bless

  282. on 04 Jul 2014 at 4:23 pmGigi

    Jas,

    did you understand what I tried to tell you that we are follower(disciples) of Jesus when we believe in Him.
    Men has given the name christians to the disciples of Jesus. A Jew is still a Jew when he has faith in Jesus ( Yeshua).

    Jas, if one is seeking and seeking for what ? The truth? You can find the truth in the bible, that Jesus is the Son of God beget through God’s holy Spirit. Born from a young woman who was in a young age ( about15 or 16, that’s why she was a virgin)

    Jesus came to bring back the people of God( The Israelite) to God. He was teaching them about the coming kingdom on earth.

    They forsake the Son of God, and He had to die on the cross.
    This was God’s plan that everybody who believe in the Son of God has eternal life.

    The old covenant was not good, so God made a new covenant through Jesus with His people. After the resurrection of Jesus He told His dicsiples to go to the Jews AND to the Nations ( Gentile) to teach them about the Kingdom and teach them everything Jesus told them.

    Jesus has given us a new law, that we have to love each other. This law is telling the same as the 10 commandments.

    If the Old covenant was perfect, we would not get a new covenant. Every dicsiple of Jesus ( child of God) who follow the covenant God has given to Moses denys Jesus and God’s people deny Jesus. This is the truth and you can read it in the bible.

    satan thinks he is clever and tell people the bible is not the truth it is a kind of story telling book, but as you know this is not true.

    Paul was send by Jesus to the gentiles to teach them.

    There is NO trinity in the bible. There is only ONE God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and His Son Jesus Christ… John 17:3

    Who is a christian? If we stay with this word.
    Are you a Jew? We have to have Faith in Jesus Christ in His death and resurrection and the Kingdom of God.

    We have to have Faith in our resurrection when we believe in Jesus and love God through His Son.

    What do you need more ? Did Jesus not tell us, that we have to have faith like little children?

    As Jesus said to Thomas.. John 20:29 Jesus said to him,” Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed (are) they who did not see, and ( yet) believed.

    Read the NASB, it is a very good bible.

    Moses is lower that Jesus that’s why the law of Moses is under Jesus law.

    We do not have to believe in Moses, we have to believe in Jesus who is the beget Son of God through God’s holy Spirit.

    Everything else is a lie and it takes one away from God.

    When you do not believe that Jesus is the beget Son of God, but the beget son of Joseph then you believe in the wrong Jesus.

    By the way only God knows the truth and what He is doing with His Israelit people. It is not you ( or anyone else) who is able to uncover the truth of the Israelit people.

    There is only ONE WAY FOR EVERY GENTILE TO COME TO GOD…THROUGH JESUS THE anointed SON OF GOD.

    If you say ..any belief.. you are very wrong there is no other belief coming to God through Jesus.

    Jas, you told me your Teacher is the bible. If this is true then you know that there is only ONE true belief and not any belief.

    The churches have their own doctrine to put people under their power. To have Faith in God through Jesus Christ is no doctrine.

    Some condemn. I do not condemn you I want to show the right path as Jesus told us. I believe that You do not have an open heart for it, because you believe only what you reveal from your bible reading.

    God bless

  283. on 04 Jul 2014 at 4:26 pmGigi

    Jas,
    I am sorry my talking came two times to you by mistake.

  284. on 04 Jul 2014 at 5:22 pmJas

    “Jas, if one is seeking and seeking for what ? The truth? You can find the truth in the bible, that Jesus is the Son of God beget through God’s holy Spirit. Born from a young woman who was in a young age ( about15 or 16, that’s why she was a virgin)”

    Gigi
    That is an addition for the purpose of converting paganity

    “The old covenant was not good, so God made a new covenant through Jesus with His people.”

    Gigi
    The Old Priesthood Covenant was faulty because it was not administered by sinless men but it was effective to those who took hold of it. Unless you think God was just lying about.
    Yes the New Priesthood Covenant is based upon a better promise but more important is the better priesthood, better temple for The Spirit to dwell and a better sacrifice .
    These are the only changes made!
    You have just took hook,line and sinker from the romish church

    “Who is a christian? If we stay with this word.
    Are you a Jew? We have to have Faith in Jesus Christ in His death and resurrection and the Kingdom of God.”

    Gigi
    No I am not a jew and fyi I do have extreme faith in the Anointed one ,his voluntary death, and God declared him a Son by the resurrection of the dead I just dont believe in myths that were added to the bible.

    “Some condemn. I do not condemn you I want to show the right path as Jesus told us. I believe that You do not have an open heart for it, because you believe only what you reveal from your bible reading.”

    Gigi
    You want me to believe a lie or to conform to your belief to be considered a christian by you who has not even took the time to test and retest what you chose to believe and how you determine who is christian or not. I say let God be the Judge of that when we All sit before him.
    See you also have a false belief about my heart ,Did you have a revelation or since you believe you have an open heart this is a way of exalting yourself over my poor soul.
    Gigi we are in the same boat equally, we both have not the signs of the true elect and we both have only Grace as our chance at eternal life.

  285. on 05 Jul 2014 at 2:20 amGigi

    Jas,
    you are talking about exalting over your soul. I did not understand what you meant.
    Gigi
    You want me to believe a lie or to conform to your belief to be considered a christian by you who has not even took the time to test and retest what you chose to believe and how you determine who is christian or not. I say let God be the Judge of that when we All sit before him.
    See you also have a false belief about my heart ,Did you have a revelation or since you believe you have an open heart this is a way of exalting yourself over my poor soul.

    Maybe you mean this…Jas, I have an open heart for everyone who wants to teach me, and I am reading my bible if it does not look similar to my Bible. I have got a lot of different bible..english and german.. there I can look what others wanted to tell e, and then I can show them that there are wrong, because the bible reveals something differen. Like you wanted to tell me about Luke, that is say .. I have begotten you, but it says…well pleased…

    We can have bibles they are not good translated and other are excellent translated

    Maybe you did not read all of my writings in 280.
    I study my bible and I studied a long time now. I am looking in my bible and I find answers, because the bible is talking by itself.

    I do not tell you what the catholic church is teaching. I am not a member of the catholic church.

    If you doubt that the bible is the word of God and you believe that the catholic church was changing the whole bible, how do you find the truth then. Please tell me which bible you are reading that reveal the whole truth to youor not?

    I am not in your boat, because I believe the truth and not pagan doctrine. I do not deny Jesus as the Son of God. Jesus was the Son of God before He was crucified and not after. Jesus was frighten to get crucified but He was obedient to God His Father.

    Do you believe John 17:3 is not the truth?

    God bless

  286. on 05 Jul 2014 at 10:32 amJas

    Gigi
    I have no way to determine whether you have an open heart or not so my point was how do you determine I do not and what was purpose of stating that.
    As far is what was said at Jesus’ baptism in Luke we have some of the oldest fragments plus several MSS that have it that way plus several quotes of the antenicene fathers . Many bible have that fact in a side note maybe even one of the few you have seen.
    The Bible as originally written was a recording and only speaks through the historical and cultural context it does not talk to you . Translations vary so much many denominations are only set apart by a personal reading of a few verses. I did not state you were a catholic I stated it was your choice to belief the lies of the romish church which influenced the formation of the catholic faith.
    Quite the contary I believe with All my Heart and Soul that the Books of the Bible as originally pen by author are the Inspired Word of God. I just dont believe the ones we have access to have stayed that way which is the reason I do not use one bible translation but use many plus the greek,latin,old latin,aramaic and hebrew plus the earliest quotes .
    Gigi not only are we in same boat we are there with most of humanity that are just good people which will receive eternal life .We will be saved from remaining in the grave for eternity because Grace was Given also to the Gentiles so they can stand to be judged seperate from the deception which God allowed to test his set apart people Israel which God gave the Commandments to live and be identified by.
    So don’t be offended because I am very certain you will receive eternal life just it won’t be as exclusive as you think which is quite humbling to me.

  287. on 05 Jul 2014 at 11:32 amGigi

    Jas,
    what did you mean with …exclusive as you think…

    I am stick into the tree of God’s people that’s why I am belong to them. The Jews who do not believe in the Son of God do they have eternal life ? Do you believe this?

    There is only one way to come to God to believe in His Son Yeshua.

    God has mercy and He is given grace to us, but do you think that His Son’s crucifiction is for people who do not believe in Him that they have eternal life too.Do you believe this?

    I do not believe this. To have eternal life is to have Faith in God through Jesus Christ. Amen.

    Jesus never told us to analyze His words. He told us ..to love…, this is the important commandment.

    Love God with all your heart and love your brother and sister, even love your enemy. Look around who behave this commandment?

  288. on 05 Jul 2014 at 12:04 pmJas

    “I am stick into the tree of God’s people that’s why I am belong to them. The Jews who do not believe in the Son of God do they have eternal life ? Do you believe this?”

    Gigi
    You show none of the signs of God’s set apart other than you do believe Jesus came. Jews who do not believe this do not possess all the signs either and are just gentiles who will need Grace. Absolutely I believe they will be judged by only the person they are not by the deception they fell to.
    Gigi you do not understand the purpose of Israel or understand why the promises made to them must be fulfilled. Being Israel is not by blood but the Promise of the New Priesthood Covenant was to them but is not exclusive because God has always allowed non-israelites to come to Him if they take hold of His Commandments . These Commandments include the morals they are to live by which was to be seen as a set apart people of the Most Highs. God also gave them signs be be identified by and also made a Covenant of Grace with them which was the Priesthood Covenant mediated by Aaron which Jesus superceded by becoming the High Priest and Sacrifice .
    Love can be maintained while seeking the truth but it should be a driving force .
    Gigi everywhere in the world in every religion even atheist love neighbor and enemy as much as christians do . Matter is more people have been killed in the name of christianity then all other religions combined. Most of these people confessed the same as you state even few were unitarian

  289. on 05 Jul 2014 at 2:23 pmGigi

    Jas,
    if the covenant was good God would not make a new covenant with the Israelit through His Son.

    The Covenant God promise to Abraham and Moses will be fulfilled when Jesus comes back, they will be in the Kingdom of God too.

    All the other have to believe in the Son of God in His death, resurrection and the Kingdom of God.

    You are not save if you hold the comandments, one is save when he/ she has faith in Jesus Christ John 17:3

    Everyone who goes back to the commandment of Moses deny Jesus.

    God bless

  290. on 05 Jul 2014 at 3:07 pmJas

    Gigi
    The Old Priesthood Covenant was effective to those that chose to use it Properly but it was not excellent or even feasible as the means of offering to the exiles of Israel.
    Jesus took hold of the Commandments to the perfection .The Paul of Acts was extremely Torah observant that he even paid for the animal for the animal sacrifice needed to complete his Nazarite vow. He did not however claim the Torah was the means of salvation from eternally remaining in the Grave ,He knew that came from Grace as a gift to All mankind which is every man,woman and child that has ever lived. Now Paul was a very confusing dude according to Peter because his letters were used to twist the Word of God because the gentiles his ministered to did not know the difference between the Torah and the traditions of men. In fact if they did not want to enter the promises to Israel he made sure they understood that God had instituted Grace on their behalf anyways. The truth is Grace is the Better Promise acccording to Paul but he still sought the reward of Israel.
    You certainly did not get that doctrine from reading the bible but was taught that by men. It took almost a century for that doctrine to be invented after Jesus’ ministry .
    Gigi you condemn every babie who never got the chance to grow up and every man and woman not privileged to hear about God or Jesus. You do not understand Why Grace also came from Jesus’ obedience unto death for the salvation of the world.Remaing in death reigned from Adams sin to Jesus and the is what the world needed to saved from. The reward of Israel is to those who to hold of the promise that Jesus came by. This Promise was ageless meaning it can not expire till the promise to Israel is completely fulfilled with the resurrection of the firstfruits and the gathering into ALL the Land Promised to Abraham and his blood offspring which the promise was extended through. You just can’t separate Grace from the Reward of Israel because you flat out have not tried to.

  291. on 05 Jul 2014 at 3:39 pmGigi

    Jas,
    Babies or people who did not hear the word from God this is something only God knows what He is doing, giving grace and mercy to them.

    Two Babies I had died, and I believe I will see them in the Kingdom. I am talking from people who are able to hear the word of God who are able to have faith in God and Jesus Christ. They believe often we are under grace, so we do not need to have faith, and this is not true.The Israelit too, because they are God’s people they have to believe in Jesus and the Kingdom too to become eternal life.

    For all mankind who has a chance to hear about Jesus and the Kingdom of God, they have to believe in John 17:3

  292. on 05 Jul 2014 at 3:50 pmJas

    Gigi
    All mankind will be shown the truth at Judgment and they will have the privilege then.
    Eternal life is the result of death being destroyed and is never never promised in OT or NT. The word translated eternal means age in the singular,ages in the plural and can be even used in the phrase ages of ages or ageless as God only is.
    Sorry but Grace is a Gift ,it has absolutely NO requirement ,no confession,no knowledge . You have Grace mixed up with the Good news to Israel

  293. on 05 Jul 2014 at 5:33 pmGigi

    Jas,
    I know grace is a gift, and I don’t know what God will really do because I do not know His will.Eternal life is the promise God has given to us. I always come back to John 17:3. God promised to Abraham that he will see the holy Land, and one day Abraham will see the Kingdom of God.
    It is a gift of God that we have faith. Without God’s grace we are not able to believe. There ar many human who do not want the grace of God and they deny God and His Son Jesus Christ.
    I know that everybody will be judged one day. God’s children will be judged but not forsaken , because we love His Son Jesus Christ, and without Jesus nobody is able to come to God.

    Eternal life is what God is given to His children in Jesus. Jas you are looking for so much truth, that you are going away from the important truth. To have faith in Jesus and the Kingdom. Jesus did not give us doctrine’s. I do not belive in doctrines’s of a church.

    Have Faith like a child. Jas you have to understand that english is not my mother language, and that’s why I can’t write that you are able to understand what I want to say. I am soory for this.
    To me eternal means everlasting, we will be everlasting time in the kingdom of God.

  294. on 05 Jul 2014 at 6:03 pmJas

    Gigi
    Language is not a barrier in this conversation . Everything in the bible has to be translated into some language but that does not change the original meaning of a word as used by an author. 2000 years is a long time in culture but culture sets the context of what is written not the language or culture of a translator. Most translators will not translate against their beliefs.
    As far as Grace it is very very clearly spelled out in the NT that it is a pure Gift void of any requirements. Now where it is stated those that confess Jesus as King will receive life in the age is very very true but to confess Jesus as king one must first become an Israelite which terms are clearly spelled out in the Torah. Even if one does not take hold of the promise to Israel I would say beliving he did walk the earth and did die for the sin accounted to the world and was raised and declared a Son by the Most High and now sits at the right hand of Him all should be very profitable at the judgment of those who never became Israel including a multitude of the exiles of Israel who God sought to gather by the offering of the New Priesthood Covenant .
    Again you try to question my Faith in God and Jesus yet I guarantee you your faith is not greater than mine.
    I know the truth you speak of but it is ridiculous to say searching for more jeopardizes it, It only jeopardizes false beliefs. That would be an effective argument for Satan to use to keep me in line.
    Gigi dont buy into the lies of the romish church about the Commandments .Jesus is very clear they are for ages

  295. on 05 Jul 2014 at 11:20 pmJas

    Gigi
    One thing to understand is if God is not true to the promises made to Israel in the Old Priesthood Covenant then in the New will not come either. Also that means Grace was not given to the gentiles.
    But God is true to all his promises because he is a Faithful God.
    The set apart(church) did exist under the Old and continued under the New with just a few minor changes to the Priesthood and sacrificial system. The Poor Ones (Ebionites) did in fact continue and history records them through centuries. They survived in the wilderness pure till it became impossible to stay separate from the world or be protected by the wilderness. No one today that I know of would be a pimple on their little toe nor would I compare myself to them in measurement of Faith. These true christians were obedient unto death as the Man Jesus they followed.
    It is sad the whole world hated them even professed christianity because they were too lazy,too greedy,too vain, too lover of the world to ever give up their freewill to do God’s will.
    I would not blame God if He took back his gift of Grace

  296. on 06 Jul 2014 at 3:24 amGigi

    Jas,
    it is the same today, that men/women gets rejected from others, if they follow Jesus and don’t follow the world.

    It is hard to live in this world by faith. I had a lot of friends ( christians) in Germany , America and Bulgaria. The german friends forsake me, because of my unitarian believe. I have only two of them. The American friends forsake me of my unitarian belief or I did not follow their doctrine.

    Some bulgarian friends forsake me, because I am talking about my faith. They are still friendly.

    I am sad sometimes,and I am joyful when I think about our Lord Jesus Christ. I know one day He will be back and then I will be with Him in the Kingdom of God.

    I know that God send new friends to me, and I know satan is doing the same.

    Now it is to me to see the difference. Friends who do not want to talk about Jesus are earthly friends even they are telling me they are christians. The other are from above.
    I know that the holy Spirit reveal to everyone differnet, because we have to share our faith, and I know satan wants to mix us up with his doctrine.

    I loved to go to church and now I do not have a church anymore, because they worship the one God in three gods. Some believe God died on the cross.

    How can I go to this churches. I went to a fellowship online, and they forsake me because I believed in speaking in tongues.

    Jas, I hope and pray that God never take away His grace from me.

    Jas, the promisses God has given to His people in the old Testament he will give to them. They have been the first, and now after His Son died and resurrected they are the last. They only did know a shadow of Jesus, because He was not on earth at this time.

    Then the Jews saw Jesus they spoke about Him and the last( who became the promise through Jesus) will be the first.

    Everyone has to bow his knee before Jesus, and the Israelit who are waiting for the Messiah will do this when Jesus comes back.

    We have to live our lives to glory God through His Son and when we get weak we have to repent. God knows that we are still weak and He has mercy with us. As long as we do not forsake Him and His Son Jesus God has mercy with us.

    Mankind can’t mix the whole bible. There are some very good bibles one can read. Trust God’s holy Spirit. Even we are wrong one day we know the real truth.

    Until then I love God and His Son with all my heart and mind and pray for help to put my ego under the cross, and become strength to stay in my faith.
    I know and believe in the important truth, why should I argue all the time about it.

    I want to have joy in my heart and I get my joy when I am looking at Jesus Christ who saved my life because He went on the cross to eradication my sins. Amen.

    May God bless you richly

  297. on 06 Jul 2014 at 5:03 amGigi

    Jas,

    the scripture tells us that christianity will fallen apart from Jesus. They do not forsake Jesus O no, they are teaching one has to go back to the law of Moses.

    If they are following Moses law the sacrifice from Jesus is not important for them anymore.
    This is the trickery satan is doing, and many are going back to Moses law and believe now they are safe.

    But the truth is they are fallen apart.
    We are more in the endtimes than ever. The moral goes down, the love goes away and more false teaching is coming.

    View wants to share their faith, but most of them wants to share their rights, and if one do not follow they forsake and put power on one.

    These are all signs the scripture is telling us too.

    God bless

  298. on 06 Jul 2014 at 11:12 amJas

    “If they are following Moses law the sacrifice from Jesus is not important for them anymore.”

    Gigi
    It is not Moses’ law that is against the sacrifice of Jesus it leads us to it. You think the New Covenant in contrast with The Law . The Covenants are Grace Covenants given along with. Yes since the New ,the Old animal sacrifice is done away and by doing it for atonement would be rejecting Jesus as the Sacrifice . Following God’s Morals can not be against Jesus’ sacrifice .
    The Law given through Moses are God’s and was not given as a means of Salvation ,they were just how God wanted His people to act. The Aaronic Covenant was given as a means of Salvation and was effective to those who used it properly. The Jesus Covenant superceded the Aaronic by having a better High Priesthood(Jesus) ,better Priesthood(Angels),better sacrifice (Jesus) plus it is accessible anywhere in the world which was necessary to fulfill the Promises to the exiles of Israel wherever they were scattered.
    Paul was dealing with 2nd temple judaism who had stray from Moses Law by creating their own law which eventhough was based upon Moses law it was grievous because they created subcategories ,1521 new laws about the Sabbath like not healing on the Sabbath. Jesus dealt with some of these added laws like the washing of the hands, eating grain from field ,etc which were not in Law of God.
    It is very important to understand the cultural context so study is required.
    I think you are a great person ,one I would be proud to fellowship with and call a friend. Your love for Jesus and God is Great but I don’t like your doctrines of exclusions and inclusion because they condemn and exalt ,something Only God has the right to do.

  299. on 06 Jul 2014 at 12:32 pmGigi

    Your love for Jesus and God is Great but I don’t like your doctrines of exclusions and inclusion because they condemn and exalt ,something Only God has the right to do.

    Jas, thank you for your kindness. I did not understand what the sentence meant.

    Everything I am telling to you is not … my doctrine… and I do not want to judge or condemn or excalt.

    I share what I read from others, I share how christians treat me, I share my loneliness, and I did not forsake the commandments from God. I try to live with the commandment Jesus has given to us..love each other… To love is not to hurt, not to condemn. That’s why I did not understand what you wanted to tell me.

    Why do people condemn me, because I am an unitarian?
    I exalt God through Jesus Christ. Jesus is in my life and HE does not condemn me even I am doing wrong.
    I do not like all the commandments the Priest has given to their people, because these are not God’s commandments.

    I do not tell that the Jews are not the people of God anymore, they will always be His people. Jas, we have to believe in Jesus to become eternal life. Everyone!

    This is what the scripture is telling us.

    It would be great to read the bible together and then to share what the scripture reveal to us.

    I have reading a lot of books about Judaism, at the moment I am reading the Old Testament translated from two Jewish men.. Martin Buber and Franz Rosenzweig… They translated it from hebrew into german and it so much different than others translations, because they put the hebrew words into the right german words.

    I am living in Bulgaria and the only way would be Skype to have fellowship and read the bible together.

    Do we have to know everything else than to believe in Jesus Christ, His death, resurrection and His teaching about the Kingdom to love God through His Son and to be obedient ( baptism, and to love )to become eternal life in God’s Kingdom? We do not have to do anything else, we can’t buy or do the best to become a place in God’s Kingdom. As you say it is mercy and grace from God to give this gift to us when we have Faith.

    God bless.

  300. on 06 Jul 2014 at 1:18 pmJas

    Gigi
    Grace was given to you the moment the breath of Life was given you. You did absolutely nothing to earn it and can do absolutely nothing to keep it. This goes for everyone born and anyone who died before this Grace came,
    We do not even have to know about God or Jesus to receive Grace.
    Now for the other promises which were given to Israel they do have requirements but also have forgiveness through the New Priesthood Covenant if we accidently fall short of them but willing forsaking can not be forgiven in the eternity (age) to come. We can not take the requirements of Israel in place them upon Grace Or use Grace as the requirements of Israel. If You do not want to be Israel or can not find away to COMPLETELY separate from the world there is stll Grace which is the only means of receiving eternal life in the presence of God. Israel will only receive a prolonged life in the land promised then afterward will need Grace to receive eternal life. Grace is the better promise.
    Btw did you know that Bulgaria was one of the last places the Unitarian Sabbath keeping church received religious freedom before those of the reformation sought them out through edicts and decrees that caused many to be murdered,prisoned,drove away deeper and their bible and literature to be burned.
    I will think about Skype but feel fellowship would be better served in discussion of the bible and the cultural and historical context of each author.

  301. on 07 Jul 2014 at 1:56 amGigi

    Jas,

    the grace you mean is what the bible tells us in 1.John2:4-11, the grace for salvation is in Mark 8:35

    We are talking about salvation, eternal life and we become this only if we believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

    If we do not know God and Jesus Christ and we become grace this is not the grace of salvation as I told you before.

    God knows that we are still living in this world John 17:11,15

    To become salvation you have to believeJohn 17:20

    Bulgaria has 98% orthodox churches, and I do not know if there are Unitarians. About 80% of the people do not believe, because it has been forbidden to have faith. They are working on saturday and sunday.

    I don’t see me as a realy Unitarian, because they have some other believe too. I believe in One God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and in Jesus Christ , the Son of God.

    Jas, To stay in my faith not to fall apart I need the words of Jesus Christ, and not to know the cultural and historical context of the author.

    God through His holy Spirit was the author of the scripture He took men for the writings.

    It is interesting to know the cultre of the Israelite at the time when Jesus was on earth.

    The main thing to me is to stay in God’s word.

    God bless

  302. on 07 Jul 2014 at 2:04 amGigi

    Jas,

    I found an article about the Unitarian church in Bulgaria that exict long time ago. Thank you for telling me. Maybe there are still some Bulgarian who do not believe in the trinity.

    I have to find out.

    Have a blessed day.

  303. on 07 Jul 2014 at 9:45 amJas

    “We are talking about salvation, eternal life and we become this only if we believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God.”

    Gigi
    Again there is no promise in the NT about eternal life and the only place it is even hinted is after Death is destroyed .
    Even those raised in the first resurrection will be able to die again but that second death will not be final.
    The word usual translated eternal is aeon which means age or ages .This salvation is just a prolonged life maybe even the whole 1000 years or life in the age to come.
    Yes those must believe in their King and in their God just as their Fathers had to. They also must obey God’s Commandments and teach others to obey. Until heaven and this earth disappear not a stroke of the pen will change from the Moral Law. We know from Peter this Earth will be destroyed by all elements melting and Know from Revelation when to expect the earth to be renewed and then the New Jerusalem to come with God to earth. This means The Commandments of God will be in effect for Israel till the end of 1000 year Sabbath Rest of God which Jesus shall reign over on the throne of God not at right hand.
    Gigi it is great to have Faith and Great to teach others about God and Jesus and about how by Jesus’ obedience unto death that God Took away(GAVE GRACE)
    the Sin accounted Mankind that caused remaing in the grave to reign for ever but dont put requirements because Jesus was the ONLY REQUIREMENT.

  304. on 07 Jul 2014 at 5:21 pmGigi

    Jas,

    here you can read in the New Testament about the promise to become eternal life….John 3:16, Romans 6:23, John 17:3, Matthew 25:46 John 6:50-71, Revelation 21:8, 2 Peter 3:9, Eph 2:8-9, Rev.20:6, Titus 1:1-3 1.John 2:25, Rom.8:23-26,Col 1:3-4, John 5:24 and there a lot more.

    The first Resurrection will be for the 1000 year reign with Christ, and off course are there people out of the tribulation and they get taught by the children of God. After the 1000 years the christian who believed in Jesus some will fall apart from Jesus and they die. And the other die too, but if they believed in Jesus they will be resurrected at the second time.

    I told you before that Jesus is the only one who shows us the path to God.

    Something is interesting to me, that we are the only one talking about the topic in this chat. I know some of the people who has written in person.
    They do not talk to me anymore, because I did not follow that Matthew 28:19 is the word Jesus has spoken. Sir Anthony Buzzard taught this to me, but I do not believe in it.

    Jas, I will stop now talking to you then the other can come back and talk to you.
    I enjoyed our conversation. Maybe we will have another time to talk.
    May God bless you richly.

  305. on 07 Jul 2014 at 5:49 pmJas

    For this is the way 1 God loved the world: He gave his one and only 2 Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish 3 but have life in the age.

    Now this is life in the age – that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you sent.

    I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live in the age. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

    Gigi I could go on and on but aion does not mean erternal or eternity , it means age in the sing,ages in the plural it is used in phrase ages and ages which if it meant eternity Just How many eternities can exist, This is one of the biggest lies ever told by the romish church. Eternal( btw is a completely different word in Greek) life only comes after death is completely destoyed. So please dont throw extremely bad translations at me because I can read for myself the original words used by writer and what they meant in cultural context.
    Yes those who are not still living or in the grave from before the millennium will proceed those seeing Jesus coming in the clouds or thats what Paul states when he claims he will be alive at that time by saying WE.

  306. on 07 Jul 2014 at 6:09 pmJas

    Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, But whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age(aion) or in the age(aion) to come.

    Gigi why doesn’t the translator use eternity here? It is because it would not make sense and would reveal to the reader their deception.

  307. on 08 Jul 2014 at 3:16 amGigi

    Jas,
    I thought you knew that we will have eternal life after our resurrection when Jesus comes back. I did not mean that we have eternal life from the beginning after our death. I do not teach catholic doctrine’s.

    I am a little disappoinet how you are talking to me with a kind of anger and judgement.

    This is not a kind of way I want to share my faith.

    I really do not understand why..Christians… getting so mad sometimes and have to attack.

    After our resurrection ( we are sleeping in the grave) we have eternal life. A life with Jesus for ever and ever. Amen.

    God bless

    God bless

  308. on 08 Jul 2014 at 8:00 amJas

    Gigi
    There is no promise of eternal life in the bible only a promise to life during an particular age. Eternal life only comes after death is destroyed after the life in the age.
    I do not think you thought that when a person dies they receive eternal life like the catholics teach their eternal heaven and hell but the translations you used are the product of that doctrine. I am not angry or judging I just was showing you .
    There is only one ageless uncreated being who has no beginning or end and could be called eternal which is The Most High.

  309. on 08 Jul 2014 at 2:48 pmJas

    “They do not talk to me anymore, because I did not follow that Matthew 28:19 is the word Jesus has spoken. Sir Anthony Buzzard taught this to me, but I do not believe in it.”

    Gigi
    Those that hold this verse as authenic do so to protect their inerrancy doctrine but Historical evidence should be enough.
    They think if One word is wrong that could make the whole bible false. They claim God preserved the bible purely but then they chose one translation over the other sometimes jumping back and forth from one translation to any that suits their needs.
    Your certainly not the reason

  310. on 13 Jul 2014 at 8:19 amRay

    I believe Matthew 28:19 is authentic, a good translation of what Jesus said.

    Do I believe so because I have some error to protect? I don’t believe so.

  311. on 13 Jul 2014 at 10:04 amJas

    Ray
    If you lived some 1800 years ago it would be impossible to think it authenic because no copy had it yet, it was not added yet which is the reason these early church fathers were unaware of this reading. This reading is not against my belief of baptism in the name of God, his High Priest (Jesus) and Holy Spirit that indwells Jesus
    You can believe in Santa Claus if you want because freewill to choose is a God Given Right.

  312. on 23 Jul 2014 at 2:23 amGigi

    Ray,

    did you ever think why we should get baptized?

    Did God give all power to His Son? ( Yes)

    Is our baptizing showing that we bury our old flesh to live with Jesus ? ( Yes)

    There are a lot of verses in the scripture to believe in God through Jesus Christ and God’s holy Spirit reveal the scripture to us. There is no way to God than through His Son.

    The baptism shows us and let us be obedient to let the seen und unseen world that we follow Jesus.

    The holy Spirit is the spirit of God. Only people who believe that the holy Spirit is a person believe that Matthew 19:28 is authentic.

    Mankind put his own words into our Lord’s mouth, and now they have to explain it with their own words too.

    If one knows why we have to get baptized, they would not getting baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and holy Spirit.

    May God bless you.

  313. on 23 Jul 2014 at 10:16 amJas

    “did you ever think why we should get baptized?

    Did God give all power to His Son? ( Yes)”

    Gigi
    Jesus was only given ALL AUTHORITY to reign over one age and after that age he will return that authority back to God.
    The age is the 1000 years Sabbath Rest of God which will be the age where the promise to Abraham,Isaac ,Jacob and his Offspring are fulfilled. This present age is still ruled by satan till God locks him up while he Rest.
    Baptism in the name of the High Priest is sufficient but does not exclude the Powers that make it effective .
    There is other things that must accompany which the Most important is to accept the Word of God as your moral guide as Jesus did .Jesus was perfect in the Torah even before he was chosen and anointed(indwelt) with The Holy Spirit. Under the New Priesthood Covenant those that accept the Torah and are baptized in the name of High Priest are forgiven of past sins against the Torah and are given a personal Holy Spirit to guide them on a narrow path .
    If they willing sin after, they are worst off then before they entered which maybe means they forfeited the Grace God Gave to mankind and will not receive life in the New Heaven and Earth along with the rest of Mankind.

  314. on 24 Jul 2014 at 2:50 amGigi

    Jas, you are right I meant authority and not power.

    we will receive new life if we believe in Jesus Christ and God, there is only one way to god…our Lord Jesus Christ…

    We are still in our flesh and this means that we are sinner and we fall if we listen to satan, and satan is everywhere even in our relatives and friends.

    The world tells us how wonderful things are and we are falling. The best is the holy Spirit reveals to us our sin, and when we repent and go away from this sin God forgives us if we ask for forgiveness through our Lord Jesus Christ.

    Even we fall many times god is forgiven us and one day satan has no power over us anymore.

    I understand for myself that I have to stay very close to Jesus, that I do not fall.
    I am reading the Old Testament again written from Martin Buber and Franz Rosenzweig. They were two jewish scholars.

    Believe me Jas the Torah is written for the Israel-people of God, and it is good to read the Torah to know that Our Lord is the Son of God and that Jesus has to fulfill the Torah and when He comes back and He has given the Kingdom back to His Father the Torah is fulfilled.

    May God bless you.

  315. on 24 Jul 2014 at 9:18 amJas

    Gigi
    Life in the age to come only comes to those who have faith in the promises God made Israel which Includes Faith in the Torah as God’s Way, Faith in the Sacrifice and Faith in the High Priest who offered up the sacrifice, both are Jesus in the New Priesthood Covenant . Sin is revealed by the Torah and without the Torah there can be no sin against God accounted . Only those that possess all the signs of the Israel-people of God will live in the land of Israel during the age to come the rest of the dead and gentiles will not be raised till after . If you live long enough you might see this from the outside because gentiles will continue into the age to come , some might even become an Israelite during the age to come.
    Jesus fulfilled the Old Priesthood Covenant that is in the Torah by becoming the true sacrifice .
    No one who willingly sins against the Torah is Israel but the deception is powerful to keep physical Israel from seeing the promise.

  316. on 24 Jul 2014 at 10:23 amJas

    Gigi
    I would love to be able to create a doctrine of inclusion into true Israel but knowing the historical and cultural context of the passages used as evidence by those who have created this false doctrine it prevents me. Christianity and Judaism have created so much deception it has become almost impossible to find All the truth. Not only that but they have set up governments and economies that almost makes it impossible to live by God’s way without starving to death within a few months. If the true church exist today they do so in the most remote places set apart from the ways of the World.
    Thank God for also given Grace to the gentiles, He did not have to do that but love for his creation compelled him

  317. on 25 Jul 2014 at 2:51 amGigi

    Jas,
    God know how weak mankind is and that’s why He is given grace to us.

    I have got the hope when Jesus will come back then I will know the truth. He will teach me.

    We can’t live beside the world because we have to reveal God and His Son to the world.

    Gentile forsake believers and believers forsake believers if they do not believe in their doctrine.

    I believe that God is protecting His children and He is looking in our hearts.

    I believe if our heart is full of love to God and His Son Jesus then we are on the right path.

    We have to believe who God and His Son is.

    I am longing to live in God’s Kingdom where nobody is hurting us or put power on us or forsake us.

    Something I believe that there is no God’s family on earth now, we will be a family in God’s kingdom.

    God’s family would not react like an earthly family.
    If you are searching for the truth one get crazy, because only God knows the truth and He will reveal it to you when Jesus comes back. At the moment the holy Spirit reveals to us what is important to know to enter the Kingdom of God. That’s what I believe.
    God bless

  318. on 25 Jul 2014 at 10:30 amJas

    Gigi
    I agree that All the truth will be revealed to EVERYONE after Jesus returns to gather All the Dead but that does not happen till after the 1000 years.
    I have no doubt you will live in God’s Kingdom when it is established upon the New Earth but so will almost every man ,woman and child that ever lived and died because God does love the gentiles Also.
    Those of the First Resurrection will be those who tried to obey the Commandments of God and used either the Old Priesthood Covenant or The New Priesthood Covenant to cover their stumbling on the path. Those that willingly disobeyed God continuously or added to His Laws will not be a part of first resurrection but will still receive Grace and Judgment before God after.

  319. on 25 Jul 2014 at 12:43 pmGigi

    Jas,

    I agree with you that God loves the gentile when they believe in His Son Jesus, because Jesus is the only way to God’s Kingdom.

    As long as we are in our flesh we are not free from sin.
    When you believe in Jesus Christ one has to try not to fall in sin, but sometimes we are falling.

    Then we have to stand up to repent and ask God for His forgiveness and start our relationship new with Him in Jesus .

    God bless
    Gigi

    By the way do you recognise when I am on this forum, nobody else is talking to you.lol, I told you..smile

  320. on 25 Jul 2014 at 1:05 pmJas

    Gigi
    No one talks to me either way.
    Btw God loves ALL The Gentiles whether they knew who Jesus is or not and God Gave Grace as a gift to All his children He Created.
    There is absolutely no requirement for Grace but Faith will be a profit at the Great White Throne Judgment of the Just and unjust(great and small) because it promotes loving your neighbor but then again so does most religions of the world.

  321. on 26 Jul 2014 at 2:19 amGigi

    Jas,
    I do not agree with you that all gentiles who do not know Jesus will be save.

    If this would be the truth the death of Jesus and His resurrection was futilely. John 17:3 tells only who believe in Jesus will be with God.

    Satan did spread this lie, and that’s why people are telling all religions are the path to God. This is the big lie, and all who do not believe in the Son of God will be lost and NOT in the Kingdom of God.

    I don’t know who told you this it is not from the scripture.

    There are many christians! and they are like a club and no other believers are allow to join this club-church. First I was sad, but now I am glad, because if believers do not talk to others and they think they are better..Ok, it is their decission and I believe they have to explain this one day as we all have to explain our acting.
    The scripture tells us how we have to act, and the scripture tells us the truth, and even if scholars mixed up a translation, they could not put to death the word of God. God’s holy Spirit reveals the truth to us, a truth we need to know to have a relationship with God through His Son to enter the Kingdom of God.

    God bless you.

  322. on 26 Jul 2014 at 2:26 amGigi

    Jas,
    isn’t wonderful how God is talking to us. After I wrote my message to you I found a newsletter in my mailbox, and please read what it has to say…smile

    THE RIGHT WAY TO GOD

    In the wilderness, the Israelites were brought on commandment from God, to the foot of Mount Sinai, that they might see the presence of God there. We see this wilful people gathered as a huge multitude at the foot of the mountain and made to witness the awesome spectacle of thunder and lightning and a thick cloud upon the mountain, accompanied by the noise of a trumpet so loud that the people trembled in fear. The whole mountain appeared to be on fire, and trembled as though in an earthquake. “Then the voice of a trumpet sounded long, and waxed louder and louder -” and fear was driven deep into the hearts of the people. God charged Moses that no one was to come near to the mountain and break through unto the Lord to gaze, or they would perish.

    The God of Israel was unapproachable. This mountain could not be climbed! The effect of this dramatic moment would be to instil in the minds of all who witnessed it that God dwelt alone in His holy mountain, and that no man could approach unless he was bidden to do so. The literal sense here is obvious – a burning, erupting mountain, and a terrifying spectacle of noise and the fearful power of God would be a warning to all witnesses.
    The spiritual sense portrays the approach to Him only in a specified manner. It was after this that Moses was bidden to ascend into the mountain – the fiery mountain of the Lord! – and was given the laws which would henceforth be the control and guide to the welfare of all Israel for generations to come. The Law was to be the only means whereby the Israelites could approach the holy mountain of the Lord. Many generations later, the Son of God was to say to the Israelites of his day: “No man comes unto the Father, except by me.”

  323. on 26 Jul 2014 at 9:38 amRay

    The name of Jesus is just as good as the Father himself, and his Holy Spirit.

  324. on 26 Jul 2014 at 2:00 pmJas

    If this would be the truth the death of Jesus and His resurrection was futilely. John 17:3 tells only who believe in Jesus will be with God.

    Gigi
    No John 17 speaks of being part of age to come and yes that has requirements.
    You are mixing Grace with the reward of Israel which has requirements set forth in the Torah and confirmed by Jesus testimony . You see the the word eternal in this verse and do not realize it just means age..
    It is true no one comes to the father except through the mediator Jesus at the GWT Judgment but the reward of Israel comes before that..
    Jesus perfection unto death removed the curse of remaining in the grave, otherwords death no longer reigns over mankind ,they will be raised and judged by their own deeds not Adam’s .

  325. on 26 Jul 2014 at 2:07 pmJas

    Gigi
    You just don’t see your requirements for Grace condemns everyone who was not privileged to know about God or Jesus and could not confess Jesus. This includes every child that has died too young to know .
    The God I see in the bible would not do this unjust act.

  326. on 26 Jul 2014 at 3:50 pmGigi

    Jas,

    I don’t know what Jesus will do with the one who never had the chance to know about Him and His Father.

    I think that God will have grace with them and maybe they get taught about Jesus and then they have a chance to have faith or not.

    I told you before that I lost two Babies and I hope I will see them in the Kingdom, but I can’t imagine how this will work, and I do not analyze it. Everything I do not know and I can’t imagine I wait for the time Jesus comes back and then I will understand everything.

    I am talking from Israel and Gentiles who has the chance to learn about the Son of God and forsake Him.

    They are not under the grace of God and they do not enter the Kingdom.

    Only the Israel who died and believe in God and had no chance to see Jesus, they will be in the Kingdom,the holy Spirit revealed to David that there will be a Lord a Master Psalm 110:1

    I am talking from all who are able to know about God and Jesus and forsake God and His Son, they will not enter the Kingdom.

    God’s people will enter the Kingdom , because God promised this to them.

    People who are living in Israel now, they are not the real Israel. Israel is earthly and the orthodox Jews( taught from the catholic church) believe in the trinity and the other forsake Jesus or do not believe in God, they will not enter the Kingdom if they do not change their faith or become faith.

  327. on 26 Jul 2014 at 4:17 pmGigi

    Ray, Jas
    John 15:25 you read what the holy Spirit is. Jesus called him the Spirit of the truth, who proceeds from the Father.

    I have a question… Jesus spoke to His desciple how they have to pray to His Father and our Father in Heaven, and that God is greater as His Son.

    Then we read that God has given all authority to Jesus in heaven and on earth.

    Jesus is our King and Lord, that’s why we can pray to Jesus or do we have to pray only to God in Jesus Name.

    Jesus spoke to His disciples before His resurrection how to pray. God has given all authority after the resurrection to His Son.
    Do we still have to pray to God or can we pray to our Lord Jesus in His Name?

  328. on 26 Jul 2014 at 4:55 pmJas

    People who are living in Israel now, they are not the real Israel. Israel is earthly and the orthodox Jews( taught from the catholic church) believe in the trinity and the other forsake Jesus or do not believe in God, they will not enter the Kingdom if they do not change their faith or become faith.

    So lets condemn All that in error because God allowed the deception. Facts is in the last days of this age(Eternity) the bible says the WHOLE WORLD IS DECEIVED and this deception can be very small but deception is deception.
    If you are still looking for Jesus to explain then You have not received the Holy Spirit because Jesus said It Would teach you ALL THINGS. If you can not share the word of God to people of all languages by speaking and understanding their language miraculously then you dont have the Holy Spirit. If You condemn All mankind because Adam disobeyed God then you flat out do not understand how Jesus became the 2nd Adam and what it meant to the Gentiles.
    I have lost children and granchildren myself but I know they will be raised and judged like everyone who ever lived.

  329. on 26 Jul 2014 at 5:28 pmGigi

    Jas,
    until Jesus comes back we have to teach mankind about Jesus and the Kingdom of God.

    Do you speak in all languages?

    God is given gifts to us and we do not have all the same gifts.

    How can you judge that one has not the holy Spirit.

    Nobody without the holy Spirit is able to understand the scripture and nobody without the holy Spirit understands who God and Jesus is.

    Do you believe that Jesus will judge a little Baby who lived 7 days?

    For the little children there will be grace, that’s what I believe.

  330. on 26 Jul 2014 at 11:36 pmJas

    Gigi
    I am not claiming to have the HS so no I cant but if God gave the gift of languages it was to teach other nations about God and Jesus. If you cant miraculously communicate with someone you wish to teach then The Holy Spirit is blocking you which would be ridiculous . If you cant heal when healing would help you spread the news then again the HS is blocking you from the tools God made sure his disciples of Jesus had.
    A requirement is a requirement so believing an exception that is not specified is just adding to God’s word for own purpose.
    Yes I do believe God Judges All but Believe with all my heart My God will judge them worthy of life in the New Heaven upon the New Earth and also believe God will judge others by how they loved his creation whether or not if they knew who created it.
    This is the act of a just and loving God . Your God I dont like or want if he allowed Satan to decieve then Judged you by it when at anytime he could have removed,

  331. on 27 Jul 2014 at 6:26 pmGigi

    Jas, I dont understand what you mean with this sentence…

    Your God I dont like or want if he allowed Satan to decieve then Judged you by it when at anytime he could have removed,

    There is only one God, the God of Abraham,Issac and Jacob, and in this God I believe.

  332. on 27 Jul 2014 at 7:07 pmJas

    Gigi
    Actually there is 30000+ different Gods within Christianity All of which each group claim to be the true God.
    I see a completely different God from reading my Bible

  333. on 30 Jul 2014 at 1:29 amGigi

    Jas,
    when you are reading your bible there is only one true God… the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, and there is only one Messiah.. the Son of God, Yeshua our Lord.

    May God bless you.

  334. on 30 Jul 2014 at 9:42 amJas

    Gigi
    Actually there is only One Most High El who reserved Israel as his person inheritance when he divided the nations amongst the Sons .The God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob is the God(El) of gods(elohim) who he set up over the Gentiles.
    Solomon was personally called The Son of God and the Messiah but failed so another was prophesied Jesus succeeded and is currently holding that office and will till all things are fulfilled.

  335. on 30 Jul 2014 at 7:14 pmGigi

    Jas,

    I am sorry to tell this to you, but what you told me about God and Jesus is a little weird to me and it is not biblical.
    Sometimes I wonder how some christians understand their bible.

    I do not take you away from your believe, but I do not want to talk about this message you have given to me in your last answer.

    May God bless you.

  336. on 30 Jul 2014 at 7:22 pmJas

    Gigi
    The Issue with that statement “there is only one true God” Is Elohim is PLURAL. I do believe the Most High set up a heavenly council (ONE COUNCIL)over Israel to govern them and to work as a mediator. This council includes WISDOM AKA HOLY SPIRIT,ANGEL OF YHWH,SPIRIT OF YHWH, VISABLE YHWH and Michael and Gabriel as tribal gods.
    NONE OF WHICH ARE EQUAL TO THEIR CREATOR
    You are just accepting Elohim as singular because a man decided it to fit his doctrine. Judah was not monotheistic till they were exiled to please the leader of Babylon whose religion was of One God but not the Most High,

  337. on 04 Aug 2014 at 2:34 pmTimoteo

    Hello Gigi,

    Which is the gift?

    being saved(eternal life)

    or

    grace

    Ephesians 2:8 (kjv)
    2 For by grace(gr charis) are ye saved through faith(gr pistis); and that not of yourselves: it is the gift(doron) of God:

    Epheser 2: (luth 1545)
    8 Denn aus Gnade(eng grace) seid ihr selig geworden durch den Glauben(eng believing), und das nicht aus euch: Gottes Gabe(eng gift) ist es

    charis=grace, good will, loving-kindness, favour, mercy, pardon

    pistis=believing

    doron=a gift, present

  338. on 04 Aug 2014 at 6:05 pmTimoteo

    Xavier,

    On 06 Mar 2013 you commented to Wolfgang repeatedly:

    127 Xavier

    Wolfgang

    Apart from Wierwelle who else taught you non-water baptism?

    On the same date I made this comment to you:

    130 timothy

    Xavier,

    Ref. # 127

    My finale teachings, on the subject comes from Jesus Christ, via my comforter/παράκλητος/parakletos.

    So now then, which teacher is teaching you, that Jesus Christ does not:

    John 14: (kjv)
    26 But the Comforter(παράκλητος–parakletos), which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you(red letters).

    Acts 1: (kjv)
    5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.(red letters)

    Now, over a year later I have been rehearsing the beginning comments on this thread.

    1) Matthew 28:19 does not even mention water! The water got in here because most have been taught that water baptism is necessary.

    2) I was taught about holy spirit baptism, just as Wolfgang, in the 80’s and can not remember ever having teachings about no water baptism.
    Why? Because we learned and practiced reading GODs word as:

    2 Timothy 3:16
    1 Peter 1:20
    2 Timothy 2:15

    It is plain and crystal clear that John the baptist proclaimed that his water baptism would cease.

    And Jesus Christ made it clear, that water baptism would be replaced by holy spirit baptism, “not many days hence(red letters)”, in Acts 1:5.

    And furthermore, Peter was reminded by his parakletos, those same red letter words. I never even got concerned when I found that some get vicious about this subject and go into what Freud named denial.

    Apostle Paul, by revelation of Jesus Christ has written:

    Ephesians 4:5
    One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

    Jesus spoke:

    Matthew 15:
    2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

    3 But he answered and said unto them, “Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?(red letters)”

    IMHO, what ever turns you on:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qw6Hon013E

  339. on 04 Aug 2014 at 8:31 pmJas

    Timothy
    The discussion, is it authenic to the greek translation of Matthew?NO but that does not effect whether or not it was in the original authored hebrew version. The pre-nicene church fathers never quoted it when comparing the original hebrew to the greek version of the romish church.
    It very well could have been in hebrew but since water baptism was the norm of the pre-nicene church they would not have an issue therefore why mention it.
    Of course it is ridiculous to be divided over its authenticity because there is many more verses that prove water baptism was required in the post pentecost church.
    Truth is water baptism was the norm for All christianity till the last 150 years. History proves the only issues with water baptism was whether an infant was in need of it or whether full immersion was required.
    You know full well John and The Holy spirit are being spoke of not water and Holy spirit.
    You just follow a tradition of a man not the bible.

  340. on 05 Aug 2014 at 6:18 pmTimoteo

    Jas,

    Yes, yes, yes.

    I follow a man, a man approved of GOD:

    Acts 2:
    22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

    John said that he, this man, Jesus Christ, would not baptize with water:

    Mark1:
    8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.

    Jesus said water would be replaced with Holy Ghost:

    Acts 1:
    5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.”

    Yes indeed, I follow a man, my Lord Jesus Christ and GODs word, aka the bible.

    Jas, who do you “just follow”? Perhaps I gather (after spending some time to read # 1 through # 334 this thread) and have determined that you may be following Mr. id.

    Jesus explains how easy it is to follow him:

    John 14:
    16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

    17 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 with you, and shall be in you.

    18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

    19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

    20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

    21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

    22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?

    23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

    24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.

    25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.

    26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JV76qjjys6g

  341. on 05 Aug 2014 at 11:40 pmJas

    ‘Jesus said water would be replaced with Holy Ghost:

    No Jesus never said water would be replaced ,he said Baptism in the name of John would be replaced with baptism by the Holy Spirit which was understood completely post pentecost.
    I am sorry but the leader of the Way was not approved of God.

    Jas, who do you “just follow”? Perhaps I gather (after spending some time to read # 1 through # 334 this thread) and have determined that you may be following Mr. id.

    Timothy I follow no one other than the testimony of Jesus and the Word of God.

    Maybe you might be following “Mr.id” but I would never accuse you of it. I just think you are extremely brainwashed by your former man approved of god. Thousands upon thousands were and many received help .

  342. on 06 Aug 2014 at 10:01 pmXavier

    Our tendency to see baptism as a symbolic optional extra, or to be embarrassed by the inclusion of a physical act as part of the spiritual process of conversion, contrasts with the strongly “realist” language of the New Testament about the saving significance of baptism (e.g., John 3:5; Rom. 6:3-4; Gal. 3:27; Col. 2:12; Tit. 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:20-21). While there are no New Testament grounds for believing that baptism by itself makes a person a Christian, the idea of an unbaptized Christian is equally foreign to its thought. “Without it [baptism] a believer did not enter the primitive community of faith” (S.S. Smalley) (Evangelical Quarterly, 65:4, 1992, p. 306).

    http://focusonthekingdom.org/articles/baptism.htm

  343. on 09 Aug 2014 at 1:36 amRay

    Rather than baptism by the Spirit replacing baptism of repentance in water, it seems to me that it was something given in addition to, and it is something a bit different. It seems that by Holy Spirit baptism, something of the Spirit of God was given in more abundance, in greater measure, or by something in addition, than what had been previously received.

  344. on 10 Aug 2014 at 11:35 amTimoteo

    Ray,

    Today, this is most important:

    Isaiah 25:
    4 For You have been a defense for the helpless, A defense for the needy in his distress, A refuge from the storm, a shade from the heat; For the breath of the ruthless Is like a rain storm against a wall.

    Galatians 6:
    10 So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith.

    1 Thessalonians 4:
    9 Now as to the love of the brethren, you have no need for anyone to write to you, for you yourselves are taught by God to love one another;
    10 for indeed you do practice it toward all the brethren who are in all Macedonia. But we urge you, brethren, to excel still more,

    (disregard the advertisement)

    http://video.foxnews.com/v/3722648284001/iraqs-christians-appeal-to-the-world-for-help/?intcmp=obnetwork#sp=show-clips

  345. on 11 Aug 2014 at 12:37 amTimoteo

    Hallo Gigi,

    I follow Mr Ed too.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn91pMvdDHQ

  346. on 27 Aug 2014 at 11:17 amTimoteo

    All….

    Being baptiswed in/by water could be washing pots and pans. It is a Greek word for washing.

    With/by water is not a supernatural phenomenon.

    Baptised by the risen Jesus Christ, with holy spirit, is a

    **SUPERNATURAL PHENOMENON**!

    And holy spirit baptism brings the all inclusive gift(singular) of holy spirit as evidenced at Pentecost and at/with Cornelius’ household. These gentiles
    were baptised by Jesus Christ while hearing GODs word, not by nor after any water baptism.

    Galatians 3: (KJV)
    2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

    The supernatural **WASHING**:

    Revelation 1: (KJV)
    5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

  347. on 27 Aug 2014 at 5:11 pmJas

    Timothy
    You know full well Jesus said God would send them another Comforter. Baptism in water BY HS trumps Baptism in water BY John.
    It is very sad you continue to ignore the Apostles used Water Baptism to cleanse a person of past personal sin long after Pentecost . But you had a very influential teacher who could sell Ice to Eskimos .

  348. on 28 Aug 2014 at 10:18 amTimoteo

    Jas,

    I do not find what you claim in the account.

    Jas claims: “It is very sad you continue to ignore the Apostles used Water Baptism to cleanse a person of past personal sin long after Pentecost.”

    Acts 19: (KJV)

    19 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

    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.

    3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.

    4 Then 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.

    5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

    6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

    7 And all the men were about twelve.

    8 And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.

    9 But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus.

    10 And this continued by the space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.

    11 And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul:

    12 So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.

    13 Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth.

    14 And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so.

    15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?

  349. on 28 Aug 2014 at 5:58 pmJas

    Timothy
    Receiving the Holy Ghost comes from the Holy Ghost taking Part in your water baptism but the Holy Ghost can come upon anyone at anytime to accomplish what God commanded it to do. Whether that be turning a staff into a snake,parting a great sea, making a donkey speak, casting out demons,healing ,communicating with people of all languages and so on.
    The verse you quote have to be read in PROPER CONTEXT.

  350. on 28 Aug 2014 at 10:43 pmJas

    5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

    6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

    Timothy
    These are 2 separate activities ,why try combining them .
    Fact is even the Apostles continued water baptism long after pentecost and so did the 1st century church.
    In this passage there was people who had unholy spirits come upon them and dwell bodily in them.
    Even unholy spirits can speak in tongues through a human they have come in the flesh.

  351. on 28 Aug 2014 at 11:58 pmTimoteo

    Jas,

    claims: “Receiving the Holy Ghost comes from the Holy Ghost taking Part in your water baptism but the Holy Ghost can come upon anyone at anytime to accomplish what God commanded it to do.”

    So, Jas, what part did the Holy Ghost take part of when you were water baptised and does the Holy Ghost come upon you at anytime or does it command you to do anything anytime.

    What languages are you speaking when you, Jas, speak in tongues?

    Does the Holy Ghost make you speak in tongues or is it like you said:

    “In this passage there was people who had unholy spirits come upon them and dwell bodily in them.
    Even unholy spirits can speak in tongues through a human they have come in the flesh.”

    What are these people doing as compared to Jesus Christ instruction revealed to Paul in 1 Corinthians 12, 13 and 14?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzhNpyYuXk8

  352. on 29 Aug 2014 at 9:27 amJas

    Timothy
    Again you know full well that I have not been able to enter a Covenant Relationship with God to become a member of the Israel of God. Yes when I was young I was baptized in water but through intense study have learned there is way more to accept in the Word of God to be able to enter a Covenant Relationship with God and receive the promises spoke of in Jeremiah and by Jesus. Satan has buried the truth with the help of the romish church and later the protestant church both also taking part in the persecutions of the true church which may or may not exist to this day. You certainly don’t meet the description nor have I found anyone but one does not need to be a part of the 1st resurrection to receive the gift of Grace which will provide exactly what “orthodox” church believes about judgment and heaven just a short sleep before it comes.

  353. on 29 Aug 2014 at 12:09 pmTimoteo

    Jas,

    I do not know what, “full well”?

    I do know, full well, in the English language structure, that this quote from wiki is correct:

    “In Western Christian theology, grace has been defined, not as a created substance of any kind, but as “the love and mercy given to us by God because God desires us to have it, not because of anything we have done to earn it”,[1] “the condescension or benevolence shown by God toward the human race”…..

    You have turned grace into a gift.

    Is grace a person, place or thing?

    Is mercy a person, place or thing?

    GRACE is divine favor.

    Mercy is judgement with held.

    GOD is no respecter of persons.

    GOD is a respecter of conditions.

    Here are the conditions:

    Romans 10: (kjv)

    how=
    9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

    why=
    10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

    GODs grace=
    11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

    12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

    13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

    Paul writes again

    Galatians 3: (kjv)

    17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

    and

    1 Corinthians 1: (kjv)

    17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

    and

    Romans 4:

    (kjv)

    9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.

    and

    Romans 10: (kjv)

    17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

    and someone wrote

    Hebrews 11: (kjv)

    6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

  354. on 29 Aug 2014 at 12:22 pmJas

    Timothy
    Grace is a gift to ALL mankind. Can not be earned or owed
    So NO I have not changed Grace or put requirements on it.
    Grace is Grace.
    Did I say Grace was a being?NO
    Did I say Grace was a Place?NO
    Did I say Grace was a thing? NO
    You have no idea what mankind needed mercy from do you?
    It was from remaing in death because of Adam?
    Abel was the firs of Adam’s offspring to need Grace and on account of Jesus he received it.
    You think you have some kind of exclusive when it comes to Grace but you don’t !

  355. on 29 Aug 2014 at 12:52 pmTimoteo

    Xavier,

    Thanks for yours copy pasted comment.

    With some 33,000 different versions of Christianity today, they must be growing millions of commentaries too.

    IMHO the focus on “receiving power from on high” has been masked with the baptism by men with water. The HRCC has carried on with its triune god baptism and thus keeping, by idolatry, Christians in an invisible bondage for 2,000 years.

    Were you connected to LHIM *Royal Family Reunion* last weekend. Chico, my pastor Sean Finnegan is one of your best friends, no? The whole program is available on line.

    I have several English yachting friends who went to English boarding schools(Winchester and Eaton) similar to your man of GOD and father in law’s. I even went for four years( 9th – 12th) to an American military prep school equivalent, plus 8th grade in the pre Castro, Havana Military Academy.

    Sometimes the good or bad ideas are ingrained to a youth by the social beliefs indoctrination. My school is Judo Christian, so our religious views are not hypocritical.

    One may be baptized by Jesus Christ with holy spirit, with or without any water ceremony accompaniment.

    This is what I believe.

  356. on 30 Aug 2014 at 12:33 pmJas

    Timothy
    Mercy is a release from judgment not a judgment with held.
    Grace is the release from the judgment Adam’s disobedience put on mankind and also it is the result of the judgment for the complete obedience of Jesus.
    Nobody is exempt from Judgment because even righteousness is a judgment by the Word of God

  357. on 30 Aug 2014 at 2:51 pmShlomo

    Very interesting website & this article, very interesting.

    In the Greek and other Eastern Orthodox churches baptism is by thrice-dipping. In Judaism we thrice-dip ourselves after reciting the Shema. If you convert to Judaism you must undergo thrice-dipping after reciting the Shema: “Hear O Israel, the L-RD our G-d, the L-RD is one!”

    The Torah says Israel is G-d’s son. Also, the Torah came by means of ha-Ruach ha-Kodesh–Holy Spirit. So the rabbis say, “G-d, Israel and Torah are one.”

    Saying, “In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, ” then, is a generic way of saying, “In the name of G-d, Israel and Torah.” Thus, the Great Commission, to make disciples of all nations, the generic expression would be more universalistic than the particular, “G-d, Israel and Torah.”

    This trinitarian expression, however, does not imply the Son and Holy Spirit are G-d. Only the Father is G-d, as Jeshua (Jesus) taught. Just as G-d’s son, Israel, is not G-d and the Torah is not G-d, but are one with G-d in carrying out His plan of salvation.

    A case can be made that the Angel who appeared to Jacob, whom he called “Peniel” (“Face of G-d”) was in fact a pre-existent Jesus whose real angelic name is Israel. He gave Jacob one of his own names. That is why when Jacob asked his name, he replied with a question: “Why do you ask my name?” The answer: I just gave you my name. Why does Matthew quote, “Out of Egypt I have called my son” in reference to Jeshua? Just some thoughts to consider.

  358. on 30 Aug 2014 at 4:33 pmTimoteo

    Jas,

    “Mercy is a release from judgment”

    This would be you being judged and then the judgement would cease and
    you would be let go. Sorta like people wrongly imprisoned and then 20 years later DNA tech proved their innocence. Or maybe like the HRCC purgatory portrayed in Dante’s Inferno and a paid indulgence would release the tormented.

    Where as judgement with held would be like a plea bargain deal, with no trial.

    or:

    Isaiah 13: (kjv)
    9 Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.

    1 Thessalonians 1: (kjv)
    10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

    Revelation 6: (kjv)
    17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

    Revelation 11: (kjv)
    18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

    Jas, what you write can mean the same thing=released from being judged or judgement with held.

    mercy…..merciful

    grace…..gracious

    Jas, wouldn”t you like to be “exempt from Judgment”?

    Then, if you approve of Sean, take this class given by his father, while there is still a chance. Completing all 16 sessions would be for your own benefit.

    http://lhim.org/resources/classes.php?id=31

  359. on 30 Aug 2014 at 4:48 pmJas

    “Jas, wouldn”t you like to be “exempt from Judgment”?”

    Timothy
    Absolutely not! I want to be held accountable by my actions good and bad.
    Absolutely Nobody can be exempted from Judgment especially yours.
    How could Sean teach me when by your judgment he is not even a true christian?

  360. on 30 Aug 2014 at 6:59 pmJas

    Timothy
    I will be content to stand before the Judgment Seat with the Anointed One as my Advocate to be Judged by my deeds.
    Atleast I will have an opportunity for Judgment as opposed to just remaing in the Grave which was where All Gentiles stood before Grace. By Gentile I mean everyone who did not enter or forsaked a Covenant Relationship with GOD.

  361. on 30 Aug 2014 at 9:46 pmTimoteo

    Jas,

    Well, so long for now.

    You views are always interesting to read and some day you may find what you are searching for.

    Please give links to several other blogs you are supporting. I would like to read what your other fans have to say.

    Bye, bye, Jas.

  362. on 30 Aug 2014 at 10:06 pmJas

    Timothy
    All I am searching for is one truth after another but as I said if I don’t find or uncover all the truth needed then I always have salvation from Grace which allows for me to be raised from the grave for Judgment.
    Also I will make sure your the first to know when I get my first fan so you can read what they say, just don’t hold your breath waiting.

  363. on 31 Aug 2014 at 11:11 amJas

    “A case can be made that the Angel who appeared to Jacob, whom he called “Peniel” (“Face of G-d”) was in fact a pre-existent Jesus whose real angelic name is Israel. He gave Jacob one of his own names.”

    Shlomo
    I think a better case can be made, that Angel(Heavenly Being) could very well be the same Spirit that indwelled Jesus at his Baptism and spoke and done miracles through the man Jesus.
    Have you read the quotes from the original Hebrew book of Matthew about his baptism?

  364. on 01 Sep 2014 at 7:41 amRay

    When I consider the subject matter of the entire Bible, it seems to me to be as much about Jesus as anything else. I trust that mercy is often judgment withheld and that mercy is often a part of God’s judgment in a matter, but not always.

    I believe the Lord certainly could have appeared unto men by way of something they could see with their physical eyes, as well as through visions or dreams, as he has been with God from everlasting, and when I think of 3 of anything that should always be trusted, for me, it comes down to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

    Yes, I believe Matt 28:19 is authentic. Here it is in the 1599 Geneva:

    Matt 28:19
    Go therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the holy Ghost.

  365. on 10 Dec 2014 at 9:52 pmGeorge

    Matthew 28:19 is false to see the evidence go the web site

    http://www.apostolic-bible.com

    In there you will find mountains of evidence that it is a spurious fabrication.

  366. on 28 Mar 2017 at 5:27 amNuno

    I am writting a paper, or a thesis named here in Eurpoe about this subjet. So far, the “Jesus’s name” is “winning” (if i may say so) to the triune formula. The trinune formula was added gradualy. Even Didachè prove that the triune formula was added.

  367. on 29 Jun 2017 at 12:33 amAvram Yehoshua

    To Those Who Hold to Baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Apostle Paul expressly states that we are baptized into Jesus/Yeshua. This is because only Yeshua died for us: Neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit died for us. (Romans 6:3…Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?) That’s why, theologically, we shouldn’t be ‘baptized’ in the name of the Father/Son/Spirit. All of Acts supports this, despite the ingenious circumvention of saying that Acts only tells us the authority by which the Apostles immersed in. Also, there is no second witness for Mt. 28:19’s Trio Baptism, but many witnesses in Acts and Romans 6:3.

    As for Isaiah 7:14, it does speak of the Messiah being born to a virgin, as the word for ‘young maiden’ (Hebrew Alma) ALWAYS means a young women who has never known a man, albeit, a virgin. See my article, The Virgin Conception of Messiah and Isaiah 7:14 at http://seedofabraham.net/The-Virgin-Conception-Is.-7.14.pdf. As for the name Immanuel, God with us, being a name of the Messiah of Israel, the Rabbis gave the Messiah many names, and so, simplistically, one could say Yeshua wasn’t the Messiah because He wasn’t name ‘this’ or ‘that’ name. Names are reflections of who we are, and truly, Messiah has many names from the Old Testament: See my article The Names of the Messiah of Israel at http://seedofabraham.net/The-Names-of-Messiah.pdf. The point about Yeshua being called Immanuel. This is taken from the article on the names of Messiah:

    1. עִמָּנוּ אֵל Immanuel–God with us; Is. 7:14. Some people don’t understand this name or designation for Messiah and say that He was called Yeshua (Jesus), but not Immanuel. I refer them to Isaiah 9:6 where the same prophet says that Messiah’s name would also be, Wonderful! Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father and Prince of Peace. We don’t see anyone calling Him them, either. Also, how many called Him any of the names listed above? (Meaning the previous 22 names that I have listed for the Messiah in the article.)
    a. The Tanach speaks of the Messiah in many terms or ‘names’ such as ‘the Branch,’ and the ancient Rabbis found, or gave, more than 20 different names to the Messiah (e.g. the Breach Breaker from Messiah’s descent from Perez, Gen. 38:29, whose name means to make a breach). This breach-breaking Messiah has made a breach for His Flock Israel into Heaven itself.*1*
    b. Conceptually, in terms of Immanuel, and for the rest of Messiah’s names, the Lord Yeshua was ‘called’ Immanuel or God with us when we see the Jewish crowd speaking of Him after he had just raised the widow of Nain’s son from the dead (Luke 7:11-16). The crowd marveled and said, ‘God has visited His people!’ The terms, ‘being with us’ and ‘visiting’ are conceptually identical and reveal that truly, God (the Father) was with us in Yeshua and that He was called, or it was said of Yeshua, Immanuel.

    *1*See Kingdom Violence—Matthew 11:12 at http://seedofabraham.net/Kingdom-Violence.pdf. Did Jesus advocate being violent? No. He wasn’t speaking about violently taking the Kingdom by force or wilful determination, as many commentators teach, but Yeshua was alluding to a passage in Micah that speaks of the Messiah as the Shepherd who makes a way for His Flock through the Fence (in this case, that which keeps us out of Heaven). It’s a fascinating account.

    For those who think that the Father is the Son, which defies not only logic, but both common sense and the natural order of things, which God made!, when is a father every his son?

    Yes, it’s impossible from the Greek perspective to understand that God is one, and yet Three Persons, but it’s all over the Old Testament, starting in Genesis One, the first three verses. To understand this Mystery, see my article, Yeshua—God the Son at http://seedofabraham.net/Yeshua-God-the-Son.pdf. Also, see Yeshua—His Deity and Sonship at http://seedofabraham.net/Yeshua-His-Deity-and-Sonship.pdf because that brings together many OT and NT Scriptures about the deity and Sonship of Messiah Yeshua.

    Here are some more names of the Messiah of Israel:

    1. רֹאשׁ פִּנָּה Rosh Pina–The CornerStone; Ps. 118:22.
    2. אֶבֶן בֹחָן Ehven Bohan–The Tried Stone; Is. 28:16.
    a. פִּנַּת יִקְרַת Pinat Yik’raht–The Precious Stone; Is. 28:16.
    3. בֶּן דָוִיד ben David–The Son of David; Hos. 3:5.
    4. נְהִירָא Nihe’ra–Light; Dan. 2:22.
    5. מְנָחֵם Menachem–Comforter; Is. 52:9; Lam. 1:16.

    Blessings from Above on your Journey to the New Jerusalem! (Rev. 21:1f.),
    Avram Yehoshua

  

Leave a Reply