Kingdom Ready

214 Comments »

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

1. on 27 Feb 2013 at 1:19 pm1 Wolfgang

   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 pm2 Jas

   “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 pm3 Wolfgang

   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apostles that “not many days hence” from his ascension, baptism with water (which had been practiced by John) would be superseded by baptism with holy spirit ?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 pm4 Wolfgang

   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 pm5 Ray

   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 pm6 Ray

   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 pm7 Tim (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 pm8 Jas

   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 pm9 Jas

   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 am10 Wolfgang

    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 am11 Tim (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 am12 Wolfgang

    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 am13 Jas

    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 am14 Xavier

    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 am15 Jas

    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 am16 Wolfgang

    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 pm17 Matt 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 pm18 Jas

    “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 pm19 Xavier

    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 pm20 Jas

    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 pm21 Matt 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 pm22 Xavier

    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 pm23 Jas

    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 pm24 Jas

    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 pm25 Ray

    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 pm26 Jas

    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 am27 Wolfgang

    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 am28 Wolfgang

    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 am29 Ray

    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 am30 Ray

    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 am31 Wolfgang

    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 am32 Xavier

    Wolfgang

    Re-read my posts and the interaction therein.

33. on 01 Mar 2013 at 9:15 am33 Jas

    “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 am34 Ray

    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 am35 Jas

    “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 am36 Xavier

    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 am37 Jas

    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 am38 Ray

    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 am39 Wolfgang

    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 pm40 Tim (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 pm41 Wolfgang

    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 pm42 Ray

    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 pm43 Jas

    “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 pm44 Xavier

    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 am45 Wolfgang

    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 am46 Wolfgang

    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 am47 Wolfgang

    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 am48 Xavier

    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 am49 Wolfgang

    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 am50 Ray

    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 am51 Xavier

    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 am52 Dr 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 am53 Jas

    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 pm54 Wolfgang

    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 pm55 Wolfgang

    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 pm56 timothy

    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 pm57 Sarah

    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 pm58 Xavier

    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 pm59 Jas

    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 pm60 Xavier

    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 pm61 Jas

    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 pm62 Ray

    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 pm63 Ray

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

64. on 02 Mar 2013 at 7:40 pm64 Jas

    Ray
    You always had that right.

65. on 03 Mar 2013 at 2:16 am65 Wolfgang

    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 am66 Wolfgang

    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 am67 Wolfgang

    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 am68 timothy

    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 am69 Xavier

    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 am70 Sarah

    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 am71 Wolfgang

    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 am72 Wolfgang

    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 am73 Jas

    “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 pm74 Jas

    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 pm75 Sheryl

    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 pm76 Wolfgang

    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 pm77 Jas

    “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 pm78 timothy

    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 pm79 Wolfgang

    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 pm80 Jas

    “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 pm81 Wolfgang

    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 pm82 Jas

    ” 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 pm83 Tim (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 pm84 timothy

    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 pm85 Jas

    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 pm86 timothy

    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 pm87 timothy

    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 pm88 Jas

    Timothy
    Do you really not understand or refusing to understand?

89. on 03 Mar 2013 at 8:15 pm89 timothy

    Jas,

    I really do not understand.

90. on 03 Mar 2013 at 8:46 pm90 Jas

    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 pm91 timothy

    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 am92 Wolfgang

    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 am93 Wolfgang

    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 am94 Xavier

    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 am95 timothy

    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 am96 timothy

    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 am97 Jas

    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 pm98 timothy

    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 pm99 Wolfgang

    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 pm100 Wolfgang

     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 pm101 timothy

     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 pm102 Jas

     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 pm103 timothy

     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 pm104 Jas

     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 pm105 Sarah

     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 pm106 Sarah

     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 pm107 Xavier

     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 pm108 Jas

     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 am109 timothy

     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 am110 Wolfgang

     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 am111 Wolfgang

     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 am112 Wolfgang

     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 am113 Xavier

     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 am114 Wolfgang

     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 am115 Jas

     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 pm116 Xavier

     Wolfgang

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

117. on 05 Mar 2013 at 3:43 pm117 Wolfgang

     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 pm118 Wolfgang

     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 pm119 Xavier

     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 pm120 Jas

     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 pm121 Jas

     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 pm122 Wolfgang

     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 pm123 Wolfgang

     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 pm124 Jas

     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 pm125 Jas

     “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 am126 Wolfgang

     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 am127 Xavier

     Wolfgang

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

128. on 06 Mar 2013 at 9:13 am128 Jas

     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 am129 Jas

     Xavier
     Who taught you?

130. on 06 Mar 2013 at 9:33 am130 timothy

     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 am131 Wolfgang

     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 am132 Wolfgang

     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 am133 Jas

     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 pm134 Xavier

     Wolfgang

     Okay so only Wierwelle.

     Thanks.

135. on 06 Mar 2013 at 1:29 pm135 Wolfgang

     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 pm136 Xavier

     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 pm137 Jas

     Xavier
     Wolfgang

     Can you hate eachother somewhere else?

138. on 06 Mar 2013 at 4:33 pm138 Wolfgang

     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 pm139 Wolfgang

     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 pm140 Xavier

     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 pm141 timothy

     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 pm142 Xavier

     Tim

     Great song.

143. on 06 Mar 2013 at 8:08 pm143 timothy

     Xavier,

     So is this one:

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

     Timothy

144. on 06 Mar 2013 at 8:14 pm144 Xavier

     tim

     Now you’re getting weird bro. :/

145. on 06 Mar 2013 at 8:26 pm145 Jas

     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 am146 Wolfgang

     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 am147 Jas

     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 am148 Wolfgang

     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 am149 Wolfgang

     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 am150 Jas

     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 am151 Jas

     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 am152 Wolfgang

     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 pm153 Jas

     “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 pm154 Jas

     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 am155 Wolfgang

     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 am156 Wolfgang

     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 am157 Wolfgang

     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 am158 Jas

     “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 am159 Wolfgang

     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 am160 Wolfgang

     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 am161 Jas

     “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 am162 Jas

     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 pm163 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

164. on 08 Mar 2013 at 1:50 pm164 Jas

     “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 pm165 Wolfgang

     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 pm166 Jas

     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 pm167 Jas

     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 pm168 Xavier

     Tim

     ABC library?

169. on 09 Mar 2013 at 1:42 am169 Wolfgang

     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 am170 Wolfgang

     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 am171 timothy

     Xavier,

     ABC

     Atlanta Bible College

172. on 09 Mar 2013 at 11:58 am172 Jas

     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 pm173 Xavier

     timothy

     I still don’t know what you mean.

174. on 09 Mar 2013 at 12:18 pm174 Wolfgang

     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 pm175 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

     “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 pm176 Xavier

     Jas

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

177. on 09 Mar 2013 at 5:35 pm177 Jas

     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 am178 Wolfgang

     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 am179 Wolfgang

     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 am180 Wolfgang

     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 am181 Jas

     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 am182 Wolfgang

     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 pm183 Jas

     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 pm184 Wolfgang

     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 pm185 Jas

     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 pm186 Wolfgang

     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 pm187 Jas

     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 pm188 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

189. on 11 Mar 2013 at 8:25 am189 Wolfgang

     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 am190 Jas

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

191. on 11 Mar 2013 at 10:29 am191 Wolfgang

     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 am192 Jas

     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 pm193 Wolfgang

     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 pm194 Wolfgang

     Jas,

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

195. on 11 Mar 2013 at 12:58 pm195 Jas

     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 pm196 Wolfgang

     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 pm197 Jas

     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 pm198 Wolfgang

     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 pm199 Jas

     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 pm200 Jas

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

201. on 12 Mar 2013 at 3:03 am201 Wolfgang

     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 am202 Wolfgang

     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 am203 Jas

     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 am204 Wolfgang

     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 am205 Jas

     “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 pm206 Wolfgang

     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 pm207 Jas

     “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 am208 Wolfgang

     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 am209 Jas

     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 am210 Wolfgang

     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 pm211 Jas

     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 am212 Wolfgang

     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 am213 Jas

     Wolfgang
     I think I covered everything already.

214. on 20 Mar 2013 at 11:00 am214 Wolfgang

     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 …

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (hidden) (required)

Website