- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote The point of this thread is to prove that Jesus mentions “a trinity”. Do you disagree with that David.
You are confusing the ability to spot 3 things with the concept of the trinity. 3 of something listed together does not a trinity make, any more than 2 listed together, or 5 listed together.
I'm not trying to insult you by repeatedly stating that yes, you can count to three, but no, three things being listed together does not equal the trinity concept.
If they were a trinity, do you not find it a little weird that they are not listed together more than a couple times? I do.
MULTIPLE times the Father and Son are listed together without the holy spirit being mentioned. How is that a trinity?
The truth is, there are many verses that speak of “Jehovah” or “Jesus” and you count that as being “the trinity” when only the one is mentioned. So, what does 3 being mentioned together prove? Whether 1, 2 or 3, you will still take it as a trinity.
If thousands of times “Jehovah” being mentioned alone is still thought of being a trinity, what does this instance in Matthew where they list 3 together prove? If Matthew proves trinity, then what do the other 1000 times prove? Anything?
Hi David,
Glad to see you're back!
Your brother
in Christ, Jesus!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgHi Ed.
I'm not really back, or maybe I am but just for the moment. I have way too many interests and my time is seeming shorter and shorter. What happens is, I have 3 minutes of free time, so I check this site. I then see something that I think is totally obviously wrong. And I really have no choice but to say something. And then, I'm dragged in. I find it's fine when I am only dealing with one thread. But then soon, it's 5 threads and this is taking hours every day. That's problematic.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 05 2011,12:59) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 05 2011,12:38) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 05 2011,09:33) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 05 2011,10:16) Keith, in light of the 2000 YEARS of doubt surrounding this one scripture that doesn't even say anything about any triune God anyway, don't you think it's weak on your part to hold to this scripture so tightly?
Doubt where Mike?It sure isn't with the Forefathers and it sure isn't with oldest church in the world, and it sure isn't with the Biblical Hebrew and Greek scholars and commentators and the majority of Christendom for centuries.
Keith, can you read this:It seems altogether unlikely that immediately after Christ had solemnly promulgated the trinitarian formula of baptism, the Apostles themselves would have substituted another.
These are the very words of the best Trinitarian minds the Catholic Encyclopedia had to offer at the time this was written.
Do you, like most of us, agree with these words? Do you not find it the least bit troubling that no Apostle of record actually baptised the way Jesus supposedly told them to?
mike
MikeThose words say nothing about the text not being true or inspired do they? So no I do not agree with you and the ant-Jesus is God crowd that blots this scripture out of the book.
Could it be that you doubt it because you have rejected the truth?
Could it be that the Apostles understood that invoking the name of Jesus was also invoking the Father and the Holy Spirit? Of course it could. The proof of that would be they had just heard Jesus say “All Authority and Power” was given to him.
But I believe the scirptures all of them and you doubt them.
In fact it is my belief that the reason there are those who are anti-Jesus is God is because when you get right down to it they all doubt the scriptures.
WJ
But you didn't actually answer the question, Keith. The green words above are words written by TRINITARIANS! Now if even these trinitarian scholars are willing to admit that there's something strange about Jesus giving a command that no Apostle ever followed, then why can't you?Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 05 2011,12:59) Could it be that the Apostles understood that invoking the name of Jesus was also invoking the Father and the Holy Spirit? Of course it could.
Well, considering that all of them seemed pretty clear about the fact that Jesus is the SON of God, and not God Himself, as is evident from their writings, then “NO”, that can't be it.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 05 2011,12:59) But I believe the scirptures all of them and you doubt them. In fact it is my belief that the reason there are those who are anti-Jesus is God is because when you get right down to it they all doubt the scriptures.
That's a pathetic statement from a close-minded man. I don't, as a general rule, “doubt scriptures” Keith. But people, INCLUDING TRINITARIAN SCHOLARS AND EVEN SOME POPES, have been doubting this one for almost 2000 years now. Is Keith the only person on earth who doesn't find it a little strange that no Apostle baptised saying, “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”?Isn't it a far reach to insist that Jesus said ALL of these above words, but the Apostles, knowing what he meant by those words, shortened it to, “in the name of Jesus”?
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 06 2011,04:38) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 05 2011,09:33) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 05 2011,10:16) Keith, in light of the 2000 YEARS of doubt surrounding this one scripture that doesn't even say anything about any triune God anyway, don't you think it's weak on your part to hold to this scripture so tightly?
Doubt where Mike?It sure isn't with the Forefathers and it sure isn't with oldest church in the world, and it sure isn't with the Biblical Hebrew and Greek scholars and commentators and the majority of Christendom for centuries.
Keith, can you read this:It seems altogether unlikely that immediately after Christ had solemnly promulgated the trinitarian formula of baptism, the Apostles themselves would have substituted another.
These are the very words of the best Trinitarian minds the Catholic Encyclopedia had to offer at the time this was written.
Do you, like most of us, agree with these words? Do you not find it the least bit troubling that no Apostle of record actually baptised the way Jesus supposedly told them to?
mike
Mike,Can you read tis:
PRODUCE THE FREAKIN MANUSCRIPT INWHICH THE TRI-UNE NAME IS ABSENT IN MATTHEW 28:19!
Until you produce such manuscript you are just being argumentive.
Jack
David said:
Quote MULTIPLE times the Father and Son are listed together without the holy spirit being mentioned. How is that a trinity?
David,MULTIPLE times WJ and I have told you that the role of the Holy Spirit is a “behind the scenes” role. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit shall not speak of Himself but shall glorify “Me.”
So we should not expect that the Spirit would be mentioned as much as the Father and the Son if He has a “behind the scenes” role. Therefore, your argument is not valid.
KJ
Mike said:
Quote The green words above are words written by TRINITARIANS!
We just want the word of God Mike. PRODUCE THE MANUSCRIPT MIKE!Jack
Mike said:
Quote Isn't it a far reach to insist that Jesus said ALL of these above words, but the Apostles, knowing what he meant by those words, shortened it to, “in the name of Jesus”?
Mike,First, not all trinitarians believe that Matthew 28:19 is about water baptism. There were many kinds of baptism and some did NOT involve water. Hebrews 6 speaks about VARIOUS baprisms.
Second, PRODUCE THE MANUSCRIPT SIR! PROVE THAT GOD DID NOT INSPIRE THE TRI-UNE NAME IN MATTHEW 28:19. SINCE WHEN DO YOU CARE WHAT MEN SAY?
Jack
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 07 2011,02:56) Mike said: Quote Isn't it a far reach to insist that Jesus said ALL of these above words, but the Apostles, knowing what he meant by those words, shortened it to, “in the name of Jesus”?
Mike,First, not all trinitarians believe that Matthew 28:19 is about water baptism. There were many kinds of baptism and some did NOT involve water. Hebrews 6 speaks about VARIOUS baprisms.
Second, PRODUCE THE MANUSCRIPT SIR! PROVE THAT GOD DID NOT INSPIRE THE TRI-UNE NAME IN MATTHEW 28:19. SINCE WHEN DO YOU CARE WHAT MEN SAY?
Jack
KJdo you think that Math28;19 somes up all Christ requirement to be saved??
Pierre
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 06 2011,02:50) Mike said: Quote The green words above are words written by TRINITARIANS!
We just want the word of God Mike. PRODUCE THE MANUSCRIPT MIKE!Jack
Jack,Please answer my very simple question:
Don't you find it a little odd that Jesus gave an EXACT formula for baptism, yet not ONE of the Apostles followed his command and used this formula?
This IS the word of God, Jack. It IS the word of God that EVERY baptism recorded in scripture was done in the name of Jesus, not “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”.
So answer the question with a YES or a NO, please.
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 05 2011,19:36) Marty said: Quote Hi Jack: Ask Keith, if the Tri-une formula refers to water baptism, and if he says, yes, then by your own admission, he cannot win because the Apostles baptized in the name of Jesus only.
Also,Trinitarians today use the Tri-une formula to baptize believers, and so, we know that this is not scriptual since the Apostles baptized in the name of Jesus only.
But as I said to you before, it is not about winning a debate, but about teaching the Word of God in truth.
Love in Christ,
Marty
Marty,Keith and I disagree that Matthew 28:19 is about water baptism. I wish he would not take that line of reasoning. Water baptism was the external symbol of the real baptism. Jesus commanded the disciples to do the REAL baptism which was making disciples. But Keith still wins on the textual evidence for the tri-une name and you keep evading this.
Until you show proof from the WORD OF GOD by way of a manuscript inwhich the triune name is absent you are speaking the word of men.
KEITH HAS WON SIR. GET A GRIP!
Jack
Hi Jack:You say:
Quote Water baptism was the external symbol of the real baptism. Jesus commanded the disciples to do the REAL baptism which was making disciples And so, making disciples is the real baptism? What does the word baptize mean, Jack? And if this is what the scripture means, why then, do the “Trinitarians” baptize new believers in water using the Tri-une formula?
Is the baptism of the Holy Spirit a “real” baptism?
I got a “real grip” on what you already said, “That if Jesus meant water baptism in using the Tri-une formula Trinitarians cannot win”, and since Trinitarians baptize new converts in water using this formula, they by your own admission lose, and that includes Kieth also, since he is a Trinitarian who believes that Jesus meant “water baptism”.
And Jack, I totally agree with you, “Trinitarians lose”.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 06 2011,02:10) Quote (942767 @ Mar. 04 2011,20:46) No Keith: The Holy Spirit is not “another”. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God my Father, and that is sufficient proof that Matthew 28:19 is not what Jesus said.
MartySo then Jesus was a liar when he said…
And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you “another” Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. John 14:16, 17
Jesus did not send the Father, nor did the Father send himself.
Why do you choose not to accept plain english?
This is sad. You claim you are open to scriptures correcting you and then deny it.
I question anything you believe now because you do not believe all scriptures are inspired, and so will any member of a church that you pastor.
WJ
Hi Keith:Let's take a look at the scripture:
And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you “another” Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. John 14:16, 17
First of all, Jesus is asking that the Father send another comforter or helper because he who was helping them would be ascending to the the right hand of the Father.
Secondly, Jesus makes it clear that the comforter of whom he is speaking is “The Spirit of Truth”, and we know from other scriptures that the Spirit of Truth is the Holy Ghost.
Thirdly, Jesus says that the Holy Spirit was now dwelling with them, and would be in them, and we know that the disciples were baptized with the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost.
The Holy Spirit was dwelling with them at the time that Jesus was with them because the Holy Spirit was dwelling within him.
You ask:
Did the Father send “Himself”? The Father sent His Spirit who is the Father's personal presence dwelling within us. God is living person with a mind, a will, and emotions, whose throne is in heaven, but who can be everywhere by His Spirit.
Jesus said the following:
Quote John 14:8Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us. 9Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?
10Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
And so, how was the Father dwelling within him, Keith? When Jesus was baptized with Holy Ghost, the Father spoke from heaven, saying, “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased”, and so, also, Jesus prayed to the Father in heaven. When the Apostles asked him to teach them to pray, “He taught them to pray, “Our Father which art in heaven…”. And so, the Father did not leave his throne in heaven, but is dwelling within Jesus and now in us born again believers by “His Spirit”.
And God's Spirit is not “A Third Person” of a Tri-une God who has an authority of himself.
All Authority comes from God. God reveals His thoughts to humanity by His Spirit. God has spoken to humanity in these last days by His Spirit through His Son, and after Jesus was resurrected and exalted to his position as head of the church, God has given him all power over heaven and earth. Jesus watches over God's Word to perform it, and whatever he or we ask in the name of Jesus God will do it by His Spirit.
And so, we know have two comforters or helpers, Jesus our Lord who is at the right hand of the Father, and the Father who is helping us to be come like his Son by His Spirit.
Quote 2 John 1:9Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. Quote John 15
1I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.2Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit
Quote John 14:23
Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (942767 @ Mar. 06 2011,13:11) I got a “real grip” on what you already said, “That if Jesus meant water baptism in using the Tri-une formula Trinitarians cannot win”, and since Trinitarians baptize new converts in water using this formula, they by your own admission lose, and that includes Kieth also, since he is a Trinitarian who believes that Jesus meant “water baptism”. And Jack, I totally agree with you, “Trinitarians lose”.
BAM!
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 07 2011,03:03) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 06 2011,02:50) Mike said: Quote The green words above are words written by TRINITARIANS!
We just want the word of God Mike. PRODUCE THE MANUSCRIPT MIKE!Jack
Jack,Please answer my very simple question:
Don't you find it a little odd that Jesus gave an EXACT formula for baptism, yet not ONE of the Apostles followed his command and used this formula?
This IS the word of God, Jack. It IS the word of God that EVERY baptism recorded in scripture was done in the name of Jesus, not “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”.
So answer the question with a YES or a NO, please.
mike
Matthew 28:19 is NOT about water baptism. See the new thread I started.COUGH UP THE MANUSCRIPT INWHICH THE TRI-UNE NAME IS ABSENT MIKE!
Be back tomorrow
Jack
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 06 2011,19:48) David said: Quote MULTIPLE times the Father and Son are listed together without the holy spirit being mentioned. How is that a trinity?
David,MULTIPLE times WJ and I have told you that the role of the Holy Spirit is a “behind the scenes” role. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit shall not speak of Himself but shall glorify “Me.”
So we should not expect that the Spirit would be mentioned as much as the Father and the Son if He has a “behind the scenes” role. Therefore, your argument is not valid.
KJ
And Jesus directed glory to the Father. I don't recall any scriptures speaking of the holy spirit being a behind the scenes player. Regardless, even if that were true, I am asking you to look at how we consider evidence.I can point out multiple times where Jesus and the FAther are mentioned together.
I can point out many times where 3 people are listed together.
And I too can point out where the Father, Son and holy spirit are listed together.
What does any of this prove other than the fact that I and you can count?
Quote (david @ Mar. 07 2011,17:05) I don't recall any scriptures speaking of the holy spirit being a behind the scenes player.
Hi David,Perhaps these verses will “spark” your recollection?
1Cor.2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God;
that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him:
and I will raise him up at the last day.Rom.8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
1Cor.3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God,
and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?Do you believe 'ONLY' the leadership
in your visible organization are filled with “The Spirit of God”?If you don't answer this question (DIRECTLY), I will Post it in the “JW” thread!
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgEd, you are violating the rules. But the answer is “no.” Please now do as you say and discuss this with yourself in one of the many anti-JW threads.
Thank you David!
Do you see that the “HolySpirit” IS playing an active roll behind the scene?
John 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive,
because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him;
for HE (HolySpirit) dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.“I (Jesus) will send him (HolySpirit) to you.” (John 17:7: N.W.T.)
Your brother
in Christ, Jesus!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (david @ Mar. 07 2011,17:26) Ed, you are violating the rules. But the answer is “no.” Please now do as you say and discuss this with yourself in one of the many anti-JW threads.
Thank you (for the direct answer!) David!Do you see that the “HolySpirit” IS playing an active roll behind the scene?
John 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive,
because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him;
for HE (HolySpirit) dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.“I (Jesus) will send him (HolySpirit) to you.” (John 17:7: N.W.T.)
Your brother
in Christ, Jesus!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 07 2011,03:23) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 06 2011,04:11) MY ASSERTION: Jesus did NOT command His disciples to baptize (verb) with water. Jesus commanded them to make disciples baptizing (participle). Note what Jesus actually said:
Words games that are unworthy of a response from me. Even the best TRINITARIAN scholars and Popes have posed the question of why Jesus gave orders that were followed by no Apostle.And why did you need another thread for this? Oh, that's right. Multiple threads is another one of your diversion tactics!
Bye bye Jack.
mike
Mike,You cannot respond because you are afraid to face the truth. It is YOU who has been employing the diversion tactics by citing Catholic scholars when we have asked you a million times to PRODUCE THE MANUSCRIPT inwhich the tri-une name is absent from Matthew 28:19. Every time I ask you to produce the manuscript you just reply with quotes from Catholics. I AM NOT A CATHOLIC SIR! I HAVE NON-CATHOLIC SCHOLARS WHO THINK THAT BAPTISM DOES NOT NECESSARILY INVOLVE WATER.
SO PRODUCE THE MANUSCRIPT MIKE OR PROVE THAT JESUS WAS SPEAKING ABOUT WATER BAPTISM!
Prove that Jesus was speaking about water baptism Mike! Baptism in the classical sense has nothing at all to do with water. Note the definition of classical baptism given by Presbyterian SCHOLAR James W. Dale:
Quote Whatever is capable of thoroughly changing the character, state or condition of any object, is capable of baptizing that object; and by such change of character, state, or condition does, in fact baptize it. Classic Baptism, James W. Dale, p. 353-354
Anytime a man underwent a change in his character, state or condition he was BAPTIZED by means of that which produced that change.
1. The disciples were “baptized” BY MEANS OF THE WORD that Jesus spoke to them.
Quote Now you are already clean (baptized) through the word which I have spoken to you. John 15:3
The disciples were NOT baptized with water Mike! They are “ALREADY CLEAN” through the word that Jesus spoke to them. The word that Jesus spoke to them wrought the change in their character, state or condition.
2.Paul said that the Israelites were “baptized” BY MEANS OF THE CLOUD that went before them and by means of their passage through the Red Sea ON DRY LAND ( 1 Corinthians 10:1-2; Ex. 13:21; 14:21).
In none of these example was water applied Mike. The disciples were baptized by means of the word which Jesus spoke and the Israelites were baptized by means of the cloud that went before them and by means of their passage through the Red sea ON DRY LAND.
3. Isaiah was baptized by BY FEAR.
Quote 4Wandered hath my heart, trembling hath terrified me, The twilight of my desire He hath made a fear to me, Young's Literal Translation
The word “terrified” is “baptizo” in the Septuagint: η καρδια μου πλαναται και η ανομια με βαπτιζει η ψυχη μου εφεστηκεν εις φοβονDid you get that Mike? Isaiah was “baptized” BY FEAR
4. Ishmael “baptized” Gedaliah into sleep BY DRUNKENNESS. http://books.google.com/books?i….f=false
5. One may have been “baptized by” BY A DRUG INDUCED HIGH.
Quote Drug-Induced High
3. Then, mersing powerfully (baptizing potently -> making high), he set me free.[(Conant's translation) “Then WHELMING (BAPTIZING) potently, he set me free. ex. 150, p 72. Aristophon (Athenaeus, Philosopher's Banquet, IX. 44.)]
P 319-20; (In this example a slave-girl was given a drug, which she imbibed and was powerfully drugged, she was baptized potently.) Dr. Conant, in making baptizo express an “effect” becomes exposed to the charge of treason to the (Baptist) cause, as brought by Dr. Carson. “Potently” is not a proper qualifying term for dipping; nor for whelming, or mersing, or baptizing in primary use. The agency may be potent, but not the condition. (But) it is entirely proper as characterizing the secondary use, expressive of controlling influence. A specific translation here is more than justified (of being powerfully drugged).
Note that the word “baptize” refers to the EFFECT of the drug on the girl. http://www.benkeshet.com/webhelp….upefied by Drugs6. One may have been “baptized” BY INTOXICATION FROM WINE.
Quote Intoxicated
4. Having mersed (baptized -> intoxicated) Alexander by much wine.[(Conant's translation) “And Thebe, learning the purpose [of Alexander], gave daggers to the brothers and urged them to be ready for the slaughter; and having WHELMED (BAPTIZED) Alexander with much wine and put him to sleep, she sends out the guards of the bed-chamber, under the pretense of taking a bath, and called the brothers to the deed. ex. 149, p 71. Conon, Narration L.]
P 320; “Having immersed Alexander in wine – that is, having made him drunk with wine” (Carson). This translation (of Carson) shows the intenseness of (Baptist) theory while exposing its error. 1. “Immersed.”…is professedly used as synonymous with dip. This profession is never carried out in practice, nor can it ever be. Here, as in unnumbered other pl
aces dip is slipped out and immerse is slipped in because the former would not answer the purpose. To “dip anyone in wine” for the purpose of representing a state of drunkenness is figure which no thoughtful person ever employed. (1.) Because of inconsistency. Dipping causes but a trivial effect while drunkenness is one of power. (2.) Because of want of adaptation. Nothing is made drunk by being put into wine. But “immerse” is as unsuitable for other reasons as dip. No one insists more strongly than Carson that the whole person, in baptism, must go within the element, consequently, Alexander must go, head and ears, within the wine; and when there he must stay there long enough to imbibe the intoxicating qualities of the element. How long this will take I cannot say, but quite probably before he gets drunk he will have got drowned. Such a case shows the Baptist error of confounding a dipping with a baptism. The qualities of wine cannot be extracted by a dipping, though they may by a baptism. It shows also the essential error of a figure which represents drunkenness by immersing a living being in wine, a condition which has no tendency to make drunk, but which must drown. 2. “Much wine.” Much is, significantly, omitted in (Carson's) translation. It has no fitness in announcing a physical mersion. What matters it whether Alexander were physically mersed in “much wine” or not?…Dr. Carson felt this, and throws it out. But this word is eminently significant if the writer means to express a state if intoxication. “Much wine” gives emphasis to the influence exerted. 3. “In wine.” The introduction of “in” localizing the tyrant of Pherae (Alexander) within the wine is an error resulting from the previous error in the form of the act attributed to the verb. If dip (or its claimed equivalent, immerse) be associated with a fluid, that fluid necessarily becomes the element and if no appropriate preposition is furnished one must be supplied. This Dr. Carson has found necessary to do. Error begets error. This construction with its translation is important to notice…We thus see what vital issues depend on the right determination of the value of baptizo. Has it “but one meaning through all Greek literature – mode and nothing but mode – to dip? (so Dr. Carson). Or is it devoid of all modal action – demanding a condition of intusposition? And does it, with parallelism to bapto, lay aside this primary demand for intusposition, and substitute for it a demand, only, for controlling influence, which attends some phases of intusposition, as dyeing in some cases of dipping?…Carson dips, plunges, immerses Alexander in wine, instead of allowing him to be “influenced (made drunk) by wine.”…(Now we come to the) Interpretation (by Carson). – After he…paid tribute to (his Baptist) theory and system by introducing modal act and figure into his translation Carson adds – “that is having made him drunk with wine.” With this admission of the meaning, and with the admission of Conant (in his translation, “whelmed with wine”), that there was no dipping, even in figure, we may be satisfied that we do not greatly err in the position that influence is directly expressed, and as that influence can take but one form the translation is faithful which says, “having made Alexander drunk by much wine.”…
http://www.benkeshet.com/webhelp….upefied by DrugsI HAVE GIVEN SEVERAL BIBLICAL AND HISTORICAL EXAMPLES THAT BAPTISM OCCURRED WITHOUT WATER. NOW PROVE THAT JESUS WAS SPEAKING ABOUT WATER BAPTISM IN MATTHEW 28:19 MIKE!
YOUR ARGUMENT AGAINST THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE TRI-UNE NAME IN MATTHEW 28:19 IS LAME AND UNSCHOLARLY MIKE. YOUR ARGUMENT IS TOTALLY STUPID. NOT ALL AGREE WITH THE CATHOLICS THAT JESUS WAS SPEAKING ABOUT WATER BAPTISM.
YOU LOSE MIKE! THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE TRI-UNE NAME IN THE HOLY WORD OF GOD STANDS!
Jack
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
