- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 06 2011,16:58) Quote (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!
No it is you guys that lose by claiming the scripture is not scripture.You can't argue all scripture is inspired and you hold to them when you deny them.
Bam Bam Bam!
Why should anyone believe you when you say the scriptures are Gods word when you reject it?
Bam Bam Bam!
WJ
Quote (david @ Mar. 07 2011,01:05) 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.
Hi DavidAnd they share a singular name as part of a “Divine” Comission to baptise don't they?
Quote (david @ Mar. 07 2011,01:05) I can point out many times where 3 people are listed together.
And none of them share a singular name as part of a “Divine” Comission to baptise do they?Quote (david @ Mar. 07 2011,01:05) And I too can point out where the Father, Son and holy spirit are listed together.
Yes and they share a singular name as part of a “Divine” Comission to baptise don't they?Quote (david @ Mar. 07 2011,01:05) What does any of this prove other than the fact that I and you can count?
What it proves is that “The” (definite article) Father, “The” (definite article) Son and “The” (definite article) Holy Spirit share a “Singular name” which is proof that “a Trinity” exist which blows away any statement that says “There is no Trinity found in the Bible”.WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 06 2011,11:03) 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
NO!!!Quote (david @ Mar. 05 2011,16:01) 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.
DavidWhat do you mean if they were a “Trinity”?
Three having the definite article and sharing a singular name is “a Trinity” no matter how you look at it.
What are you saying? Matthew 28:19 is not valid because you say the three are only found “a couple times” in the scripture?
Is one scripture greater than another? How many scriptures does it take to have the Truth?
The scripture “God is a Spirit” is only found in the Bible one time. Does that mean it is not so or is not worthy of being absolute truth?
Deal with the fact that when you say “There is no Trinity found in the Bible” that you are either lying or denying the scriptures.
WJ
David said:
Quote And Jesus directed glory to the Father.
And the Father directs the glory back to Jesus (John 17:1).Please tell the WHOLE truth!
Thanks,
KJ
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 scriptures 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
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 05 2011,17:09)
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?
First of all I did answer the question. “NO.Second as usual I figured I better check your source and see what your quote says in context and LO and BEHOLD I found this….
The most probable opinion, however, seems to be that the terms “in the name of Jesus”, “in the name of Christ”, either refer to baptism in the faith taught by Christ, or are employed to distinguish Christian baptism from that of John the Precursor. It seems altogether unlikely that immediately after Christ had solemnly promulgated the trinitarian formula of baptism, the Apostles themselves would have substituted another. IN FACT, THE WORDS OF ST..PAUL (ACTS 19) IMPLY QUITE PLAINLY THAT THEY DID NOT. For, when some Christians at Ephesus declared that they had never heard of the Holy Ghost, the Apostle asks: “In whom then were you baptized?” This text certainly seems to declare that St. Paul took it for granted that the Ephesians must have heard the name of the Holy Ghost when the sacramental formula of baptism was pronounced over them.
Do you see it Mike. The source is looking at it from the perspective of the Apostles and says… IN FACT, THE WORDS OF ST..PAUL (ACTS 19) IMPLY QUITE PLAINLY THAT THEY DID NOT. (They did not do differently than Jesus words in Matt 28:19)
So the writer above is in no way telling you he is in doubt of Matthew 28:19 because he says that they did obey the commission in the tripart name. He also says “This text certainly seems to declare that St. Paul took it for granted that the Ephesians must have heard the name of the Holy Ghost when the sacramental formula of baptism was pronounced over them
Mike you should pay more attention to what you read.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 05 2011,17:09)
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.
There you go sticking your head in the sand again. Mike, isn’t everything done in the name of Jesus? Is there any other name under heaven where by men are saved other than Jesus? Is there anything that you or I can receive from God that comes apart from Jesus? Can you approach God without approaching Jesus? The straw men are so many that it has become a forest on fire for the anti-Jesus is God people.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 05 2011,17:09)
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 05 2011,12:59) But I believe the scriptures 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”?
What’s pathetic Mike is you claim to be a student of the scriptures which you call the Word of God and you reject them or doubt them!Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 05 2011,17:09) 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
Even if what you are saying is that they contradict each other (Though they don’t) then why do you believe the Apostles over Jesus own words recorded by the eyewitness Matthew?Is it because of your “Arian”, and “Henotheistic” bias that you have rejected and doubt the scriptures and Jesus very own owrds?
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 07 2011,08:58) Quote (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!
Marty cited me out of context and I am losing respect for him too. I CLEARLY said that Those trinitarians who falsely believe that Jesus was speaking about water baptism cannot win on that front. But they still win over all because the anti-trins have failed to cough up the alleged manuscript inwhich the tri-une name is absent. I SAID THAT WJ WINS BECAUSE THE ANTI-TRINS HAVE NO TEXTUAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIM.PLEASE DON'T CITE ME OUT OF CONTEXT MARTY. TO KEEP MY RESPECT YOU WILL HAVE TO RESIST THE TEMPTATION TO BE LIKE MIKEBOLL!
You must have a corpse to prove a murder has occurred. You must have the manuscript in order to prove that the Tri-une name is absent from the biblical text. Cough it up. Tick tock tick tock.
Jack
WJ said:
Quote Second as usual I figured I better check your source and see what your quote says in context and LO and BEHOLD I found this…. The most probable opinion, however, seems to be that the terms “in the name of Jesus”, “in the name of Christ”, either refer to baptism in the faith taught by Christ, or are employed to distinguish Christian baptism from that of John the Precursor. It seems altogether unlikely that immediately after Christ had solemnly promulgated the trinitarian formula of baptism, the Apostles themselves would have substituted another. IN FACT, THE WORDS OF ST..PAUL (ACTS 19) IMPLY QUITE PLAINLY THAT THEY DID NOT. For, when some Christians at Ephesus declared that they had never heard of the Holy Ghost, the Apostle asks: “In whom then were you baptized?” This text certainly seems to declare that St. Paul took it for granted that the Ephesians must have heard the name of the Holy Ghost when the sacramental formula of baptism was pronounced over them.
Do you see it Mike. The source is looking at it from the perspective of the Apostles and says… IN FACT, THE WORDS OF ST..PAUL (ACTS 19) IMPLY QUITE PLAINLY THAT THEY DID NOT. (They did not do differently than Jesus words in Matt 28:19)
So the writer above is in no way telling you he is in doubt of Matthew 28:19 because he says that they did obey the commission in the tripart name. He also says “This text certainly seems to declare that St. Paul took it for granted that the Ephesians must have heard the name of the Holy Ghost when the sacramental formula of baptism was pronounced over them
Mike you should pay more attention to what you read.
Keith,You have shown AGAIN that Mike has reading comprehension problems.
Jack
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 08 2011,02:34) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 06 2011,16:58) Quote (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!
No it is you guys that lose by claiming the scripture is not scripture.You can't argue all scripture is inspired and you hold to them when you deny them.
Bam Bam Bam!
Why should anyone believe you when you say the scriptures are Gods word when you reject it?
Bam Bam Bam!
WJ
Hi Keith:I say that Matthew 28:19 is not what Jesus stated because the Holy Spirit is not “A Third Person of a Tri-une God”, and I have given you scripture to support my understanding of this, and also, I do not believe that Matthew 28:19 is what Jesus stated because the Apostles did not baptize anyone by the Tri-une formula.
The manuscripts that exist are copies of the supposedly originals, and so, this scripture could have easily been altered. The YLT has the Tri-une formula in parenthesis, and I question why this is so.
Quote Matthew 28:19-20 (Young's Literal Translation) 19having gone, then, disciple all the nations, (baptizing them — to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,
20teaching them to observe all, whatever I did command you,) and lo, I am with you all the days — till the full end of the age.'
And you want to use the Didache to support this scripture and you are correct it does appear in the Didache, along with other instructions about baptism which are not in the scriptures. This is what the Didache states relative to baptism:
Quote
Chapter SevenAnd concerning baptism, in this manner baptize: when you have gone over these things, baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in running water.
If you do not have running water, baptize in other water. If you are not able to use cold water, use warm. And if you have neither, pour water on the head three times, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And before baptism, the one baptizing and the one to be baptized should fast, as well as any others who are able. And you should instruct the one being baptized to fast one or two days before.
The above copied from http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/Didache-text.html
And so, are you saying that all this chapter on baptism should be scriptural?
Love in Christ,
MartyWJ said:
Quote Even if what you are saying is that they contradict each other (Though they don’t) then why do you believe the Apostles over Jesus own words recorded by the eyewitness Matthew?
Keith,This occurred to me too. How do the anti-trins know that the “in name of Jesus” formula is not corrupt? Philip used no “formula” at all. he simply said, “If you BELIEVE you mmay be baptized.”
It's no problem for me regardless because Jesus did not command the disciples to baptize with water. His teachings on baptism before He ascended did not involve water?
Jack
Marty said:
Quote I do not believe that Matthew 28:19 is what Jesus stated because the Apostles did not baptize anyone by the Tri-une formula.
Marty,Prove that the Acts narratives aren't corrupt. Peter had to be corrected on a couple of things both by God and by Paul. So maybe Peter was in error in using the “in the name of Jesus” formula. Hey, if you're going to cast doubt on the authenticity of certain portions of the scripture, then let's go all the way my man.
Jack
Marty cited the Didache:
Quote Chapter Seven And concerning baptism, in this manner baptize: when you have gone over these things, baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in running water.
If you do not have running water, baptize in other water. If you are not able to use cold water, use warm. And if you have neither, pour water on the head three times, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And before baptism, the one baptizing and the one to be baptized should fast, as well as any others who are able. And you should instruct the one being baptized to fast one or two days before.
You rightly show the silliness of men for making Matthew 28:19 about water baptism when it is not.Jack
Marty said:
Quote The manuscripts that exist are copies of the supposedly originals, and so, this scripture could have easily been altered. The YLT has the Tri-une formula in parenthesis, and I question why this is so.
marty,This one is super lame. Come on! Translators use BRACKETS to indicate where a text is questionable.
Shame on you!
Jack
TO ALL,
Eusebius cited Matthew 28:19 in a VARIETY of ways INCLUDING THE TRI-UNE NAME WAY:
Quote Eusebius’ writings cannot be considered as weighty as New Testament Codices we posses for the following reasons: <!–[if !supportLists]–>a) <!–[endif]–>The variety of Eusebius:
Unlike the unanimous New Testament manuscripts we have of Matthew 28:19, Eusebius actually quotes it in mainly THREE DIFFERENT WAYS:
<!–[if !supportLists]–>1. <!–[endif]–>“Go and make disciples of all nations”
<!–[if !supportLists]–>2. <!–[endif]–>“Go and make disciples of all nations in my name”
<!–[if !supportLists]–>3. <!–[endif]–>“Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”
<!–[if !supportLists]–>b) <!–[endif]–>Eusebius’ reputation of loose citations:
EUSEBIUS IS KNOWN FOR LOOSE CITATIONS, AND ABBREVIATING SOURCES.. (Nolland ‘The Gospel of Matthew’ p.1268). Unlike the scribes who copied Codex Sinaiticus or Vaticanus, Eusebius was not trying to recreate an exact copy of previous manuscripts of the New Testament but was instead trying to write Church history and apologetics which sometimes involved quoting scripture.
<!–[if !supportLists]–>c) <!–[endif]–>The lack of Patristic Textual Criticism compared to the NT:
As with other Patristic evidence, when we speak of Eusebius, we are not referring to the original autographs that Eusebius wrote, but to later and slightly differing copies that have been discovered, and compiled to create a text that we believe is close to the original Eusebius wrote. The amount of textual criticism undertaken for Eusebius is not anywhere near the amount of work carried out on the New Testament text. Therefore allusions or quotes of the NT from modern editions of Eusebius cannot be considered as weighty as NT codices themselves.
Interestingly, those who quote Eusebius over NT manuscripts, also argue that when the Trinitarian Baptismal formula is used in Eusebius it is not original but merely a later addition. Even if this were found to be true, it demonstrates an inconsistent use of Textual Criticism.
It would therefore seem that Eusebius’ writings do not provide sufficient evidence to ignore all the New Testament manuscripts we have stating the full Trinitarian baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19.
http://duncanf.blogspot.com/2007….19.htmlCHECK MATE MIKEY BOY!
Jack
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 08 2011,04:30) Marty cited the Didache: Quote Chapter Seven And concerning baptism, in this manner baptize: when you have gone over these things, baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in running water.
If you do not have running water, baptize in other water. If you are not able to use cold water, use warm. And if you have neither, pour water on the head three times, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And before baptism, the one baptizing and the one to be baptized should fast, as well as any others who are able. And you should instruct the one being baptized to fast one or two days before.
You rightly show the silliness of men for making Matthew 28:19 about water baptism when it is not.Jack
Careful Jack you might get in trouble with your fellow Trinitarians.Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (942767 @ Mar. 08 2011,05:25) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 08 2011,04:30) Marty cited the Didache: Quote Chapter Seven And concerning baptism, in this manner baptize: when you have gone over these things, baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in running water.
If you do not have running water, baptize in other water. If you are not able to use cold water, use warm. And if you have neither, pour water on the head three times, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And before baptism, the one baptizing and the one to be baptized should fast, as well as any others who are able. And you should instruct the one being baptized to fast one or two days before.
You rightly show the silliness of men for making Matthew 28:19 about water baptism when it is not.Jack
Careful Jack you might get in trouble with your fellow Trinitarians.Love in Christ,
Marty
Get serious with me Marty or be quiet. I am NOT Catholic. I am a Protestant and many of us deny water baptism.Jack
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 08 2011,04:26) Marty said: Quote I do not believe that Matthew 28:19 is what Jesus stated because the Apostles did not baptize anyone by the Tri-une formula.
Marty,Prove that the Acts narratives aren't corrupt. Peter had to be corrected on a couple of things both by God and by Paul. So maybe Peter was in error in using the “in the name of Jesus” formula. Hey, if you're going to cast doubt on the authenticity of certain portions of the scripture, then let's go all the way my man.
Jack
Hi Jack:The Apostle Paul also baptized in the name of Jesus.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (942767 @ Mar. 07 2011,12:20) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 08 2011,02:34) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 06 2011,16:58) Quote (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!
No it is you guys that lose by claiming the scripture is not scripture.You can't argue all scripture is inspired and you hold to them when you deny them.
Bam Bam Bam!
Why should anyone believe you when you say the scriptures are Gods word when you reject it?
Bam Bam Bam!
WJ
Hi Keith:I say that Matthew 28:19 is not what Jesus stated because the Holy Spirit is not “A Third Person of a Tri-une God”, and I have given you scripture to support my understanding of this, and also, I do not believe that Matthew 28:19 is what Jesus stated because the Apostles did not baptize anyone by the Tri-une formula.
MartyInterpretation of Martys words:
My doctrine is more important to me than Jesus own words. Rather than let the scriptures which are inspired and written by an eye witness of Jesus correct me, I will reject it because my belief does not allow me to accept it as Gods word.
Quote (942767 @ Mar. 07 2011,12:20) The manuscripts that exist are copies of the supposedly originals, and so, this scripture could have easily been altered. The YLT has the Tri-une formula in parenthesis, and I question why this is so.
Yes, thousand of them Marty, yet all of them are the same! And what makes them even more valid is the fact there is not a single MSS that has Matthew 28:19 in a different form.
As far as the “YLT” showing the three in parenthesis means nothing because Young still translated it according to the text. Have you investigated why Young did that? Before you start making claims like Mike you should see why it is in Parenthesis shouldn’t you?
Quote (942767 @ Mar. 07 2011,12:20) And you want to use the Didache to support this scripture and you are correct it does appear in the Didache, along with other instructions about baptism which are not in the scriptures. This is what the Didache states relative to baptism: Quote
Chapter SevenAnd concerning baptism, in this manner baptize: when you have gone over these things, baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in running water.
If you do not have running water, baptize in other water. If you are not able to use cold water, use warm. And if you have neither, pour water on the head three times, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And before baptism, the one baptizing and the one to be baptized should fast, as well as any others who are able. And you should instruct the one being baptized to fast one or two days before.
The above copied from http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/Didache-text.htmlAnd so, are you saying that all this chapter on baptism should be scriptural?
What does it matter about the rest. The rest is not in scripture but Matthew 28:19 is and is found in the Didache. What more proof do you want that Matthew 28:19 is scripture?WJ
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 08 2011,05:30) Quote (942767 @ Mar. 08 2011,05:25) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 08 2011,04:30) Marty cited the Didache: Quote Chapter Seven And concerning baptism, in this manner baptize: when you have gone over these things, baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in running water.
If you do not have running water, baptize in other water. If you are not able to use cold water, use warm. And if you have neither, pour water on the head three times, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And before baptism, the one baptizing and the one to be baptized should fast, as well as any others who are able. And you should instruct the one being baptized to fast one or two days before.
You rightly show the silliness of men for making Matthew 28:19 about water baptism when it is not.Jack
Careful Jack you might get in trouble with your fellow Trinitarians.Love in Christ,
Marty
Get serious with me Marty or be quiet. I am NOT Catholic. I am a Protestant and many of us deny water baptism.Jack
Hi Jack:Is Jesus your Lord? This is what he said:
Quote Matthew 3:13Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. 14But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
15And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
16And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
17And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
And the Apostle Peter said this:
Quote Acts 10:45-48 (King James Version) 45And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days
And so now, who is questioning the authenticity of the scriptures?
Water baptism certainly will not save you, but it is an act of obedience and public demonstration showing that one has repented and confessed Jesus as Lord.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (942767 @ Mar. 06 2011,15:10) 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.
That doesn't answer the question or the scripture does it Marty?If the Father sent himself then who is it that searches the deep things of God?
but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. “The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 2 Cor 2:10
If the Spirit is the Father then who is this…
And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the “Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father“. Gal 4:6
Is the Father the Spirit that the Father sent crying “Abba” Father in us?
WJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
