- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Mike
this i found;Origin of BAPTIZE
Middle English, from Anglo-French baptiser, from Late Latin baptizare, from Greek baptizein to dip, baptize, from baptein to dip, dye; akin to Old Norse kvefja to quench
First Known Use: 13th centuryi wander if there is the known word used in for it in Hebrew or Greek?
baptizeverb
Definition of BAPTIZE
1to give a name to
Synonyms baptize, call, christen, clepe [archaic], denominate, designate, dub, entitle, label, nominate, style, term, title
Related Words brand, stigmatize, tag; denote, specify; miscall, misname, mistitle; code-name, nicknamePierre
Mike
verse 20 says” to observe all things ” ob·serve (b-zûrv)
v. ob·served, ob·serv·ing, ob·serves
v.tr.
1. To be or become aware of, especially through careful and directed attention; notice.
2. To watch attentively: observe a child's behavior.
3. To make a systematic or scientific observation of: observe the orbit of the moon.
4. To say casually; remark.
5. To adhere to or abide by: observe the terms of a contract.
6. To keep or celebrate (a holiday, for example): observe an anniversary.
v.intr.
1. To take notice.
2. To say something; make a comment or remark.
3. To watch or be present without participating actively: We were invited to the conference solely to observe.——————————————————————————–
[Middle English observen, to conform to, from Old French observer, from Latin observre, to abide by, watch : ob-, over; see ob- + servre, to keep, watch; see ser-1 in Indo-European roots.]
——————————————————————————–
ob·serving·ly adv.
Synonyms: observe, keep, celebrate, commemorate, solemnize
These verbs mean to give proper heed to or show proper reverence for something, such as a rule, custom, or holiday. Observe stresses compliance or respectful adherence to that which is prescribed: observe the speed limit; observe the Sabbath.
Keep implies actions such as the discharge of a duty or the fulfillment of a promise: keep one's word; keep personal commitments.
Celebrate emphasizes observance in the form of rejoicing or festivity: a surprise party to celebrate her birthday.
To commemorate is to honor the memory of a past event: a ceremony that commemorated the career of a physician. Solemnize implies dignity and gravity in the celebration of an occasion: solemnized the funeral with a 21-gun salute. See Also Synonyms at see1.this is to teached to us all .in verse 20
Pierre
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Mar. 08 2011,03:25) 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
KJ, I don't think you understood my point.After WJ said that the holy spirit works behind the scenes, he said:
Quote Jesus said that the Holy Spirit shall not speak of Himself but shall glorify “Me.” So, WJ said that the holy spirit (didn't direct attention to itself, but) directed glory to Jesus.
I in turn said that Jesus directed glory to the Father.
My point was, that his argument didn't make sense. Apparently, the holy spirit isn't listed along with Jehovah and Jesus together numerous times because the holy spirit is behind the scenes and doesn't direct attention to itself.
YET, Jesus always directed attention and glory to the Father. So, his argument is invalid, and your argument against me is unrelated to my argument, and a distraction.
Quote 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?
–WJ
Just as I suspected. You still don't understand what I'm saying. I am not saying as you suggest that Mathew 28:19 is invalid.
It is no more invalid that the 25 scriptures I list where the Father and Son are listed together without the holy spirit.Unlike “Jesus” and “Jehovah” the holy spirit doesn't have a personal name.
When someone says: “Stop in the name of the law,” they are referring to the authority of the law.
When people are baptised in the name (authority) of the Father, son and holy spirit, that is what it means.
“name” can be used in other such ways:
“In THE name of truth, righteousness, and goodness, understand Matthew 28:19 means.”
Quote Three having the definite article and sharing a singular name is “a Trinity” no matter how you look at it. Sure.
Jack and WJ,
Why did Jesus say… “believe in God, believe also in me.” (John 14:1)
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgTo All: Baptism into the name: {Grk:Word, “onoma”….the authority, character} is being whelmed, or submerged with the washing of the water of the word of God. Eph.5:26! God is spirit and God's words are spirit of life. The physical washing/baptism with water by John was to wash away the old doctrines and ritualistic performance of the Old Testament and prepare the way of the New Testament. Jesus came and taught the truth/spirit words of God. Jesus gave us the spirit without measure. As we accept Christ, the truth of God we are infilled with the Holy Spirit words of God.The truth is full of life, goodness, kindness, peace (with God), love (from God) total perfection (from God). The destructive lies of religion that say you are unworthy, unclean, unrighteous and a sinner, are destroyed by the light/love of God through Jesus. Darkness and lies can't stand in the light/truth. Darkness is being eradicated. IMO, TK
Quote (david @ Mar. 08 2011,00:46) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Mar. 08 2011,03:25) 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
KJ, I don't think you understood my point.After WJ said that the holy spirit works behind the scenes, he said:
Quote Jesus said that the Holy Spirit shall not speak of Himself but shall glorify “Me.” So, WJ said that the holy spirit (didn't direct attention to itself, but) directed glory to Jesus.
I in turn said that Jesus directed glory to the Father.
My point was, that his argument didn't make sense. Apparently, the holy spirit isn't listed along with Jehovah and Jesus together numerous times because the holy spirit is behind the scenes and doesn't direct attention to itself.
YET, Jesus always directed attention and glory to the Father. So, his argument is invalid, and your argument against me is unrelated to my argument, and a distraction.
DavidWhat are you talking about?
I never said “the Holy Spirit works behind the scenes”.
You have been arguing with someone else and not me.
Its obvious to me in the book of Acts that the Holy Spirit is in the forefront.
WJ
Hi Keith:
The scriptures state the the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of God my Father. That is not my opinion but that is what the scripture posted below indicates:
Quote 1 Co 2:7But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 8Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12Now 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.
13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
You as a Trinitarian teach that the Holy Spirit is THE THIRD PERSON OF A TRI-UNE GOD.
If you have a scripture which states this, then we can continue this conversation otherwise you have no grounds for what you teach.
Love in Christ,
MartyWow
This is amazing! There is not a shred of evidence that Matt 28:19 is not scripture. Thanks guys for proving what I knew all along.
Anti-Jesus is God people doubt scriptures and deny any that disagree with them even when there is irrefutable evidence that the scripture they deny is valid.
It is obvious that Matt 28:19 is proof that the Trinity is found in the Bible and all the gainsayers are at war against it.
Lame excuses about the Apostles didn't practice it even though it has been explained by me and Jack why that was yet they still deny the words of our Lord.
The battle over the Trinity is done. The Trinitarian view stands triumphant because Matt 28:19 is a scripture and the debate is about scripture teaching “a Trinity”.
Go ahead and deny and continue with your hypocritic arguments for truth in the scripture when you reject the very scripture you claim to accept.
If the scriptures are corrupt then it is useless to have debates about it. Heck I could say that John 17:3 and 1 Cor 8:6 are additions by the Arians and corrupt because it contradicts John 1:1 – John 20:28 or Isa 9:6 without any evidence of that being the case.
This is just further proof to me that the ant-Jesus is God people believe Matt 28:19 is Trinitarian and is valid and that they do not believe all scripture is inspired.
What use is it to debate against anyone who believes the scriptures are corrupt?
Go ahead and continue to stick your heads in the sand! Really sad!
Once again thanks for adding even more proof that Matt 28:19 is scripture!
WJ
Hi All
This sums up those who believe Mattew 28:19 is not scripture!
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.
By the way I don't care to ever hear the words “Why don't you accept these words as scriptures?” again!
You have no right to tell me what is truth when you reject it!
WJ
Quote (942767 @ Mar. 08 2011,09:43) Hi Keith: The scriptures state the the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of God my Father. That is not my opinion but that is what the scripture posted below indicates:
Quote 1 Co 2:7But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 8Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12Now 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.
13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
You as a Trinitarian teach that the Holy Spirit is THE THIRD PERSON OF A TRI-UNE GOD.
If you have a scripture which states this, then we can continue this conversation otherwise you have no grounds for what you teach.
Love in Christ,
Marty
Ha Ha MartyI have a scripture among many and Matt 28:19 is one of them. But you don't want to discuss them because it contradicts your doctrine.
You quote scripture you do not even understand…
Why didn't you address my questions about those scriptures Marty?
Here they are again…
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
Does the Father search himself?
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?
Does the Father cry “Abba” to himself?
You will be considered a Heretic for claiming the scriptures are corrupt you know that don't you?
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 09 2011,09:07) Hi All This sums up those who believe Mattew 28:19 is not scripture!
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.
By the way I don't care to ever hear the words “Why don't you accept these words as scriptures?” again!
You have no right to tell me what is truth when you reject it!
WJ
WJdo you think you can give to the words the interpretation you really want ??
you know the trinity is false,
this verse does not talk about your believe if so
prove it ,and show us all what it means ,in the father,in the son and the holy spirit,
if we going to be immerge in the a name of ,and of and of ??means what??
please tell us how that thing works ??compere with all other scriptures.
;and observe all things;;;;;;?what ??
and let see if all the roads will lead to your trinity??Pierre
Marty asked:
Quote Hi Jack: Were Cornelius and those with him whom the Apostle Peter commanded to be baptized Gentiles?
Jesus said: “Thus it becometh “US” to fulfill all righteousness”.
Marty,
Peter allowed Cornelius and his household to be baptized AFTER His vision that God had cleansed all men and AFTER the Holy Spirit had fallen upon them. Before this time Peter baptized Jews only.Please note that it was AFTER Cornelius and his house were baptized that Peter recalled the word of Christ when He said, “John indeed baptized with water, but YOU shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 11:16).
After this Peter never baptized again. After the baptism of Cornelius and his house only Paul baptized by the Spirit just as Jesus promised. (Acts 16:15, 33; 18:8; 29:3-5).
I offer FOUR proofs that Paul's baptisms were not with water but by the Spirit:
1. There is no mention of water at all in any of Paul's baptisms after Peter baptized Cornelius and his house.
2. Paul explicitly commanded baptism by the Spirit in contrast to baptism by water (Acts 19:3-5).
3. Paul explicitly said that he was not called to baptize with water (I Corinthians 1:17).
4. Paul speaks only of Spirit baptism as the requisite in his epistles.
Explain how this fits with your view that Jesus commanded water baptism in Matthew 28:19. He indicated that He would be with them until the “end of the age.” The last persons to be baptized with water was Cornelius and his house. Was this when the “end of the age” occurred?
YOUR THREE-FOLD PREDICAMENT:
1. You have no manuscript inwhich the Tri-une name is absent in Matthew 28:19.
2. You have no proof that Jesus commanded water baptism in Matthew 28:19.
3. You have no proof that Jesus taught water baptism as a requirement before Matthew 28:19.
You lose your case Marty! You need a manuscript inwhich the Tri-une name is absent AND you need proof that Jesus commissioned His disciples to baptize with water. YOU HAVE NEITHER!
Jack
Quote (terraricca @ Mar. 08 2011,10:23) WJ do you think you can give to the words the interpretation you really want ??
you know the trinity is false,
PeirreNo I don't know the Trinity is false. Don't tell me what I know.
You reject scripture so what right do you have to tell me anything?
WJ
Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 08 2011,18:44) Jack and WJ, Why did Jesus say… “believe in God, believe also in me.” (John 14:1)
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Hi,Why are the hard questions always avoided? …Please answer!
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 08 2011,09:01) This is amazing! There is not a shred of evidence that Matt 28:19 is not scripture. Thanks guys for proving what I knew all along.
Hi Keith,Could you answer the question directed at you? Jack, could you do the same? Thanks in advance.
Quote Listen to what they say, Jack: It seems altogether unlikely that immediately after Christ had solemnly promulgated the trinitarian formula of baptism, the Apostles themselves would have substituted another.
Listen to how they justify this “unlikelyness”:
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.
But I didn't post enough of Acts 19 last night…………here's the rest:
2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”
They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”
“John’s baptism,” they replied.
4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.
So while the Catholics claim that 19:3 shows that Paul baptised in the triune formula, it really doesn't, does it? In fact, it shows just the opposite. Because after hearing they did NOT receive the Holy Spirit, Paul proceeded to baptise them in the name of JESUS, and then they DID receive the Holy Spirit.
Which leaves us with their own haunting question still unanswered:
It seems altogether unlikely that immediately after Christ had solemnly promulgated the trinitarian formula of baptism, the Apostles themselves would have substituted another.
So what do you say now Keith and Jack? Their “explanation scripture” turns out to be just one more scripture showing an Apostle baptising in the NAME OF JESUS, and those baptised receiving the Holy Spirit as a result. So their concern about it being “ALTOGETHER UNLIKELY” remains unresolved, doesn't it?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 09 2011,10:32) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 08 2011,09:01) This is amazing! There is not a shred of evidence that Matt 28:19 is not scripture. Thanks guys for proving what I knew all along.
Hi Keith,Could you answer the question directed at you? Jack, could you do the same? Thanks in advance.
Quote Listen to what they say, Jack: It seems altogether unlikely that immediately after Christ had solemnly promulgated the trinitarian formula of baptism, the Apostles themselves would have substituted another.
Listen to how they justify this “unlikelyness”:
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.
But I didn't post enough of Acts 19 last night…………here's the rest:
2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”
They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”
“John’s baptism,” they replied.
4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.
So while the Catholics claim that 19:3 shows that Paul baptised in the triune formula, it really doesn't, does it? In fact, it shows just the opposite. Because after hearing they did NOT receive the Holy Spirit, Paul proceeded to baptise them in the name of JESUS, and then they DID receive the Holy Spirit.
Which leaves us with their own haunting question still unanswered:
It seems altogether unlikely that immediately after Christ had solemnly promulgated the trinitarian formula of baptism, the Apostles themselves would have substituted another.
So what do you say now Keith and Jack? Their “explanation scripture” turns out to be just one more scripture showing an Apostle baptising in the NAME OF JESUS, and those baptised receiving the Holy Spirit as a result. So their concern about it being “ALTOGETHER UNLIKELY” remains unresolved, doesn't it?
Mike,
Your source says that the Catholics claim that the baptism of Acts 19:3 was ddone in the Tri-une name. I HAVE NOT SAID THIS. So don't impute to me assertions made by Catholics. I am not a Catholic. PLEASE ADDRESS MY OWN ASSERTIONS.
I am not bound to give an account for the assertions of others when I have made it very plain that I don't agree with them. The baptism of Matthew 28:19 is a baptism by teaching and is not to be confused with water baptism or the baptism of the Spirit.
TEACHING BAPTIZES MEN SIR. Please address my arguments reproduced below.
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 places 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
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 08 2011,18:32) So what do you say now Keith and Jack? Their “explanation scripture” turns out to be just one more scripture showing an Apostle baptising in the NAME OF JESUS, and those baptised receiving the Holy Spirit as a result. So their concern about it being “ALTOGETHER UNLIKELY” remains unresolved, doesn't it?
MikeIt doesn't matter what “one persons” opinion is.
What matters is what is scripture. Isn't it you all the time that claims you don't care what the scholars say you only look at scriptures.
Is that a lie Mike? The fact is Matt 28:19 unlike other scriptures where there may be discussion over the textual variance or translations, Matt 28:19 is unambiguous and conclusive just like John 1:1 is!
“LET IT BE KNOWN THAT MIKEBOLL64 OFFICIALLY DENYS MATTHEW 28:19 AS BEING THE WORDS OF JESUS!”
Therefore who can believe anything that Mike trys to teach from scriptures since he believes that they are corrupt.
Who can say that he hasn't rejected others as being the word of God?
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 10 2011,09:31) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 08 2011,18:32) So what do you say now Keith and Jack? Their “explanation scripture” turns out to be just one more scripture showing an Apostle baptising in the NAME OF JESUS, and those baptised receiving the Holy Spirit as a result. So their concern about it being “ALTOGETHER UNLIKELY” remains unresolved, doesn't it?
MikeIt doesn't matter what “one persons” opinion is.
What matters is what is scripture. Isn't it you all the time that claims you don't care what the scholars say you only look at scriptures.
Is that a lie Mike? The fact is Matt 28:19 unlike other scriptures where there may be discussion over the textual variance or translations, Matt 28:19 is unambiguous and conclusive just like John 1:1 is!
“LET IT BE KNOWN THAT MIKEBOLL64 OFFICIALLY DENYS MATTHEW 28:19 AS BEING THE WORDS OF JESUS!”
Therefore who can believe anything that Mike trys to teach from scriptures since he believes that they are corrupt.
Who can say that he hasn't rejected others as being the word of God?
WJ
WJha,ha you also only answer to what you feel is a plus to your view,
you never answer anything else,
at the least Mike answer your questions what you have a hard time to do ,if you do.
so until you provide answers to my questions you are just creating a diversion.
Pierre
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
