- This topic has 1,826 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 15 2011,04:24) Marty wrote: Quote Jesus did not teach “God in three persons”. He taught: John 17
1These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:2As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Love in Christ,
Marty
Marty,First, your use of scripture is selective. Jesus indeed taught three persons
Quote 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19
One name three persons.Second, the prayer of Jesus to which you refer was spoken while He still existed in His state of humility. You left out the part “glorify Your Son….” Jesus is your Lord and your God now.
Third, you speak about God not being party to a lie. God is not a party to you because you speak from scripture selectively and you don't tell the whole story of Jesus. You are outside the truth.
Roo
Hi Jack:First of all, I did not say that God was a party to me. If I am not teaching the truth, my prayer is that He would correct me.
If Matthew 28:19 is genuine, why did the Apostles baptize in the name of Jesus only and not in the tri-une formula?
And, God is a person, and Jesus is a person, but the Holy Spirit is not a person, but is God's Spirit. The Spirit is God's life, and proceeds from God's soul, and reveals the thoughts of God to us. (1 Co 2)
Finally, When Jesus was getting ready to ascend to our Father, he said that he was going to his Father and to our Father and to his God and our God. (John 20)
Therefore, Jesus has told us that he is not God, and if you are worshipping him as God, you are practicing idolatry.
Jesus is worthy to be praised and he said that we should honor him as we honor the Father, and God has made him both Lord and Christ. He is the head of the church, and no man comes to the Father except through him. He is the judge of the living and the dead. He is my Lord, my master, but no, he is not my God.
1 Timothy 2:5 states that there is “One God” and “one mediator” between men and God, “the man, Christ Jesus”.
The scripture, therefore, states that he is a man. So, if you have an arguement with the scripture, then talk to God about it.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 18 2011,06:43) Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 17 2011,14:14) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 18 2011,05:55) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 16 2011,22:44) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 17 2011,08:31) Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 17 2011,08:09) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 17 2011,12:56) Mike, instead of studying scripture, google “LD debate” for you can learn how to create better arguements.
nonesense mike, and im tired of your bogus claims.
Hi SF,What about 'your' claims? Do you study Scripture?
Gen.6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me;
for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
Did God completely obliterate the Earth? No, Dennison God just destroyed the flesh on Earth, just the flesh on Earth!We read: 2Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens
shall pass away with a great noise, and the rudiments shall melt with fervent heat,
the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.You need to know what “the rudiments” are, so you know what is getting burned up!
Elements should have been translated rudiments; the rudiments are what is getting burned up; Dennison!2Peter 3:10 But “the day of the Lord” will come as a thief in the night;
in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise,
and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth
also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.Elements: Greek #4747 στοιχεῖον (stoicheion) stoy-khi'-on:
the elements of knowledge , principally: Rudiments.
What gets 'burned up' is the 'rudiments'! (2Peter 3:10)
Rudiments: an arrangement unable to perform it's normal function,
a fundamental skill, something uniformed. (Gen.2:17)Col.2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy
and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Col:2:20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world,
why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Ed J, BUG OFF!
your annoying,You know what, Why dont you bother MIKE, when he makes his insults or avoids good logic.
Its sad that Mike became your “God” lol (leader, ruler, Judge)
You know what!
in second thought Ed JWhy dont you present your case to Mike, and ask him what he thinks?
Prove it to mike and see if ya agree.
hey why dont you guys have a debate about rudiments!
DennisonFunny how ED says the NKJV is “The” correct and only true translation, yet he constantly corrects the translation.
Ed did not give you the entire definition of the word “Elements” Strong's G4747 – stoicheion…
Here is the rest…
1) any first thing, from which the others belonging to some series or composite whole take their rise, an element, first principal
a) the letters of the alphabet as the elements of speech, not however the written characters, but the spoken sounds
b) the elements from which all things have come, the material causes of the universe
c) the heavenly bodies, either as parts of the heavens or (as others think) because in them the elements of man, life and destiny were supposed to reside
d) the elements, rudiments, primary and fundamental principles of any art, science, or discipline
1) i.e. of mathematics, Euclid's geometry
Not a single translation on BlueletterBible.org translates it “Rudiments”.
Most of them translate it “elements”. I think the NKJV has it right don't you ED?
Blessings Keith
Hi WJ,Both of these verses are translated from the very same word; any comments?
Col:2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy
and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the
rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.Col:2:20-22 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why,
as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
Which all are to perish with the using😉 after the commandments and doctrines of men?
Yea“Rudiments' of the “kosmos” are different from the “Rudiments” of the earth (Strong's G1093 – gē).
Look it up and see for yourself..
Earth – Strong's G1093 – gē…
1) arable land
2) the ground, the earth as a standing place
3) the main land as opposed to the sea or water
4) the earth as a whole
a) the earth as opposed to the heavens
b) the inhabited earth, the abode of men and animals
5) a country, land enclosed within fixed boundaries, a tract of land, territory, region
Do you see anything in the above definition that implies anything different than the physical earth?
So what are you saying ED, that the NKJV that you boast as the only inspired translatiion has flaws?
WJ
Hi WJ,That word you defined does not carry the same meaning as “rudiments”,
Greek #4747 στοιχεῖον (stoicheion) stoy-khi'-on. So what is your point?The NKJV has translators bias, as do all so-called modern
translations. The
“AKJV Bible” is the most accurate bible us English-speaking people possess.God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 18 2011,07:20) Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 17 2011,00:38) I don't debate, I simply shine light on “The Truth” (Ephesians 5:13);
EdAnd thats the problem, “the truth needs to shed light on you.” The Truth is the light, it doesn't need your light.
Blessings WJ
Hi WJ,Light is JEHOVAH=117
(117)יהוה האלהים = is the light(117) = God Spirit(117)John 3:19-20 this is the condemnation, [that light is JEHOVAH]
come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light,
because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth
the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
Eph. 5:13 But all things that are reproved are made manifest
by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (francis @ Jan. 18 2011,06:47) Ed J… Quote You believe: Jesus was 100% not God and 100% God. I'm not interested in doing this any longer because we are not able to communicate.
Look what you wrote above. This is NOT what I have said anywhere. So what you wrote only proves what I've been saying. Our discussion is useless because you can't even understand what I've been saying.
Anyway… you can't say something is equally 100% and not 100% of a certain thing, at the same time. That is a contradiction… a logical fallacy. For example, you can't say that you are alive and not alive at the same time.
But in the case of Jesus and the discussion we were having, He was not composed of only ONE thing… and it is that one thing you keep comparing to itself.
God Bless
Respectfully
Francis
Hi Francis,The reason we are having trouble communicating.
is because you are not answering my questions!
Was the human “part” of Jesus 100% not God?Marty said:
Quote If Matthew 28:19 is genuine, why did the Apostles baptize in the name of Jesus only and not in the tri-une formula?
Marty,The fact that you question the authenticity of Matthew 28:19 shows that you know it teaches the trinity. And how do you know that the formula the apostles used is genuine?
This is one of my chief problems with anti-trinitarianism. When they come to a text they cannot answer they just question its authenticity.
But there is another solution. The “baptizing” Jesus spoke about in the great commission was not about water. To “baptize” was also an expression used for making disciples.
Quote Having gone into the world make disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
Note that it does not say, “make disciples and baptize them.” It says, “Make disciples baptizing them.” Therefore, the expression “baptizing them” modifies the expression “make disciples” and does not refer to the external ritual. This “baptism” is in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” This “baptism” continues to this day.The water baptism that the apostles performed on men was in the name of Jesus alone. That external ritual has ceased.
Jack
Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 17 2011,16:01) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 18 2011,06:43) Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 17 2011,14:14) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 18 2011,05:55) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 16 2011,22:44) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 17 2011,08:31) Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 17 2011,08:09) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 17 2011,12:56) Mike, instead of studying scripture, google “LD debate” for you can learn how to create better arguements.
nonesense mike, and im tired of your bogus claims.
Hi SF,What about 'your' claims? Do you study Scripture?
Gen.6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me;
for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
Did God completely obliterate the Earth? No, Dennison God just destroyed the flesh on Earth, just the flesh on Earth!We read: 2Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens
shall pass away with a great noise, and the rudiments shall melt with fervent heat,
the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.You need to know what “the rudiments” are, so you know what is getting burned up!
Elements should have been translated rudiments; the rudiments are what is getting burned up; Dennison!2Peter 3:10 But “the day of the Lord” will come as a thief in the night;
in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise,
and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth
also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.Elements: Greek #4747 στοιχεῖον (stoicheion) stoy-khi'-on:
the elements of knowledge , principally: Rudiments.
What gets 'burned up' is the 'rudiments'! (2Peter 3:10)
Rudiments: an arrangement unable to perform it's normal function,
a fundamental skill, something uniformed. (Gen.2:17)Col.2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy
and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Col:2:20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world,
why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Ed J, BUG OFF!
your annoying,You know what, Why dont you bother MIKE, when he makes his insults or avoids good logic.
Its sad that Mike became your “God” lol (leader, ruler, Judge)
You know what!
in second thought Ed JWhy dont you present your case to Mike, and ask him what he thinks?
Prove it to mike and see if ya agree.
hey why dont you guys have a debate about rudiments!
DennisonFunny how ED says the NKJV is “The” correct and only true translation, yet he constantly corrects the translation.
Ed did not give you the entire definition of the word “Elements” Strong's G4747 – stoicheion…
Here is the rest…
1) any first thing, from which the others belonging to some series or composite whole take their rise, an element, first principal
a) the letters of the alphabet as the elements of speech, not however the written characters, but the spoken sounds
b) the elements from which all things have come, the material causes of the universe
c) the heavenly bodies, either as parts of the heavens or (as others think) because in them the elements of man, life and destiny were supposed to reside
d) the elements, rudiments, primary and fundamental principles of any art, science, or discipline
1) i.e. of mathematics, Euclid's geometry
Not a single translation on BlueletterBible.org translates it “Rudiments”.
Most of them translate it “elements”. I think the NKJV has it right don't you ED?
Blessings Keith
Hi WJ,Both of these verses are translated from the very same word; any comments?
Col:2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy
and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the
rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.Col:2:20-22 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why,
as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
Which all are to perish with the using😉 after the commandments and doctrines of men?Ed J
Yea“Rudiments' of the “kosmos” are different from the “Rudiments” of the earth (Strong's G1093 – gē).
Look it up and see for yourself..
Earth – Strong's G1093 – gē…
1) arable land
2) the ground, the earth as a standing place
3) the main land as opposed to the sea or water
4) the earth as a whole
a) the earth as opposed to the heavens
b) the inhabited earth, the abode of men and animals
5) a country, land enclosed within fixed boundaries, a tract of land, territory, region
Do you see anything in the above definition that implies anything different than the physical earth?
So what are you saying ED, that the NKJV that you boast as the only inspired translatiion has flaws?
WJ
Hi WJ,That word you defined does not carry the same meaning as “rudiments”,
Greek #4747 στοιχεῖον
(stoicheion) stoy-khi'-on. So what is your point?The NKJV has translators bias, as do all so-called modern translations. The
“AKJV Bible” is the most accurate bible us English-speaking people possess.God bless
Ed J
EDDo you even pay attention to what is written?
What are you talking about? This is your statement isn't it?
Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 17 2011,14:14) We read: 2Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens
shall pass away with a great noise, and the rudiments shall melt with fervent heat,
the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.You need to know what “the rudiments” are, so you know what is getting burned up!
Elements should have been translated rudiments; the rudiments are what is getting burned up; Dennison!
You chided Dennison for not knowing what was being burned up without giving the complete deffinition of “elements” Strong's G4747.Then you quoted Col 2:8, 20, 22 to say that the same Greek word for “Elements” is there as if to say that 1 Peter is speaking of “rudiments of the world or vain philosphy”, so I pointed out to you that though the Greek word Strong's G4747. that is translated “elements” in Peter and “Rudiments” in Col are the same word, the elements being burned up in 1 Peter are not the same because the Greek words for earth and world are different.
1 Peter is speaking of the “rudiments or elements” of the physical earth (Greek Strong's G1093 – gē) but the Greek word for world in Colosians (Strong's G2889 – kosmos) is speaking of the “elements or rudiments of the orderly system.
You do see what I am talking about don't you? So what is being burned up in 1 Peter ED?
Man, Francis is right about the comunication problem.
WJ
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 18 2011,08:34) But there is another solution. The “baptizing” Jesus spoke about in the great commission was not about water. To “baptize” was also an expression used for making disciples.
Hi Jack,Excellent point you bring out for us all here at h-net!
Mark 1:8 I(John) indeed have baptized you with water:
but he(Jesus Christ) shall baptize you with the HolySpirit.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 18 2011,08:44) Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 17 2011,16:01) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 18 2011,06:43) Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 17 2011,14:14) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 18 2011,05:55) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 16 2011,22:44) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 17 2011,08:31) Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 17 2011,08:09) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 17 2011,12:56) Mike, instead of studying scripture, google “LD debate” for you can learn how to create better arguements.
nonesense mike, and im tired of your bogus claims.
Hi SF,What about 'your' claims? Do you study Scripture?
Gen.6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me;
for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
Did God completely obliterate the Earth? No, Dennison God just destroyed the flesh on Earth, just the flesh on Earth!We read: 2Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens
shall pass away with a great noise, and the rudiments shall melt with fervent heat,
the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.You need to know what “the rudiments” are, so you know what is getting burned up!
Elements should have been translated rudiments; the rudiments are what is getting burned up; Dennison!2Peter 3:10 But “the day of the Lord” will come as a thief in the night;
in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise,
and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth
also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.Elements: Greek #4747 στοιχεῖον (stoicheion) stoy-khi'-on:
the elements of knowledge , principally: Rudiments.
What gets 'burned up' is the 'rudiments'! (2Peter 3:10)
Rudiments: an arrangement unable to perform it's normal function,
a fundamental skill, something uniformed. (Gen.2:17)Col.2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy
and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Col:2:20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world,
why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Ed J, BUG OFF!
your annoying,You know what, Why dont you bother MIKE, when he makes his insults or avoids good logic.
Its sad that Mike became your “God” lol (leader, ruler, Judge)
You know what!
in second thought Ed JWhy dont you present your case to Mike, and ask him what he thinks?
Prove it to mike and see if ya agree.
hey why dont you guys have a debate about rudiments!
DennisonFunny how ED says the NKJV is “The” correct and only true translation, yet he constantly corrects the translation.
Ed did not give you the entire definition of the word “Elements” Strong's G4747 – stoicheion…
Here is the rest…
1) any first thing, from which the others belonging to some series or composite whole take their rise, an element, first principal
a) the letters of the alphabet as the elements of speech, not however the written characters, but the spoken sounds
b) the elements from which all things have come, the material causes of the universe
c) the heavenly bodies, either as parts of the heavens or (as others think) because in them the elements of man, life and destiny were supposed to reside
d) the elements, rudiments, primary and fundamental principles of any art, science, or discipline
1) i.e. of mathematics, Euclid's geometry
Not a single translation on BlueletterBible.org translates it “Rudiments”.
Most of them translate it “elements”. I think the NKJV has it right don't you ED?
Blessings Keith
Hi WJ,Both of these verses are translated from the very same word; any comments?
Col:2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy
and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the
rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.Col:2:20-22 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why,
as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
Which all are to perish with the using😉 after the commandments and doctrines of men?Ed J
Yea“Rudiments' of the “kosmos” are different from the “Rudiments” of the earth (Strong's G1093 – gē).
Look it up and see for yourself..
Earth – Strong's G1093 – gē…
1) arable land
2) the ground, the earth as a standing place
3) the main land as opposed to the sea or water
4) the earth as a whole
a) the earth as opposed to the heavens
b) the inhabited earth, the abode of men and animals
5) a country, land enclosed within fixed boundaries, a tract of land, territory, region
Do you see anything in the above definition that implies anything different than the physical earth?
So what are you saying ED, that the NKJV that you boast as the only inspired tra
nslatiion has flaws?WJ
Hi WJ,That word you defined does not carry the same meaning as “rudiments”,
Greek #4747 στοιχεῖον (stoicheion) stoy-khi'-on. So what is your point?The NKJV has translators bias, as do all so-called modern translations. The
“AKJV Bible” is the most accurate bible us English-speaking people possess.God bless
Ed J
EDDo you even pay attention to what is written?
What are you talking about? This is your statement isn't it?
Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 17 2011,14:14) We read: 2Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens
shall pass away with a great noise, and the rudiments shall melt with fervent heat,
the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.You need to know what “the rudiments” are, so you know what is getting burned up!
Elements should have been translated rudiments; the rudiments are what is getting burned up; Dennison!
You chided Dennison for not knowing what was being burned up without giving the complete deffinition of “elements” Strong's G4747.Then you quoted Col 2:8, 20, 22 to say that the same Greek word for “Elements” is there as if to say that 1 Peter is speaking of “rudiments of the world or vain philosphy”, so I pointed out to you that though the Greek word Strong's G4747. that is translated “elements” in Peter and “Rudiments” in Col are the same word, the elements being burned up in 1 Peter are not the same because the Greek words for earth and world are different.
1 Peter is speaking of the “rudiments or elements” of the physical earth (Greek Strong's G1093 – gē) but the Greek word for world (Strong's G2889 – kosmos is speaking of the “elements or rudiments) of the orderly system.
You do see what I am talking about don't you? So what is being burned up in 1 Peter ED?
Man, Francis is right about the comunication problem.
WJ
Hi WJ,Answer: “The rudiments”!
2Tm.3:16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable
for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
You need to look back at Genesis, to understand what 2Peter 3:10 really means.
God doesn't burn up planet Earth any more than he destroyed the Earth in the flood!Scriptural Reference
2Peter 3:10 But “the day of the Lord” will come as a thief in the night;
in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise,
and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth
also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.I was referring to this verse 2Peter 3:10. “The Earth“
doesn't get burned up, as it wasn't destroyed in the flood.Scriptural Reference
Gen.6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me;
for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
Did God destroy the Earth in the flood? No, WJ, God just destroyed the flesh on Earth, just the flesh on Earth!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 18 2011,08:34) Marty said: Quote If Matthew 28:19 is genuine, why did the Apostles baptize in the name of Jesus only and not in the tri-une formula?
Marty,The fact that you question the authenticity of Matthew 28:19 shows that you know it teaches the trinity. And how do you know that the formula the apostles used is genuine?
This is one of my chief problems with anti-trinitarianism. When they come to a text they cannot answer they just question its authenticity.
But there is another solution. The “baptizing” Jesus spoke about in the great commission was not about water. To “baptize” was also an expression used for making disciples.
Quote Having gone into the world make disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
Note that it does not say, “make disciples and baptize them.” It says, “Make disciples baptizing them.” Therefore, the expression “baptizing them” modifies the expression “make disciples” and does not refer to the external ritual. This “baptism” is in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” This “baptism” continues to this day.The water baptism that the apostles performed on men was in the name of Jesus alone. That external ritual has ceased.
Jack
Hi Jack:I know that what the Apostles were teaching was genuine because God was confirming what they were teaching with miracles, signs, and wonders following.
And no, this practice of baptizing believers in water in the name of Jesus has not ceased.
Water baptism is symbolic of believers union with Jesus in his death, burial, and resurrection.
By what auhtority do you say that this should no longer be done?
Quote 1.Acts 4:12
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.Jack, Jesus states in Matthew 28:19: “All power and authority over heaven and earth has been given unto me”, and so why then would he say to baptize in the Tri-une formula? It does not make sense, and like I already stated, the Apostles did not baptize in this manner. The only baptism other than this is the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and Jesus would not command his Apostles to baptize anyone with the Holy Spirit as this is something that “Only he is assigned to do”.
In the YLT the tri-une formula for baptizing believers is in parenthesis, and this tells me that Jesus may have not said this. This is supposed to be a literal translation, and so, why is the tri-une formula shown in parenthesis.
Quote YLTMatthew 28:18And having come near, Jesus spake to them, saying, `Given to me was all authority in heaven and on earth; 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.'
A person or a soul is someone who has a mind, a will and emotions. The spirit of a person is the life that that person lives. The Holy Spirit is God's Spirit, not a “Third person” of a Tri-une God.
Love in Christ,
MartyMarty wrote:
Quote Jack, Jesus states in Matthew 28:19: “All power and authority over heaven and earth has been given unto me”, and so why then would he say to baptize in the Tri-une formula? It does not make sense, and like I already stated, the Apostles did not baptize in this manner. The only baptism other than this is the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and Jesus would not command his Apostles to baptize anyone with the Holy Spirit as this is something that “Only he is assigned to do”.
Marty,I have already explained that the baptism of Matthew 28:19 was not a reference to water baptism. Your assertion that the only other baptism was the baptism of the Holy Spirit is erroneous. Jesus spoke of the “baptism” of suffering. There were various kinds of baptism (Hebrews 9:10).
The expression “baptizing them” is participle which indicates that it modifies the command “make disciples.” Example: I may say, “Go and make a wedding cake creating a beautiful wedding dessert.” The participle “creating” modifies the expression “make a wedding cake.” The creating is not something that is done in addition to making the wedding cake.
Jesus did not say, “Make disciples and then baptize them.” He said, “Make disciples baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit.”
You must show two things before you can prove your case:
1. You must show that Matthew 28:19 is corrupt. To do this you need to produce a manuscript which reads differently. Produce such a manuscript.
2. You must show that Jesus was speaking about water baptism. Not one drop of water is mentioned in the text.
Roo
Marty,
Take heart. I uphold everything you said in both posts above.Notice that Roo jnr left out the Comma in his quote. Ask him why he did this? If he were reading of writing a legal document he would know how important that missing Comma would be.
Nonetheless, JustAskin has shown this small point of Scripture to be Trinity-false through his debate with WJ. WJ could give no answer when asked: What is the name of the Father? And, What is the name of the Holy Spirit?
Marty, maybe Roo Jnr knows (bet he doesn't either).
Marty, here is a tip: ask a question and look for the answer in the response. Ignore all thrashing issues. Restate the question as often as is sensible and then make a summary … And then leave off it.
oops, I thought I was pm'ing this!!
Oh, and Marty, in case you didn't follow the debate and the fall out from it with WJ tearing round the forum afterwards trying to reclaim Trinity: 'In the Name of…' simply means, 'Power and Authority'.
Jesus was given the Power of the Holy Spirit and the Authority of God, just as Joseph was given Power and Authority to rule IN THE NAME OF PHAROAH, but he, Joseph, was never, himself! In fact, just to make it clear on this point, Pharaoah, himself said to Joseph, 'In every way you are in charge so that a man may not lift a foot or set a foot in my kingdom except by your say so. Everything is yours, except for my throne'
See Marty, could Joseph sleep with Pharoah's wife or any from his hareem?
Could Joseph make a law to overthrow Pharoah?Of course, the answers are, 'No', 'No' and 'No'.
And this is fractally exactly as is with Christ and God. Jesus never sits on the Throne of God, on his Holy Mount, but Jesus does sit at the seat of Honor at the right hand side of God.
How then is Jesus 'God' if he is seated, not on the throne of God Almighty, but ONLY at his righthand side as an honored person? A god of honour? God Almighty makes Jesus a 'God of Honor'?
Then God Almighty lies because he said,'Besides me, there are no other [TRUE] Gods'
Moreover, a True God is not Created. A True God, IS! Always WAS! Always Will be.
Yet we know that Jesus was not Always, because he died, therefore he WAS NOT, and we know that he EMPTIED HIMSELF OF HIS DIVINITY, meaning his Angelic undying life in Heaven before coming as Man in the flesh.Chew on that and see what juices come out. To One it will be sweet, to another it will be bitter, yet it is the same juice!!! The Juice of Truth and Reality!!!
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 18 2011,10:32) Marty wrote: Quote Jack, Jesus states in Matthew 28:19: “All power and authority over heaven and earth has been given unto me”, and so why then would he say to baptize in the Tri-une formula? It does not make sense, and like I already stated, the Apostles did not baptize in this manner. The only baptism other than this is the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and Jesus would not command his Apostles to baptize anyone with the Holy Spirit as this is something that “Only he is assigned to do”.
Marty,I have already explained that the baptism of Matthew 28:19 was not a reference to water baptism. Your assertion that the only other baptism was the baptism of the Holy Spirit is erroneous. Jesus spoke of the “baptism” of suffering. There were various kinds of baptism (Hebrews 9:10).
The expression “baptizing them” is participle which indicates that it modifies the command “make disciples.” Example: I may say, “Go and make a wedding cake creating a beautiful wedding dessert.” The participle “creating” modifies the expression “make a wedding cake.” The creating is not something that is done in addition to making the wedding cake.
Jesus did not say, “Make disciples and then baptize them.” He said, “Make disciples baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit.”
You must show two things before you can prove your case:
1. You must show that Matthew 28:19 is corrupt. To do this you need to produce a manuscript which reads differently. Produce such a manuscript.
2. You must show that Jesus was speaking about water baptism. Not one drop of water is mentioned in the text.
Roo
Hi Jack:I cannot say, without a doubt, that the original manuscripts were corrupted, but I do know that the Holy Spirit is not a “third person”, but is the Spirit of God my heavenly Father who dwells within me by this Spirit as my helper.
And when Jesus states: “All power in heaven and on earth has been given unto me”, I know that it is God who has given him the authority. He did not say “all power over heaven and earth has been given unto me and the Holy Spirit, and so the tri-une formula “in the name of” would indicate “into the authority of” the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit”.
All of the authority has been given to Jesus and he has delegated this authority to us as well, and our Father will do whatever we ask Him to do if we ask any thing in accordance to His will and in the name of Jesus (in the authority of Jesus).
But I am praying that if there is a manuscript somewhere that would show that the original has been corrupted that He would allow it to be discovered, just as there were those manuscripts that were at Qumran.
Jack, Jesus was commanding the Apostles, and so whether or not he mentions water, the baptizing that was to be done was to be done by them, and so you say there are other baptisms such as the baptism “of suffering”. Really, Jack, you must be more convincing than this if I am going to believe what you say. And we are speaking about baptism that was done in the New Testament.
Please read what Strong's Concordance has to say about baptism in conjunction with this verse of scripture.
Love in Christ,
MartyMarty wrote:
Quote I cannot say, without a doubt, that the original manuscripts were corrupted,
Good. Then you have no case.Quote but I do know that the Holy Spirit is not a “third person”, but is the Spirit of God my heavenly Father who dwells within me by this Spirit as my helper.
I know differently. The Holy Spirit “hears” and “speaks” and suffers passions such as grief.Quote He did not say “all power over heaven and earth has been given unto me and the Holy Spirit, and so the tri-une formula “in the name of” would indicate “into the authority of” the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit”.
The correct rendering would be “unto the name of” meaning to receive as one's authority. Example: The Israelites were “baptized unto Moses” meaning that they became his followers.Quote But I am praying that if there is a manuscript somewhere that would show that the original has been corrupted that He would allow it to be discovered, just as there were those manuscripts that were at Qumran.
In other words, you have no textual evidence to back up your claim that Matthew 28:19 is corrupt. I just read your remark yo my daughter and her fiance and they got a kick out of it. What an admission Marty!Quote Jack, Jesus was commanding the Apostles, and so whether or not he mentions water, the baptizing that was to be done was to be done by them, and so you say there are other baptisms such as the baptism “of suffering”
I have already given you Hebrews 9:10 which indicates that there were VARIOUS baptisms. Some baptisms involved water and some did not. Jesus did not command His disciples to baptize with water. He commanded them to baptize UNTO the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit, that is, to make them followers of the triune God.Roo Jr.
Istari said:
Quote Marty,
Take heart. I uphold everything you said in both posts above.
If you could be taken seriously, them Marty could take heart. But seeing that you are a….KJ Jr.
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 18 2011,12:28) Marty wrote: Quote I cannot say, without a doubt, that the original manuscripts were corrupted,
Good. Then you have no case.Quote but I do know that the Holy Spirit is not a “third person”, but is the Spirit of God my heavenly Father who dwells within me by this Spirit as my helper.
I know differently. The Holy Spirit “hears” and “speaks” and suffers passions such as grief.Quote He did not say “all power over heaven and earth has been given unto me and the Holy Spirit, and so the tri-une formula “in the name of” would indicate “into the authority of” the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit”.
The correct rendering would be “unto the name of” meaning to receive as one's authority. Example: The Israelites were “baptized unto Moses” meaning that they became his followers.Quote But I am praying that if there is a manuscript somewhere that would show that the original has been corrupted that He would allow it to be discovered, just as there were those manuscripts that were at Qumran.
In other words, you have no textual evidence to back up your claim that Matthew 28:19 is corrupt. I just read your remark yo my daughter and her fiance and they got a kick out of it. What an admission Marty!Quote Jack, Jesus was commanding the Apostles, and so whether or not he mentions water, the baptizing that was to be done was to be done by them, and so you say there are other baptisms such as the baptism “of suffering”
I have already given you Hebrews 9:10 which indicates that there were VARIOUS baptisms. Some baptisms involved water and some did not. Jesus did not command His disciples to baptize with water. He commanded them to baptize UNTO the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit, that is, to make them followers of the triune God.Roo Jr.
Hi Jack:You also have no evidence that God is a Tri-une God, and as you said those who were disciples of Moses were baptized unto him in the red sea, and we who are disciples of the Lord Jesus are baptized unto him having confessed him as our Lord.
And as Jesus told us in the following scripture he was ascending to his Father and our Father and to his God and our God.
Quote John 20:17Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. And also the scripture states that Jesus is a man, and so, if you are worshipping Jesus as God, you are practicing idolatry.
Quote 1 Timothy 2:5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (Istari @ Jan. 18 2011,11:13) Oh, and Marty, in case you didn't follow the debate and the fall out from it with WJ tearing round the forum afterwards trying to reclaim Trinity: 'In the Name of…' simply means, 'Power and Authority'. Jesus was given the Power of the Holy Spirit and the Authority of God, just as Joseph was given Power and Authority to rule IN THE NAME OF PHAROAH, but he, Joseph, was never, himself! In fact, just to make it clear on this point, Pharaoah, himself said to Joseph, 'In every way you are in charge so that a man may not lift a foot or set a foot in my kingdom except by your say so. Everything is yours, except for my throne'
See Marty, could Joseph sleep with Pharoah's wife or any from his hareem?
Could Joseph make a law to overthrow Pharoah?Of course, the answers are, 'No', 'No' and 'No'.
And this is fractally exactly as is with Christ and God. Jesus never sits on the Throne of God, on his Holy Mount, but Jesus does sit at the seat of Honor at the right hand side of God.
How then is Jesus 'God' if he is seated, not on the throne of God Almighty, but ONLY at his righthand side as an honored person? A god of honour? God Almighty makes Jesus a 'God of Honor'?
Then God Almighty lies because he said,'Besides me, there are no other [TRUE] Gods'
Moreover, a True God is not Created. A True God, IS! Always WAS! Always Will be.
Yet we know that Jesus was not Always, because he died, therefore he WAS NOT, and we know that he EMPTIED HIMSELF OF HIS DIVINITY, meaning his Angelic undying life in Heaven before coming as Man in the flesh.Chew on that and see what juices come out. To One it will be sweet, to another it will be bitter, yet it is the same juice!!! The Juice of Truth and Reality!!!
Hi Istari:I agree with most of what you say, but no, I do not believe in the pre-existence of Jesus. He existed in the heart of God our Father. But this is the wrong thread to get into this discussion.
Love in Christ,
MartyHi Jack:
In addition, where is your supporting scripture to justify your indicating that the disciples of Jesus should no longer be baptized in water.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 17 2011,14:29) You know mike,
Every word is defined by its context, in general. Thats why words have secondary meanings FYI.
Hi D,If I refer to George Washington as “President”, does the actual word “President” begin to MEAN “George Washington”? YES or NO? For example, if I later call Obama “President”, am I really calling him “George Washington”? And if I say “He was the first President of the United States” and you know I REFER TO George Washington, can you then look up “President” in Webster's Dictionary and find “George Washington” as one of the definitions? Answer this, and you'll see that the rest of this whole discussion is only fodder.
Because the SCRIPTURAL FACT is: Being called by the word “elohim” did NOT mean that one was God Almighty. And many scriptures bear this out. And if the part I bolded is correct, (which it IS), then calling Jesus by this title does not, IN AND OF ITSELF, teach us that Jesus is God Almighty. AND…………….if the part I bolded is correct, (which it IS), then the word “elohim” does not MEAN God Almighty. If it did, then anyone who was ever called by that word would BE God Almighty.
CAN YOU GRASP THIS?
Now, let's take YOUR assertion and check it out. You say that sometimes, depending on the context, the word doesn't just REFER TO God Almighty, but actually begins to MEAN “God Almighty”. This is not true, but let's say for argument's sake that it is.
What is the CONTEXT of Hebrews 1:8 that indicates that the “elohim” mentioned MEANS “God Almighty” in this case? Is it the part where a Psalm that CLEARLY WASN'T about God Almighty was applied to him? Is it the part where HIS ELOHIM SET HIM ABOVE HIS COMPANIONS?
Really D, does God Almighty have someone who is referred to as “YOUR ELOHIM”? Who exactly is the elohim OF El Shaddai? Who is the elohim OF El Elyon?
The elohim mentioned in Hebrews 1:8 HAS AN ELOHIM, so he can't very well be El Elyon (El Most High), can he?
I didn't mean to upset you by not answering all of your post. Two posts earlier, you said you knew I had much on my plate and that I didn't need to respond. But I did respond to every point. This time, I had neither the time nor the patience to go through everything again. If you can't understand that the word “elohim” many times REFERRED TO God Almighty, but never began to actually MEAN “God Almighty”, then what else could I say anyway?
I'm beginning to get a little frustrated here. This has branched off into a huge discussion for such a simple and scripturally clear point. To me, it's simple:
Does “elohim” actually MEAN “God Almighty”? No, because others who were NOT God Almighty were called by it. So does it mean that Jesus is God Almighty when HE is called by it? No, because others who were NOT God Almighty were called by it.
See? Simple. Francis needs to move off Hebrews 1:8 and on to something than might actually prove Jesus is God Almighty – because being called “elohim” is no proof at all.
peace and love to you,
mikeBefore I respond Mike You did not answer the whole point of my Last Post.
You claimed that “Elohim” only means “leader” (“Judges” “Ruler”)
Mike, Are you going to deny the other defintions of “Elohim” such as “gods” “gods like” “god” or “the True God”
according to the Net?
The Other definitions that the Net has stated.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
