Christ's Deity

fieldsofwind · Dec 14, 2002

What has continually amazed me is that evangelion and the like fail to believe that God has kept his word, HIS. If He believes in the old greek, but says that the millions and millions of copies of the word that are in circulation today would not be kept pure by God. His arguement is always something to the effect of, "it doesn't really mean what it sounds like it's saying." If he would simply look at the word, then there would be no refutation to the facts presented. This thread was started with the word, just as it is today. Not once has he used the Bible with its own words (not the ideas of men on what they think it should say) to contradict anything.

Well, I think it fitting to recite the word again.

(John 1:1-5, 14) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it... The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. ------> (Revelation 19:13) He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.

This not only says that the Word became flesh (not that it came into someone's flesh) but it also says that He made HIS dwelling among us. Also, it says that His glory is that of the One and Only. God specifically says that He will never give this away to anything else in Isaiah 42:8.

Perfect.

FOW

Future Man · Dec 14, 2002

Hello FOW and God bless-

Also, it says that His glory is that of the One and Only. God specifically says that He will never give this away to anything else in Isaiah 42:8.

..cf..John17:5

Sure thing. Read this correspondence here:

http://www.aomin.org/MSmart1.html

..on that very thing.

God bless--FM

Future Man · Dec 14, 2002

While we're on 'glory':

Rev 5:13 and every creature that is in the heaven, and in the earth, and under the earth, and the things that are upon the sea, and the all things in them, heard I saying, `To Him who is sitting upon the throne, AND TO the Lamb, is THE blessing, and THE honour, and THE GLORY ['doxa'], and the might--to the ages of the ages!'

The articles make this definite.

Here Christ is receiving EQUAL blessing, honor, and glory from ALL of creation just as the Father recieves. This is the Father's glory. This harmonizes with what is to be done as is stated in John5:23.

Robertson:

And to the Lamb (kai tōi arniōi). Dative case. Praise and worship are rendered to the Lamb precisely as to God on the throne. Note separate articles here in the doxology as in Rev_4:11 and the addition of to kratos (active power) in place of ischus (reserve of strength) in Rev_5:12.

God bless--FM

fieldsofwind · Dec 14, 2002

Yes, also interesting to note: Zechariah 14:9

The LORD will be king over the whole earth. On that day there will be one LORD, and his name the only name.

Either the LORD is lying when He says that at the name of Jesus Christ every knee shall bow in heaven and on earth and under the earth and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, or Jesus Christ is indeed the very same LORD speaking.

take care

FOW

Future Man · Dec 15, 2002

Look what I dug up from an old thread. But let's start off with Ev's quote again:

That's right. Trinitarians are little more than glorified JWs.

Some of the below aren't *directly* parallel to the beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses [but many are], but one can simply be amazed at how similar.

Christadelphians
By Dr. Ken Johnson

Christadelphians are a small cult, founded in in the United States by John Thomas in 1833. They were also known as the "Brothers of Christ" and the Thomasites. This group may be the parent group of the Jehovah's witnesses. Many of their doctrines are similar. They teach that their founder, John Thomas, brought to light through his interpretations the "lost" truth, which had been corrupted with apostasy for centuries and without his interpretation, the bible cannot be understood. Their doctrines are as follows:

*Sounds a little TOO much like our old friend Mr. Russell. Can we say "new light"?

You must become a Christadelphian and be baptized by them in order to have a chance at salvation.

*Gasp! But this is what the WTS says. I'm so confused...

"...unless we are in touch with this channel of communication that God is using, we will not progress along the road to life, no matter how much Bible reading we do." 'The Watchtower' Dec. 1st 1981 p.27

Jesus was the son of God, but not God in the flesh (denying the Trinity)

*Just like the JWs

The Holy Spirit is the radiant energy/power of God, not 3rd person of the Trinity, and he does not indwell the believer.

*Just like the JWs

Jesus was not born sinless. But we must achieve sinless perfection, like Christ did in order to save ourselves. This is referred to as the "God Manifestation".

*Mmm...a lot like the JWs.

Baptism and other works are necessary for salvation.

*Skip to. Gotta hand 'em out. Get yer Awake! here.

Hell is not eternal. The wicked are annihilated. Except for the resurrection there is no type of life after death.

*Just like.........THE JWs!

They are not to fellowship with any who do not hold to their doctrines.

*Like the JWs?

Jesus Christ was just an human being. His death on the cross was not substitutionary, does not atone for are sins, and is not sufficient for our salvation. He only died so that we could have an opportunity to be like him, he was only a representative, not a savior.

*Where have I heard that before?

The soul is not immortal, it ceases to exist after death.

*Dito there.

The Devil, fallen angels, and demons are not real. They are just a euphemism for sin and evil men.

*Here is one exclusion so far.

They have various by-laws and standards regulating behavior, conscious objectors, no voting in elections, no union membership, no self defense, no employment as a police, or employment where military goods are manufactured. Children discouraged from playing after school sports or becoming members in boy/girl scouts, no membership in any fraternal organizations at all. Marriage outside the Christadelphians is ground for disfellowship, as is any disagreement on any of the above.

*Like a JW...

They have no organizational hierarchy, and each ecclesia (church) is presided over by part time lay ministers, who do not have any formal training other than studying for baptism, which is a lengthy trial of interrogation by other Christadelphian brethren.

*That's two exceptions.

The women are to keep silence in the church, but may teach the children and each other, are to cover their heads and flashy dress is discouraged.

*And the women of the JWs are required similar when in prayer with their
husbands. Cross this with CoC.

There seems to be a greater tendency than average to utilize holistic health practitioners, (somewhat reminiscent of Christian Scientist) although there is no prohibition against blood transfusions, they have been known to discourage it.

*Blood transfusions huh.. Wonder how up to date they are on this.

_________________________________________________________
Information taken from "The Constitution of the Glendale Christadelphian Ecclesia", Glendale, California, 1972.

That's right. Trinitarians are little more than glorified JWs.

Evangelion · Dec 21, 2002

AV -

*snip*

What is in question is "Mighty God". A title used of YHWH exclusively

*snip*

Mere question-begging. It's either used of Jesus and Yahweh, or it's used exclusively of Yahweh. You can't have both. (Zechariah 14, Acts 1:11-12 & Hebrews 1:10 prove nothing. I've nailed all of these on countless occasions. It's not my fault your indoctrination was so strong...)

Try the more precise rendering, "Father of Eternity".

Suits me just fine!

*snip*

I refer my fellow posters to this article:

*snip*

I agree that Jesus possesses the fullness of divine quality residing in him, and I refer intelligent readers who know how to think for themselves, to Louw-Nida.

Interestingly enough, history does *not* testify to the existence of *any* group that holds the beliefs of the CDs.

Wow, I love the comprehensive rebuttal there! I especially appreciated your powerful argument from legitimate academic sources...

Unfortunately, you're flat-out wrong. The European Unitarian churches (of which there were no less than 300 during the 16th Century) flourished for a full century before their eventual destruction (by fire and the sword) at the hands of alleged "Christians."

Thus:

The most brilliant period for the Polish Brethren was between 1585 and 1638 with the center at Raków which won the honorable name of the Sarmatian Athens. They founded a world-renowned school in 1602. Its rector until 1621, Jan Crell, codified the ethical system of the Brethren. Their famous printing press filled Europe with treatises written in Polish, Latin, Dutch, and German. They were well praised and read by people like John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Isaac Newton.

They represented a small number but held high ethical values. The Polish Brethren lasted in Poland for about 100 years from the time when Peter of Goniadz delivered his credo at the Calvinist synod in Secemin on January 22, 1556, to the death of Samuel Przypkowski in 1670. But they made an outstanding contribution to Polish literature and had the most advanced and pioneering ideas in social, political, and religious fields. They left about 500 treatises largely unexplored and still waiting to be examined.

They were inspired by a sincere application of original Christianity to personal, social and political relations. Their ideology was characterized from the beginning by: 1. propagating freedom of religious thought; 2. the principle of applying reason to the interpretation of the scriptures, the revelation, and theological matters in general; 3. absolute tolerance of all creeds; 4. the struggle for social equality among people.

At their first synod, the Polish Brethren settled the matter of freedom of conscience: "Everyone has the right not to do things which he feels to be contrary to the word of God. Moreover, all may write according to their conscience, if they do not offend anybody by it." Protestant and Catholic reaction termed freedom of conscience and tolerance propagated by the Socinians as "that Socinian dogma, the most dangerous of the dogmas of the Socinian sect."

Hillar, Marian (1994), From the Polish Socinians to the American Constitution.

There's plenty more where this came from, but... Matthew 7:6.

And the mid-fifteen hundreds

ROTFL!

Either there were never any groups which believe as I do, or there were some in the mid-1500s.

Which is it going to be, AV? You can't have both at once!

do not impress me.

Why not? It refutes your claim. Isn't that enough to "impress" you?

(Oh, and I could go back as far as the 1200s, too. Nothing easier.)

Just like Psalms 16, right?

Nope. Psalm 16 is in another category altogether. Jesus isn't even called "god" here!

You've also just nullified any argument you had for 'ho theos' vs 'theos'.

*snip*

Straw man. I make no such argument, and I never have!

You really make this too easy...

Don't just simply ask him, but BEG him to refute Sam Shamoun's 'latreuo' argument.

*snip*

You have E-Sword, do you not? Well, I can think of two commentaries in E-Sword (just off-hand) which categorically refute Shamoun's latreou argument. They were written by men who actually knew how to read...

Hello FOW and God bless-

quote:
Also, it says that His glory is that of the One and Only. God specifically says that He will never give this away to anything else in Isaiah 42:8.

*snip*

Agreed! Jesus never received the Father's glory.

Oh, and while we're in John 17, I may as well enjoy myself...

John 17:22.
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Compare John 17:3 & John 10:30...

*snip*

Here Christ is receiving EQUAL blessing, honor, and glory from ALL of creation just as the Father recieves.

Really? Where does the Bible say that it's "equal blessing, honour and glory"?

This is the Father's glory.

Really? Where does the Bible say that it's the Father's glory?

This harmonizes with what is to be done as is stated in John5:23.

Robertson:

And to the Lamb (kai tōi arniōi). Dative case. Praise and worship are rendered to the Lamb precisely as to God on the throne. Note separate articles here in the doxology as in Rev_4:11 and the addition of to kratos (active power) in place of ischus (reserve of strength) in Rev_5:12.

Really? I see no mention of worship here. Indeed, the word latreou is conspicuous by absence...

But let's start off with Ev's quote again:

quote:
That's right. Trinitarians are little more than glorified JWs.

The reference was purely Christological. So you (and your sycophantic friends) have ignored the context (or perhaps simply failed to recognise it), and presented a straw man. (Duh!)

Some of the below aren't *directly* parallel to the beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses [but many are]

*snip*

And I could say the same of you and Oneness Pentecostals. In fact, you're even closer to them (in every way), than I am to the JWs!

Evangelion · Dec 21, 2002

FOW -

What has continually amazed me is that evangelion and the like fail to believe that God has kept his word, HIS.

*snip*

That's a blatant lie.

I believe that God has kept His word, His - I just don't believe that there's such a thing as an "inspired translation."

Evangelion · Dec 21, 2002

Ben -

Hmmm. JWs believe:

Jesus isn't God.
Jesus is a created being.
Jesus is Michael the Archangel.
Salvation is by works.

YOU believe:
Jesus isn't God.
Jesus is a created being.

Oh, and let's add...

Trinitarians: Jesus is a pre-existent being.
JWs: Jesus is a pre-existent being.
Christadelphians: Jesus is not a pre-existent being.
Trinitarians: Jesus created the world.
JWs: Jesus created the world.
Christadelphians: Jesus did not create the world.

JWs also used to believe that Jesus was worthy of true worship (they don't anymore), but we never believed this. Additionally, while JWs believe that Jesus is Michael the Archangel, most Trinitarians simply choose another angel ("the angel of the LORD"), and say that this is Jesus, instead.

So yes, I can see that your Christological position is far closer to that of the JWs, than mine will ever be.

Not sure where you stand on the "works" thing

We believe (a) that no man can be saved by his works, (b) that believers must obey their master (Christ), and (c) that baptism is the rite by which we enter the body of believers in Christ, identifying with his death and resurrection.

Item (a) is supported thus:

II Timothy 1:9.
Who hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

Item (b) is supported thus:

Hebrews 5:9.
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Item (c) is supported thus:

Mark 16:16.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be ******.
Romans 6:3-4.
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Hence item 16 of the Christadelphian Statement of Faith:

16.
That the way to obtain this salvation is to believe the Gospel they preached, and to take on the Name and service of Christ, by being thereupon immersed in water and continuing patiently in the observance of all things he has commanded, none being recognized as his friends except those who do what he has commanded.

Acts 13:48; 16:31; Mark 16:16; Rom. 1:16; Acts 2:38, 41; 10:47-48; 8:12; Gal. 3:27-29; Rom. 6:3-5; 2:7; Matt. 28:20; John 15:14.

Ergo:

Matthew 7:21.
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
John 15:14.
Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

It's very simple - and totally Biblical.

but you do accept waterbaptism as part of salvation---thus ONE WORK that we know of is part of salvation.

*snip*

Please show me the place in the Bible where we are told "Baptism is a work, which is not part of salvation" - bearing in mind the fact that in order to do this, you will also need to find passages of Scripture which contradict the proof texts listed above.

Good luck.

Evangelion · Dec 21, 2002

FOW -

Yes, also interesting to note: Zechariah 14:9

The LORD will be king over the whole earth. On that day there will be one LORD, and his name the only name.

Looks fine to me. No worries here.

Either the LORD is lying when He says that at the name of Jesus Christ every knee shall bow in heaven and on earth and under the earth and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord

No, He is not lying. I look forward to bowing my knee to Christ and confessing him as my Lord.

I don't believe that you'll be there, of course... but never mind. I'll be thinking of you.

or Jesus Christ is indeed the very same LORD speaking.

Fallacy of equivocation.

Racer X · Dec 22, 2002

Read Psalm 110 and tell me if "God of my God" makes any sense to you. In context, Father of my God would be the best translation in my opinion.

All I have been able to find is that Jesus was begotten by the father, this would mean that the father would be a superior being. The father had to begot his son, meaning that he was the instigator of this process making him the Chief.

If God wanted the trinity to be so accepted, why didn't he outright make the distinction?

Also God says that Jesus (the word, the son), was with him when he created the heavens and earth.

Also, you can't get to the father without going through the son (indicating a seperate and unique being).

Also, Jesus (who was fully God and fully man, supposedly), asked his father why he had forsaken him. This would mean that Jesus acknowledged and left evidence that the Father was in charge, the almighty.

And, how could god not look upon himself (as the bible says that the father could not look upon sin and turned away from his son.)?

There is a lot of evidence in the bible that does not support the Godhead, Trinity, coequal argument.

Trinitarianism wasn't an established belief recognized by most Christian faiths until around 1300 AD, I believe.

I believe personally they are a Godhead, but all scripture seems to point to the fact that the father is a little more superior.

Like the analogy that God is the architect (the mastermind), and the son is the builder, seems to make more sense to me. Also this would indicate to me that The father is the boss and the son is next in line.

I think there is a pecking order, even in the heavens. I am leaning towards believing that without the father, the son could not exist and that the Father was there first as the son had to be begotten, how can a being or anything be begotten at a given point in time and still be the Alpha?

Unless someone can show me different.

Thanks for taking the time to address these.

Future Man · Dec 22, 2002

Evangelion-

Mere question-begging. It's either used of Jesus and Yahweh, or it's used exclusively of Yahweh. You can't have both. (Zechariah 14, Acts 1:11-12 & Hebrews 1:10 prove nothing. I've nailed all of these on countless occasions. It's not my fault your indoctrination was so strong...)

Haha! This is stated under your assumption that Jesus isn't YHWH. It can be applied to Jesus AND the Father and STILL be used exclusively of YHWH. Try learning Trinitarianism for a change.

Zech- "name-bearing" I rest my case

Pick your favorite CD interpretation:

Heb1:10- It's an out of context interjectory exclamation of praise! It doesn't refer to the Son at all! It's the "new heavens' and earth!

Really "handled" that one didn't you?

I agree that Jesus possesses the fullness of divine quality residing in him, and I refer intelligent readers who know how to think for themselves, to Louw-Nida.

In other words he wants you to go for the minority view. The article I pointed to, goes into the lexical use of the word etc,. It is more than scholarly.

But I imagine that Ev STILL hasn't read it.

Unfortunately, you're flat-out wrong. The European Unitarian churches (of which there were no less than 300 during the 16th Century) flourished for a full century before their eventual destruction (by fire and the sword) at the hands of alleged "Christians."

I've also stated before that evidence from the 1500's does not impress me. Really Ev, put yourself in my shoes and tell me how hard it would be to restrain from laughing if I told you my religion went ALLLLLLLLLL the way back to the 1500's

Future Man · Dec 22, 2002

....

They were inspired by a sincere application of original Christianity to personal, social and political relations. Their ideology was characterized from the beginning by: 1. propagating freedom of religious thought; 2. the principle of applying reason to the interpretation of the scriptures, the revelation, and theological matters in general; 3. absolute tolerance of all creeds; 4. the struggle for social equality among people.

Absolute tolerance for all creeds?

There's plenty more where this came from, but... Matthew 7:6.

Say that 15 more times but in between each say "My religion goes back to the 1500's" "My religion goes back......"

Either there were never any groups which believe as I do, or there were some in the mid-1500s.

Which is it going to be, AV? You can't have both at once!

ROTFL

By 'history" I mean 'fathers' etc.. Otherwise I would be implying the 1980's as well.

Why do you think in the same paragraph I stated "the 1500's do not impress me"? That was the qualifier.

Why not? It refutes your claim. Isn't that enough to "impress" you? (Oh, and I could go back as far as the 1200s, too. Nothing easier.)

Interesting that you did not. Wouldn't that have been the better choice in order to have demonstrated the age of your religion? And just why should I not laugh in the face of the 1200's? He who places such emphasis on Constantine, can't find anything before the 1200-1500's.

Nope. Psalm 16 is in another category altogether. Jesus isn't even called "god" here!

And that is not the point. Psalm 16 is appplied *directly* to King David and yet is not applicable to him at all!

Straw man. I make no such argument, and I never have!

Well then, I naturally confused you with all the other Unitarians. Considering their arguments are all the same, word for word.

You really make this too easy...

That would have been more meaningful out of the mouth of Anastasis.

You have E-Sword, do you not? Well, I can think of two commentaries in E-Sword (just off-hand) which categorically refute Shamoun's latreou argument. They were written by men who actually knew how to read...

So which are they? Do you want me to go through all my commentaries and look up *every* passage that Sam cites? Is it too difficult for you to be specific?

Future Man · Dec 22, 2002

.....

Agreed! Jesus never received the Father's glory.

Oh, and while we're in John 17, I may as well enjoy myself...

John 17:22.
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Compare John 17:3 & John 10:30...

For crying out loud, did you not read?:

http://www.aomin.org/MSmart1.html

It handles your very objection. Read the actual article [same site] while you're at it.

Really? Where does the Bible say that it's "equal blessing, honour and glory"?

See Robertson. Also note that the articles are present. THE honor is being given to the Father AND the Son.

Really? Where does the Bible say that it's the Father's glory?

Are you kidding me? If the Father is recieving The glory it is His glory, right? If the Son is alongside Him recieving this *same* Glory then He is recieiving the glory that the Father recieves. Are you implying that the Father recieves "different kinds" of glory?

Really? I see no mention of worship here. Indeed, the word latreou is conspicuous by absence...

So you admit that the reception is equal? Good. As for latreou see Dan7 [LXX]

. Also may want to try and refute Sam's argument while you're at it.

The reference was purely Christological. So you (and your sycophantic friends) have ignored the context (or perhaps simply failed to recognise it), and presented a straw man. (Duh!)

Hardly.

And I could say the same of you and Oneness Pentecostals. In fact, you're even closer to them (in every way), than I am to the JWs!

My, how offensive! Considering our differences are in about one or two things!

That's a blatant lie.

I believe that God has kept His word, His - I just don't believe that there's such a thing as an "inspired translation.

'Gates of Hell will not prvail'? <whistling>

So yes, I can see that your Christological position is far closer to that of the JWs, than mine will ever be.

You provided a mere three similarities and you think that entails "far closer". Hahaha!

I don't believe that you'll be there, of course... but never mind. I'll be thinking of you.

You don't believe in what half the bible states. Just ask 'em about John1.
Gee Ev, maybe JT can pass the 'torch of truth' to us poor Trinitarians so we can have eternal life too.

-God bless-

Ben johnson · Dec 22, 2002

JWs: Jesus is a pre-existent being.

Nuh-uhhhh...

Pre-existent, maybe to MARY'S giving birth, but not pre-existent to the WORLD. JWs believe that Michael-the-archangel was ANNHILATED, and his life-force was used to create Jesus, in the womb. And when Jesus was crucified, it wasn't really a resurrection, per se'---but rather Michael, re-created. They confuse the "firstborn of all creation" (Col1) with the idea of "born-first of all creation"...

Christadelphians: Jesus did not create the world.

I've never completely understood your view on this---you admit that Jesus is the WORD in Jn1:14; do you view a DIFFERENT Word in verse 1? Or, maybe something happened in verse 14, so it wasn't REALLY the Word that became flesh???

Item (c) is supported thus:

Mark 16:16.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be ******.

Romans 6:3-4.
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

The word, "baptizo", means "immersion". Do you admit that there are three separate and distinct immersions in Matt3:11-12?

1. Baptism of water for repentance
[glow=white]2. Baptism of the Holy Spirit for believers[/glow]
3. Fire for sinners---"burn the chaff with unquenchable fire"

So in Matt3 we see three SEPARATE AND DISTINCT immersions, only ONE of which is WATER.

The "immersion in the HOLY SPIRIT equates to salvation, which is by belief.

What do believers do about Jesus??? They believe!

The IMMERSION INTO JESUS is simultaneous to the IMMERSION into the HOLY SPIRIT---both refer to salvation, and neither one has ANYTHING to do with water!

Your usage of Romans 6 to require waterbaptism is completely refuted---the passage is immersion into CHRIST, not immersion into water.

Mark 16---ah yes, the passage that's not IN the older manuscripts. But let's assume it's "legit"---if we contend that waterbaptism ACCOMPANIES saving-belief, then the words, "believes and has been baptized shall be saved" harmonizes perfectly. What I require to see, is ANY passage that says, "he who is NOT dipped is condemned!" Can you FIND such a passage? Nope!

Matt7:21---you already admitted that works do NOT save you---will you concede that good works accompany, unavoidably, a saved HEART? Jesus threw out several conditions expressed as, "Unless _______, you shall not inherit Heaven!" Matt18:34 demands childlike humility, Luke 13:3 demands repentance. (EACH are couched as "Unless _____, perish!")

This brings us to John3. ANOTHER "Unless _____, perish!" But I submit to you, this one is the BASIS on which the others rest!

"Unless you are BORN AGAIN, you shall not inherit the kingdom of God!"

How does one get "born again"? By belief, EV---belief alone. But it's the KIND of belief, true faith-to-salvation, that CAUSES the humility, that CAUSES the doing-good-works, that CAUSES repentance.

And, yes, that causes waterbaptism!

Nicodemus said to Jesus:

"How can one enter into his mother's womb again?"

Jesus ANSWERED him, saying:
Unless one is born of water AND the Spirit he cannot enter Heaven...
That which is born of flesh is flesh, that which is born of Spirit is spirit."

WATER---> "Hudor", water-as-the-FUNDAMENTAL-ELEMENT. You cannot separate verses 5 and 6----6 repeats and explains 5!

"WATER" here is "FLESH"! Jesus was ANSWERING Nick, NOT inserting a "dipping clause"!

Show me ONE VERSE that says "undipped are condemned"!

Meanwhile, I'll throw out the ubiquitous passage, Acts 10:43-48. They BELIEVED (10:43, 11:17), they RECEIVED the Holy Spirit just as PETER & APOSTLES did (10:45, 11:15), they were saved!

OOPS!!! BUT THEY HAD NOT BEEN WATERBAPTIZED!

You cannot deny that they were SAVED but not DIPPED---your contention that "waterbaptism is PART of SALVATION", is completely refuted!

Now, will you FINALLY tell us what you mean when you write, *snip*???

Future Man · Dec 22, 2002

I've never completely understood your view on this---you admit that Jesus is the WORD in Jn1:14; do you view a DIFFERENT Word in verse 1? Or, maybe something happened in verse 14, so it wasn't REALLY the Word that became flesh???

It's confusing, but believe me the Werd of Gawd teaches it! And anyone who simply reads through it would come to those conclusions immeditately!. Especially in vs10

. Once you hook up with the guys in Brooklyn, it'll all come into focus.

Now...

How is "obeying Christ" considered a 'work' in the truest sense?

Now...

Baptism is one those areas that I think..

Mrk 16:16..BUT..."thief on the cross"

It's never come up as an issue. No one I know of or have seen has stated "I don't want to get baptized". Personally if someone aquired salvation, but said "I don't feel like getting wet", I'd call 'em an idiot.

God bless--FM

Gunny · Dec 22, 2002

I truly have the greatest empathy for those that deny the deity of Jesus Christ.

David was empowered by the Holy Spirit but could not have payed for the wages of sin for mankind for he was a sinner.

Only Jesus Christ, the I am, the sinless Godman was capable to pay the penalty of sin, death.

I recognize that when God said lack of knowledge is the destroyer of His people. Man's knoweledge? No, the wisdom and spiritual discernment that is given to he or she that has been born again of above and filled with the Holy Spirit.

The enless debate continues ad infintum. Jesus said that His sheep shall hear His voice. How? Through the work of the Comforter (The Holy Spirit).

Future Man · Dec 22, 2002

What's interesting is that I saw a CoC site that gave an argument on how the 'thief on the cross' WAS baptized.

Future Man · Dec 22, 2002

Amen Gunnysgt!

Check me sig.

Ben johnson · Dec 22, 2002

Personally if someone aquired salvation, but said "I don't feel like getting wet", I'd call 'em an idiot.

I'd call him unsaved. Jesus said, "you will know them by their fruit (works)". And, "only those who DO the will of the Father will enter His kingdom"! Those who are SAVED, will, BECAUSE of that salvation, be "dipped"!

Cause-and-effect, not effect-and-cause...

Evangelion · Dec 22, 2002

Ben -

quote:
JWs: Jesus is a pre-existent being.
Nuh-uhhhh...

Pre-existent, maybe to MARY'S giving birth, but not pre-existent to the WORLD.

Alas, you are wrong. They do indeed believe that Christ pre-existed before the existence of the world, because they also believe that he was responsible for its creation, as delegated by the Father. Proverbs 8:22 is their standard proof text for this belief (though they also draw on Hebrews 1 & John 1:1-3.) I confirmed this during a personal exchange with Edgar Foster on a JW apologetics discussion board.

JWs believe that Michael-the-archangel was ANNHILATED, and his life-force was used to create Jesus, in the womb. And when Jesus was crucified, it wasn't really a resurrection, per se'---but rather Michael, re-created.

I have absolutely no idea where you are getting this stuff from. It's one of the worst examples of misrepresentation that I've seen for a very long time.

Would you care to substantiate your claim by quoting directly from JW apologetics Websites which clearly teach what you say they teach?

They confuse the "firstborn of all creation" (Col1) with the idea of "born-first of all creation"...

Yes, well... that's just a little problem that you will have to sort out between the two of you, I'm sorry to say. Personally, I just stick to the Bible.

quote:
Christadelphians: Jesus did not create the world.

I've never completely understood your view on this---you admit that Jesus is the WORD in Jn1:14;

We don't "admit" it - we happily affirm it! Yes, Jesus is the word-made-flesh in John 1:14.

do you view a DIFFERENT Word in verse 1?

Nope. We view the same word, but in another form. The logos of John 1:1-3 was conceived in the mind of God and later spoken by Him, but it was not yet ginomai sarx. This change takes place in John 1:14.

Or, maybe something happened in verse 14, so it wasn't REALLY the Word that became flesh???

Nope.

quote:
Item (c) is supported thus:

Mark 16:16.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be ******.

Romans 6:3-4.
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

The word, "baptizo", means "immersion".

Agreed. Are you going to address my proof texts?

Do you admit that there are three separate and distinct immersions in Matt3:11-12?

*snip*

Yes, I agree that there are three separate and distinction immersions in Matthew 3:11-12. But I am not taking my argument from Matthew 3:11-12 - I am taking my argument from Mark 16:16 & Romans 6:3-4. Are you going to address my proof texts?

The "immersion in the HOLY SPIRIT equates to salvation, which is by belief.

...and you cited not a single verse of Scrpipture to support this, so I'll move on.

Are you going to address my proof texts?

What do believers do about Jesus??? They believe!

Yes, they believe... and are baptised.

Are you going to address my proof texts?

The IMMERSION INTO JESUS is simultaneous to the IMMERSION into the HOLY SPIRIT---both refer to salvation, and neither one has ANYTHING to do with water!

...and you cited not a single verse of Scrpipture to support this, so I'll move on.

Are you going to address my proof texts?

Your usage of Romans 6 to require waterbaptism is completely refuted---

ROTFL! Not on your life! You haven't even addressed it yet!

the passage is immersion into CHRIST, not immersion into water.

The immersion is into Christ by being immersed in water. How do we know this? Because the "immersion" here referred to, is spoken of as a symbol of death, burial and resurrection. Now I shall ask you a question: Which baptism[/i] symbolises death, burial and resurrection?

B. W. Johnson (citing standard authorities) provides the answer:

3-5. So many of us as were baptized into Christ, etc.
The fact that every follower of Christ has died to sin is shown by his baptism. All its symbolism points to death. To be baptized into Christ means to enter into a vital union with him, so as to be found in him (Gal. 3:27). But this baptism into Christ implies death, for it is a baptism into the death of Christ. That the subjects of baptism are partakers of his death is shown by the form of baptism. It is a burial.

4. We are buried (Revision) through baptism into death.
The argument is that a burial implies death. Baptism is a burial, therefore its subject has died. As Christ died through sin, we die to sin; as the Crucified Christ was buried, we who have died to sin through the gospel are buried with him. As death and burial separate from the natural life, so death to sin and burial into Christ should completely sever our relation to sin. That like as Christ was raised up from the dead. The glorious power of the Father lifted up Christ from the tomb. So we, too, rise from the watery burial, with death and burial between us and the old life of sin, in order to walk in newness of life.

"This passage cannot be understood unless it is borne in mind that the primitive baptism was by immersion."
--Conybeare and Howson.

"That the custom of baptism by immersion is alluded to is generally admitted, but the emersion is as significant as the immersion."
--Dr. Philip Schaff.

"It seems to us very probable that the apostle alludes to the external form of the baptismal rite in the primitive church."
--Godet.

"The apostle alludes to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion."
--John Wesley.

5. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death.
As the seed, planted, buried out of sight, rises again in a new life, so we are planted in the likeness of Christ's death when we are buried in baptism, and rise in the likeness of his resurrection, when we are lifted out of the water, and are found henceforth to have a new life. Compare Col. 2:12: "Buried by baptism, wherein ye are also risen with him."
Johnson, B. W. (1891), The People's New Testament.

We can defend his interpretation by an appeal to Reformed scholars:

J. P. Lange (Lutheran), Commentary on Romans 6.4:
Buried in death, an oxymoron, according to which burial precedes and death follows, as is illustrated in the immersion into the bath of baptism.
William Sanday (Episcopalian), International Critical Commentary:
Baptism has a double function. (I) It brings the Christian into personal contact with Christ, (2) It expresses symbolically a series of acts corresponding to the redeeming acts of Christ:

Immersion = Death.
Submersion = Burial (ratification of Death.)
Emergence = Resurrection.

That plunge beneath the running waters was like a death; the moment's pause while they swept overhead was like a burial; the standing erect once more in air and sunlight was a species of resurrection.
J. B. Lightfoot (Episcopalian), Commentary on Colossians 2:12:
Baptism is the grave of the old man, and the birth of the new. As he sinks beneath the baptismal waters, the believer buries there all his corrupt affections and past sins; as he emerges thence, he rises regenerate, quickened to new hopes and a new life.
A. S. Peake (Methodist), The Expositor's Greek Testament:
The rite of baptism in which the person baptized was first buried beneath the water, and then raised from it, typified to Paul the burial and resurrection of the believer with Christ.

The weight of Scripture is against you. The symbolism is clear and irrefutable. You cannot argue against God's written Word.

I suggest you cease your struggle with the Father and submit to His instruction.

Christ's Deity

Well-Known Member

Priest of God and the Lamb

Priest of God and the Lamb

Well-Known Member

Priest of God and the Lamb

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

<b><font color="red">Searcher of Truth</font></b>

Priest of God and the Lamb

Priest of God and the Lamb

Priest of God and the Lamb

Legend

Priest of God and the Lamb

Remnant

Priest of God and the Lamb

Priest of God and the Lamb

Legend

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

Similar threads