Christ's Deity

Evangelion · Dec 22, 2002

Continued...

Mark 16---ah yes, the passage that's not IN the older manuscripts.

*snip*

It doesn't appear in many of the oldest manuscripts, but it is most definitely there. You have made an attempt to belittle the Word of God, and I find that very disappointing for someone who claims to be a Christian.

What I require to see, is ANY passage that says, "he who is NOT dipped is condemned!"

*snip*

Then you are ignoring the logic of Mark 16:16, which contains the necessary corollory.

Please re-read this verse and think again.

Matt7:21---you already admitted that works do NOT save you---

I didn't "admit" it - I freely proclaimed it!

will you concede that good works accompany, unavoidably, a saved HEART?

*snip*

No, I only agree that they accompany a changed heart. We are not saved until we're literally standing in the Kingdom of God. That's why we are warned to take care that our names will not be blotted out of the book of life.

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

How does one get "born again"?

By belief, EV---belief alone.

*snip*

Nonsense. The Bible never says "by belief alone."

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."

*snip*

I refer you once again to the work of Johnson:

Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Jesus does not reply directly to the question of Nicodemus, but proceeded to give a more explicit statement concerning the new birth. One must be born of water and of the Spirit. This may mean, it will be admitted by all, (1.) That no one is a member of the kingdom of God until he is born again; (2.) That the Savior declares the impossibility of one entering who is not born of water and of the Spirit. One cannot enter by being born of water alone, nor of the Spirit alone, but must be born of water and of the Spirit. Otherwise he cannot enter.

What, then, is the meaning of these two words? Concerning the birth of the Spirit we need say little, as there is little controversy about it. Concerning born of water we agree with Alford that it refers to baptism, while "of the Spirit" refers to the inward change. He adds: "All attempts to get rid of these two plain facts have sprung from doctrinal prejudices by which the views of expositors have been warped."

Abbott says: "We are to understand Christ as he expected his auditor to understand him. The Jewish proselyte, as a sign that he had put off his old faiths, was baptized on entering the Jewish church. John the Baptist baptized both Jew and Gentile as a sign of purification by repentance from past sins. Nicodemus would then have certainly understood by the expression, born of water, a reference to this rite of baptism."

Milligan, of Scotland, says: "John said: I baptize with water; the One coming baptizes with Spirit; but Christ says: The baptism of both is necessary. One must be born of water and of the Spirit." See also Titus 3:5 and Rom. 6:4. (Joh 3:6.)
Johnson, Barton W. (1886), New Testament Commentary, Vol III: John.

Compare with Johnson's analysis of John 1:25-26:

25. Why baptizest thou then?
This question shows that John's baptism was, to them, a new rite. They could understand that Christ, or Elias, or "that prophet" might establish a new ordinance by the divine authority, but if John is none of these, why does he do so? Their perplexity shows that, in some way, the baptismal rite was new to them. It is claimed that Gentile proselytes to the Jewish faith were baptized (immersed according to all the Jewish authorities) before this time, but the only proof offered is the testimony of the Talmud, written two or three centuries later. Even if proselyte baptism had been instituted, John's rite presented the new feature of baptizing Jews, those who considered themselves God's people. In that it called the chosen people to baptism it was a new rite. (Joh 1:26.)

26. I baptize with water.
The correct rendering is in water, and the preposition en is thus rendered by the American Committee of the Revisers, as well as by Canon Westcott of the Church of England and the most judicious scholars. Even in the Common Version, out of 2,660 times that en occurs in the Greek of the New Testament, it is rendered by "in" 2,060 times. There is no good reason why it should not be so rendered every time it occurs in connection with baptism.

The translators of the Catholic Bible in English, the Douay Version, were more honest than King James' revisers, and have always so rendered it. John does not answer the question of the Pharisees directly, but points to one already standing among them. The baptism of water connects itself with that pre-eminent being.
Ibid.

Johnson's Commentary is also cited in his The People's New Testament (1891), which includes the following addition:

All agree that the birth of the Spirit refers to the inward, or spiritual change that takes place, and all candid authorities agree that born of water refers to baptism. So Alford, Wesley, Abbott, Whitby, Olshausen, Tholuck, Prof. Wm. Milligan, the Episcopal Prayer Book, the Westminister Confession, the M. E. Discipline, and M. E. Doctrinal Tracts, and also the writers of the early Church all declare.
Ibid.

It's very clear.

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

Oh, but you still haven't shown me the verse which says "Baptism is a work which we are not required to perform for our salvation", Ben. So you're hardly in a position to be making challenges.

Meanwhile, the corollory of Mark 16:16 is abundantly clear to anyone with a logical mind, as Johnson confirms:

Mar 16:16 - He that believeth.
Believeth the gospel message; believes in Christ as his Savior.

And is baptized.
These are the conditions of pardon; faith in Christ and obedience to his command. If any one has not faith enough in Christ to obey him he has not faith enough to be saved.

He that believeth not.
Remains in a state of unbelief. Such have no promise. See Joh_3:18.

Belief and baptism are inextricable. Both are given as conditions of salvation. (Hence Romans 6:3-4.)

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!

It does not say that they were saved.

Sorry.

OOPS!!! BUT THEY HAD NOT BEEN WATERBAPTIZED!

That's OK, because Peter insisted that they must be baptised, and they were!

There's not a single word here about them being "saved" prior to baptism.

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

Isn't it obvious?

I'm simply excising the unnecessary portions of your posts.

quote:
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"!

Oh, so now you are saying that works are necessary for salvation, and that we are not saved until we are baptised!

How refreshing that you've changed your mind in so short a space of time!

Future Man · Dec 22, 2002

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.

Ben johnson · Dec 22, 2002

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.

I failed to communicate what I was thinkin'. They believe that Jesus was the beginning of creation---misunderstanding the Greek word, "SOURCE"...

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.

Ahhh, I think I get it---the WORD, was just God's THOUGHT. Not a real being. But when the WORD/THOUGHT became flesh, Jesus was CREATED... There's just one little thing you're overlooking---"HE was in the beginning with God..." HE, EV. "Houtos", indicitative of "this man" or "this person"...

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

...and you cited not a single verse of Scrpipture to support this, so I'll move on.[/quote]I assert that baptism in the Holy Spirit is PART AND PARCEL to salvation! You disagree? John-the-baptist said "He will immerse you in the HOLY SPIRIT" (which we both admit has nothing to do with water). In Heb3:1, "PARTNERS of a heavenly calling", 3:14 "PARTNERS in Christ", 6:4 "PARTNERS with the Holy Spirit"---each verse uses "metochos", partners. Do you really want me to look up "HOLY SPIRIT" in my little computer-Bible and show you it's part of salvation???

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

Jesus said "the Father will send you a helper, the Holy Spirit". Salvation is partnering in the heavenly calling, AND partnering with Christ, AND partnering with the Holy Spirit. We have clearly undeniably shown "partnering with, or immersing in, the HOLY SPIRIT has nothing to do with water"---yet you believe "partnering with CHRIST is DIFFERENT---THAT requires WATER!.

You wanna argue also that the "partnering in the heavenly calling ALSO requires water? A second baptism???

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 symbolises death, burial and resurrection?

Hmmm---you don't provide Scriptural proof, you provide your own assumptions. The death burial and resurrection is spiritual---the old man dies, the new is born. "If any man be in CHrist, he is a new creation; the old passes away, new things have come." This is, identically, immersion into Christ, not immersion into water.

I showed you the three partnerships spoken of in Hebrews---calling, Christ, Holy Spirit. How is it that you can separate ONE and require waterbaptism? You have given no proof---unly interpretation. Show me THE VERSE, just one---that says "unbaptized are condemned"...

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

Since the Father does not contradict the Bible, my "struggle" seems not to be with Him, but rather you (and your wrongful interpretation)...

You have made an attempt to belittle the Word of God, and I find that very disappointing for someone who claims to be a Christian.

Ad Hominem---damaging to your position. I quoted the footnote to my NAS Bible, translated by men who have just a wee bit more understanding than you and I combined...

Please re-read this verse and think again.

Since this verse was likely written after John (and by a "dipper" such as yourself), its inclusion implies connection with water---but it also very much fits the ANECDOTAL ARGUMENT---that "He who BELIEVES, and then of course will be waterbaptized, and of course will be immersed in the Holy Spirit, and of course will be repentant and humble and effective---this one SHALL BE SAVED. If this was written by a monk, or even if it was written by John---what reason do you think there was for IGNORING waterbaptism in the DISQUALIFYING phrase?

"He who DOES NOT BELIEVE is CONDEMNED"! Only one disqualifier, EV. Show me the verse that says UNDIPPED equates to CONDEMNATION!

If vs16 was written by John, and if John believed waterbaptism was PART of salvation, why do you suppose John FORGOT to include it in the disqualifier? And if this was penned by a "dipper-monk", then perhaps he just could not bring himself to write what he knew was false? The absence of the word in the disqualifier is highly significant.

ONLY DISBELIEF DISQUALIFIES US, Ev. Show me the verse that says "unbaptized" disqualifies...

I refer you once again to the work of Johnson:

Johnson's work is irrelevant. Let's confine ourselves to Scripture, not interpretation of it. In post #174 I took great pains to show you that John3:5-6 are connected and repetitive---that "WATER" is explained in verse 6, as "FLESH". This fits perfectly with the Greek for water here, "HUDOR"---water as the fundamental element.

WATER is FLESH in Jesus' answer. You (meaning in general all those who desperately NEED a verse REQUIRING waterbaptism) seek to change Jesus' words. This was in ANSWERING Nick's question---"How can a man enter his mother's womb again?!" Jesus says:

"Unless a man is born of WATER and is also born of SPIRIT...
That which is born of FLESH is FLESH, that born of SPIRIT is SPIRIT"

Jesus was ANSWERING NICODEMUS---only a desperate grasp to insert WATERBAPTISM keeps you from simply reading the words Jesus wrote---together Understanding "WATER/FLESH" supports the words being an ANSWER---understanding "WATERBAPTISM/FLESH" does NOT fit with an answer to Nick's question....

Just as Matt3:12 EXPLAINS verse 11 (that the immesion in FIRE is for SINNERS but the SAVED are HARVESTED), so too is Jn3:6 a DOUBLE NARRATIVE, repeating verse 6 for explanation!

The baptism of water connects itself with that pre-eminent being.

WELLLLL, in Matt3:11-12, waterbaptism is UNCONNECTED with being "immersed in the Spirit"---it is identical to understand that the SECOND person of God is LIKEWISE UNCONNECTED!

Immersion into CHRIST, not in, not through water.

The SEAL of the Holy Spirit, is affixed to our BELIEF! (Eph1:13, Acts11:17)

Our partnership in CHRIST, is ALSO founded on BELIEF.

I noticed that you blatantly ignored the Acts 10:43-48, 11:15-17 passage---and I well understand why you would. Because they BELIEVED, they RECEIVED the Holy Spirit, they were SAVED---but they were not yet waterbaptized, were they???

Oh, so now you are saying that works are necessary for salvation, and that we are not saved until we are baptised!

Rather than struggle to explain, let's allow James to answer you, more eloquently than I could...

"What use is it, brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? THAT faith can NOT save him, CAN it! ('me dunamai') If a brother or sister is in need of clothing or food, and you say 'Go in peace be clothed warmed and fed' but do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so, faith, it is HAS no works, is DEAD, being by itself."

Exactly as Jesus said in Matt7, "No good tree produces bad fruit, no bad tree produces good. Therefore you will KNOW them by their FRUIT (works)..."

The WORKS are CAUSED by their saved-heart.
The WATERBAPTISM is CAUSED by their saved-heart.

Ben johnson · Dec 22, 2002

BTW, EV---you know that there are two "SAVED" understandings. There is "ETERNAL SAVED", which as you state happens when we go to Heaven.

There is the SAVED as in CURRENTLY, as explained in 1Jn5:12-13. "He who HAS the Son, has the life. I write this that you may KNOW YOU HAVE ETERNAL LIFE..."

Future Man · Dec 22, 2002

It doesn't appear in many of the oldest manuscripts, but it is most definitely there. You have made an attempt to belittle the Word of God, and I find that very disappointing for someone who claims to be a Christian.

"Oh it's spurious, but it suits my need so I'll simply assert that I'm right."

Such a hypocritical statement. Need I cite examples of your interpretive skills? You wouldn't know how to properly use a lexicon if Zohdiates held you by the hand.

No, I only agree that they accompany a changed heart. We are not saved until we're literally standing in the Kingdom of God. That's why we are warned to take care that our names will not be blotted out of the book of life.

The scriptures quite emphatically state that we can be assured of our salvation. What you refer to is apostasy..ie..falling away from the faith.

Nonsense. The Bible never says "by belief alone.

There's a nuanced understanding to that. Hence the "demons believe in God"..VS..say John20:31 etc,..

It does not say that they were saved.

I certainly doesn't say that they weren't. That is your assumption. Of course your next argument will be "..people had the spirit come upon them in the OT!!". Such fallacy of equivocation. Especially considering that the event in Acts was a fulfillment of Joel. Acts10 the phrase "gift of the Holy Spirit" is used. Something which entails salvation. I'll gurantee he was baptized afterwards, however.

I regards to *snip*:

I'm simply excising the unnecessary portions of your posts.

More like, "Portions of your post that I can't handle".

It can be extremely frustrating, just ask Old Shepherd. Especially if you're trying to harmonize to make a point.

><>

Now, questions we must ask:

Was the thief on the cross baptized? Was it necessary for *him* to be
baptized in order to be in "paradise"? No.
Did the thief on the cross *believe* that Christ was *who He said he was*? Was *this* necessary in order to enter "paradise"? Yes.

So we see that belief alone in Christ is what is "absolutely necessary" and that baptizism for salvation is entirely secondary depending upon the situation. Otherwise you better get baptized.

NOT saying that baptism is "extra" in any sense. Anyone who deliberately decides not to get baptized is an idiot. That's my view.

-God bless-

Ben johnson · Dec 22, 2002

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!

It does not say that they were saved.

Oops---sorry, I missed this. My bad...

In verses 10:34-42, Peter is telling them the Gospel. In addition, they had KNOWN Jesus and had HEARD HIM. In verse 43, Peter says: "Of Him all the Prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins."

It is precisely at this point that the Holy Spirit fell upon them!

In 11:15, Peter writes: "And as I began to speak, the Holy SPirit fell upon them just as He had upon us at the beginning".

Verse 17: "If God therefore gave to them the SAME GIFT as He gave to us ALSO AFTER BELIEVING in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to stand in God's way?"

Verse 16: "I remembered how the Lord said, '...you shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit."

We know:
1. They believed the Gospel.
2. They received the HOly Spirit and tongued and exalted God.
3. The Holy Spirit fell on them just as He had upon Peter & Disciples.
4. They received the SAME GIFT, as had Peter and the Disciples, AFTER BELIEVING!

You resolutely contend they were UNSAVED??? You propose that they can PARTNER in the HOLY SPIRIT, UNSAVED???

Would you be offended if I called you "STUBBORN"?

What other words would you have had Peter write, to "paint" them as SAVED?

After the four points above, the only thing different between Cornelious and friends, was they had not been waterbaptized.

It is because you stubbornly cling to "DIPPED OR CONDEMNED", that you refuse to acknowedge that thier salvation preceded their "dipping".

And because of your stubbornness, you believe that people can be INDWELT by the Holy Spirit APART FROM SALVATION.

The partnership that is salvation is threefold---partners in Christ, partners in the Holy Spirit, consequentially partners in the Heavenly calling...

THAT is why I'm struggling to convey to you that "partnering in the Holy Spirit" (immersed in Him), is identical to "partnership in Christ" (immersed in Him) ---and NEITHER has anything to do with water...

JesusServant · Dec 22, 2002

Anyone mention how the Father in heaven is the ONLY one to know of Christ's return?  Jesus did not know the time of His return only the Father in heaven.  Weird huh?

lared · Dec 23, 2002

That helps us to see that Jesus is not ALMIGHTY GOD. Only his heavenly Father is....whose name is Jehovah.

(Psalm 83:18) That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, You alone are the Most High over all the earth.

That is why Jesus went to him in prayer....for strength.

FluviusNeckar · Dec 24, 2002

LightBearer writes,

"The fact is that Jesus is not God and never claimed to be. This is being recognized by an increasing number of scholars. As the Rylands Bulletin states: "The fact has to be faced that New Testament research over, say, the last thirty or forty years has been leading an increasing number of reputable New Testament scholars to the conclusion that Jesus . . . certainly never believed himself to be God.""

You know someone has a weak argument when s/he must rely on that tired old advertizement ploy that "4 out of 5 dentist (read sholars) agree with me." LOL

The Jews who wanted to stone Jesus did so because He made Himself out to be equal with God. John records that Thomas touched His crucifixion scars and then stated, "My Lord and my GOD." A fragment of that Gospel, which traces to the turn of the first century, bears the same name as that confused Rylands group cited in the original poster's 4/5 dentist argument, i.e., the John Rylands fragment. In that Gospel, John states that the Word was God and the Word was with God.

The fact that Jesus existed with God and was not consumed or subsumed in God's personality should give us hope in the falsehood of the Buddhist nirvana. Nirvana occurs when the individual ceases to exist and rejoins the cosmic all of the universe. Jesus ability to remain separate from God yet one with Him exposes the lie of the Buddhism's chief goal---self anihilation by joining the cosmic all.

Only the purposely naive or willfully deceived can ignore the import of Jesus teaching about Himself. He did not believe He was the Father but He did believe He was divine: one with the Father and part of Him.

lared · Dec 24, 2002

My spouse and I are one flesh. We are not equal, nor the same person.

Jesus taught us to pray to his Father......as in you ......"You must pray this way....Our Father who art in heaven....."

He included himself in the 'Our' and he set the example for us in his many prayers to the Father.

He did not teach us to pray to a holy trinity.

The Father's personal name is Jehovah and is found in the Bible some 7,000 times.

She told the Samaritan woman at the well, that the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth. He did not say that the true worshipers will worship the holy trinity. Nor did he say that the true worshipers will worship the son.

Rather then saying.....well this means that or that means this.....merely do as Jesus told us to do, and follow in his footsteps.

Ben johnson · Dec 24, 2002

He did not teach us to pray to a holy trinity.

But Jesus accepted worship---what does this tell you about who He thought He was?

Lared, what do you think of Genesis1:26-27? "And God said, 'Let US make man in OUR image"---decidedly plural? (And back to singular in the next verse...)

What do you think it means, by "US-GOD"?

OldShepherd · Dec 24, 2002

Originally posted by lared
The Father's personal name is Jehovah and is found in the Bible some 7,000 times.

The creator's name is יהוה. The accepted pronunciation and the only one which can be supported historically is Yahweh, the 3ms of the Hebrew verb איה, "ehyeh", "to be". Here is part of an article from the Jewish Encyclopedia which gives factual information on the appelation "Jehovah".

Jehovah-The Jewish Encyclopedia
A mispronunciation (introduced by Christian theologians, but almost entirely disregarded by the Jews) of the Hebrew "Yhwh," the (ineffable) name of God (the Tetragrammaton or "Shem ha-Meforash"). This pronunciation is grammatically impossible; it arose through pronouncing the vowels of the "Tsere" (marginal reading of the Masorites: = "Adonay") with the consonants of the "ketib" (text-reading: = "Yhwh")"Adonay" (the Lord) being substituted with one exception wherever Yhwh occurs in the Biblical and liturgical books.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=206&letter=J

lared · Dec 24, 2002

Ben Johnson,

You believe he accepted worship. Fine. I don't believe he did. Fine.

Now let's merely do as what Jesus told us to do. And that is to worship Jehovah.

Do you remember what Jesus told Satan when being tempted?

(Matthew 4:10) Then Jesus said to him: "Go away, Satan! For it is written, 'It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.'"

And certainly you are aware that Jehovah was talking to his first born son Jesus at Genesis 1:26. 

Jehovah gets the credit as creator, just as he created his only-begotten son Jesus.

lared · Dec 24, 2002

Old Sheperd,

True, no one knows the correct pronunciation of the tetragrammaton, the divine name of Jesus' Father.

However, the common modern English pronunciation is Jehovah.

Just as the common modern English pronunciation for Jehovah's son, the Messiah, is Jesus.

In other languages, both names will be pronounced differently.

Ben johnson · Dec 24, 2002

Matt8:2, 9:18, 14:33, 15:26, 18:26, 28:9, 28:17, Mark 5:6, Luke 24:52, John 9:38.

In all of these cases, Jesus received worship---and never once protested.

Thomas said to His face, "My Lord and my God". Peter says "....the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ"--Peter did not say "of our God and of our Savior", he said "God AND SAVIOR JESUS".

Isaiah 43:11 says, "I, even I am the Lord---there is no savior besides Me." But Luke 2:11 says "Jesus is the SAVIOR born today!" What do you think happened, Lared? Did God CHANGE? Are there TWO SAVIORS NOW?

There is only one way to remove all of the contradictions and conflict, is to understand that Jesus and Jehovah, are one in ESSENCE.

"Jesus did not regard equality with God to be robbery, but laid aside His privileges, taking the form ...in the likeness of men. Being found in the appearance of a man, He humbled Himself, even unto death." Phlp2

lared · Dec 25, 2002

Once again, you understand the scriptures one way and I another.

I completely disagree with you, and you with me.

So where do we go from here?

As a Christian, I intend to do what Jesus tells me to do......not what your interpretations tell me.

He says clearly to pray to the Father and as mentioned in a previous post....to worship only Jehovah God.

Jesus received obeisance from individuals, which is bowing or the showing of deep respect.....just as prophets or kings in the past had received. Compare your scriptures presented with numerous other Bible translations.

Jesus is a Christian's role model or examplar. Being footstep followers, we strive to imitate him in spiritual matters. If he was God Almighty and received worship, then are we also to receive worship? NO!

He always prayed to his heavenly Father(not to himself or a mysterious holy trinity)....and we are to imitate him.

Perhaps you may want to consider Jesus' request at John 17:3 and come to know not only Jesus but also the one who sent Jesus to the earth. His name is Jehovah and is a different person from Jesus, as made plain in that verse.

Yes, the holy trinity has been worshiped by millions for centuries but in these last days, the truth is being made known by means of the Kingdom message (Matthew 24:14). Traditions by men can be difficult to break from .....such as Christmas or Valentine's Day.....but associating with Jehovah's people can help.

Please feel free to attend your local Kingdom Hall and continue to learn about Jehovah and his Son Christ Jesus and the Kingdom hope.

Hope this helps,
Lared

Evangelion · Dec 25, 2002

Ben -

I failed to communicate what I was thinkin'.

Of course you did.

You're a Trinitarian, after all.

They believe that Jesus was the beginning of creation---

Yes, I know.

misunderstanding the Greek word, "SOURCE"...

Alas for you, they don't misunderstand it at all. They merely misunderstood the "creation" referred to in Colossians 1.

It's the "new" creation that is spoken of here, not the old.

Ahhh, I think I get it---the WORD, was just God's THOUGHT.

Yep.

Not a real being.

Now you're getting it!

But when the WORD/THOUGHT became flesh, Jesus was CREATED...

Yep. Hence "made of a woman, made under the Law", as the inspired apostle Paul tells us.

There's just one little thing you're overlooking---

I think not.

"HE was in the beginning with God..."

Why "he"?

HE, EV.

No, that's "it", not "he."

"Houtos", indicitative of "this man" or "this person"...

*snip*

... also indicative of "she", and "it" (depending on the context.)

Thus, from the Liddell-Scott-James Greek Lexicon:

Autos self, Lat. ipse:-- in the oblique cases simply for the personal Pron., him, her, it:-- with the Artic. ho autos, hê autê, to auto (or tauton), etc., the very one, the same.

[*]I. self, myself, thyself, etc., acc. to the person of the Verb., Hom., etc.:

1. oneself, one's true self, the soul, not the body, Od.; or opp. to others, as king to subjects, parent to children, man to wife, etc., Hom.; hence absol. for the master, tis houtos;--Autos, i. e. Socrates, Ar.; similarly in neut. auto deixei the result will shew, Eur.
2. of oneself, of one's own accord, Lat. sponte, Hom., Soph.
3. by oneself, alone, autos per eôn although alone, Il.; autoi esmen we are by ourselves, i. e. among friends, Ar.
4. in Plat., to dikaion auto right in itself, the idea of right, etc.; cf. autoanthrôpos.
5. in dat. with Subst., together with, anorousen autêi sun phormingi he sprang up lyre in hand, Il.; autêi sun pêlêki helmet and all, id=Il.; and without sun, autois andrasi men and all, Hdt., etc.
6. added to ordinal Numbers, e. g. pemptos autos himself the fifth, i.e. himself with four others, Thuc.
7. in connexion with the person. Pron., egô autos, emethen autês, se auton, etc., Hom.; in Hdt. and attic it coalesces with oblique cases of Pron., emautou, se-autou, he-autou:-- it is joined with these reflexive Pronouns to add force, autos kath' hautou, autoi huph' hautôn Aesch., etc.
8. gen. autou is used with the possessive Pron., patros kleos êd' emon autou Il.
9. autos heautou is also used with comp. and Sup. adj. to express something unusual, autos heôutou pollôi hupodeesteros Hdt.

[*]II. he, she, it, for the simple Pron. of 3 person, only in oblique cases, and never at the beginning of a sentence, Hom., attic: cf. heautou.

[*]III. with Article ho autos, hê autê, to auto, and attic contr. hautos, hautê, tauto and tauton, gen. tautou, dat. tautôi, pl. neut. tauta: ionic hôutos, tôuto:-- the very one, the same, Lat. idem, Hom., Hdt., attic:--it freq. takes a dat., like homoios, to denote sameness, tôuto an humin eprêssomen we should fare the same as you, Hdt.; also, ho autos kai, cf. Lat. simul ac, id=Hdt.

[*]IV. auto- in Compos.:

1. of itself, i. e. natural, native, not made, as in autoktitos.
2. of mere . . , of nothing but . . , as in autoxulos.
3. of oneself, self-, as in autodidaktos, automatos: and so independently, as in autonomos.
4. just, exactly, as in autodeka.
5. with reflex. sense of hautou and allêlôn, as authentês, autoktoneô.
6. together with, as in autopremnos, autorrizos.

I now turn my attention to the work of A. T. Robertson (the Trinitarian Greek scholar) and his well-known book Word Pictures in the New Testament (1933.)

Let's see what he's got to say for himself:

In reference to Matthew 28:2, he writes:

"Matthew alone relates the coming of the angel of the Lord who rolled away the stone and was sitting upon it (apekulise ton lithon kai ekathēto epanō autou.)"
In reference to John 1:3, Robertson says that the English words "by him" have been translated from the Greek words dia autou.
In reference to II Thessalonians 1:4, he says that the English words "we ourselves" have been translated from the Greek words autous hēmas.

All of this looks pretty good to me. I'm obviously not abusing the text when I translate the autos of John 1:3 as "it", instead of "he." In fact, I appear to be in good company.

Thus:

Geneva Bible (1560.)
In the beginning was the Worde, and the Worde was with God and that Worde was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it, & without it was made nothing that was made.
Tyndale (1525.)
In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God: and God was that Word. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it, and without it, was made nothing: that made it.
Tyndale New Testament (1530.)
In the beginnynge was the worde, and the worde was with God: and the worde was God. The same was in the beginnynge with God. All thinges were made by it, and with out it, was made nothinge, that was made.
In 1537, John Rogers (using the pseudonym Thomas Matthew) published a translation based largely on Tyndales, which became known as Matthews Bible. He used it instead of him in John 1:3. The next one to follow was Coverdales.
Coverdale (1540.)
In the begynnynge was the worde, and the worde was with God, and God was ye worde. The same was in the begynnynge with God. All thinges were made by the same, and without the same was made nothinge that was made.

All of these men were Trinitarians. None of them chose to translated autos as "he."

You have no argument here.

John-the-baptist said "He will immerse you in the HOLY SPIRIT" (which we both admit has nothing to do with water).

Yep. And the record of Acts shows that they were also baptised in water.

In Heb3:1, "PARTNERS of a heavenly calling", 3:14 "PARTNERS in Christ", 6:4 "PARTNERS with the Holy Spirit"---each verse uses "metochos", partners. Do you really want me to look up "HOLY SPIRIT" in my little computer-Bible and show you it's part of salvation???

*snip*

Yes please. I still haven't seen an adequate argument from you yet.

We have clearly undeniably shown "partnering with, or immersing in, the HOLY SPIRIT has nothing to do with water"---

I know. I never denied it.

yet you believe "partnering with CHRIST is DIFFERENT---THAT requires WATER!.

...because that's what Romans 6 tells me.

I'm sorry if you're confused. Perhaps you should read your Bible.

Evangelion · Dec 25, 2002

Continued...

You wanna argue also that the "partnering in the heavenly calling ALSO requires water?

Yes, that's right. That's what Paul tells us.

A second baptism???

It's not a "second baptism" for modern believers, since the Holy Spirit is no longer available today.

quote:
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 symbolises death, burial and resurrection?

Hmmm---you don't provide Scriptural proof, you provide your own assumptions.

That's blatantly false. I have provided overwhelming proof that the "baptism" here referred to, is water baptism.

The death burial and resurrection is spiritual---

*snip*

Yes, I know. I already agreed with all of this, remember?

This is, identically, immersion into Christ, not immersion into water.

ROTFL!

Baptism into Christ is achieved by baptism into water! That's why Paul uses the symbolism of death, burial and resurrection, which only water baptism can prefigure!

The onus is on you to tell me how "baptism of the Holy Spirit" is supposed to typify death, burial and resurrection.

Meanwhile...

Romans 6:3-4.
Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
We were buried therefore with him through baptism unto death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life.

This is a clear reference to water baptism. "Spirit baptism" (or whatever you people call it these days) is not the "baptism" referred to here. How do we know?

There are several clues:

Paul has used the Greek word baptizo, meaning "to dip or plunge." You tell me is water something that you can "dip or plunge" people into? How are we expected to "dip or plunge" somebody into the Holy Spirit, pray tell?
We've already seen that baptism involves dipping or plunging - which means you need a literal liquid. (Water.) Can you "dip or plunge" someone into the Holy Spirit? No, you cannot. The Holy Spirit is "poured". That makes it an "annointing". If this was what Jesus had meant, he would have said "annoint them in the name of... etc." But he doesn't. He says "dip or plunge." So we need a liquid - and that liquid is water.
Paul says that the baptism of which he speaks, is symbolic of death and resurrection. Only water baptism can fulfil this typology.

The point I am making is that only water baptism can truly represent the death, burial and resurrection of a believer.

Observe:

You descend into the water (death.)
You remain under the water for a moment (burial.)
You rise from the water (resurrection.)

None of this occurs in so-called "Spirit baptism", and that is why the only baptism by which we can be "buried with Christ", is water baptism. So for those who advocate "Spirit baptism" over water baptism - how can "Spirit baptism" fulfil the necessary symbolism of death, burial and resurrection?

Perhaps it's time to ask a few questions. I'll present the "water baptism" side, and I invite you, Ben, to fill in the blanks on your side:

Are there three stages to "Spirit baptism"? (There are with water baptism.)
Is there a stage in which death is represented? (There is with water baptism.)
Is there a stage in which burial is represented? (There is with water baptism.)
Is there a stage in which resurrection is represented? (There is with water baptism.)

Identification with Christ - his death, burial and resurrection - is made possible by the two simple rituals that he instituted. One of these was the partaking of the memorial emblems - bread and wine. The other was water baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit for the remission of sins.

I showed you the three partnerships spoken of in Hebrews---calling, Christ, Holy Spirit.

*snip*

Irrelevant.

Show me THE VERSE, just one---that says "unbaptized are condemned"...

I already did. It's the necessary corollory of Mark 16:16.

Why won't you show me a verse which says that baptism is "a work" which has nothing to do with our salvation? Why can't you answer my question?

Ad Hominem---damaging to your position.

Nonsense. You have attempted to rule out Mark 16:16 because it contradicts your man-made religion. I have defended Mark 16:16 as a legitimate part of Scripture.

I quoted the footnote to my NAS Bible

...but you didn't reference the quote, which makes you a plagiarist.

translated by men who have just a wee bit more understanding than you and I combined...

Irrelevant. Mark 16:16 appears in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. It was known to them. More significantly, it was known to them as a legitimate part of Scripture.

quote:
Please re-read this verse and think again.

Since this verse was likely written after John

*snip*

Irrelevant.

Please re-read this verse and think again.

quote:
I refer you once again to the work of Johnson:

Johnson's work is irrelevant.

*snip*

No, it's not. Remember, you contested Mark 16:16 on the basis of the NASB, "translated by men who have just a wee bit more understanding than you and I combined..." but now you say that Johnson is "irrelevant."

What a classic case of the insupportable double standard that I have come to expect from you people. What a classic case of refusing to accept the clear evidence of Scripture.

If Johnson (and the many other theologians whom he takes such care to cite) is wrong, then you must prove them wrong.

So come on - let's see you do it.

WATER is FLESH in Jesus' answer.

*snip*

You really have a unique view of Scripture, my friend. It's just astonishing, the way you make this stuff up without even attempting to support your argument from Scripture.

Immersion into CHRIST, not in, not through water.

*snip*

False dichotomy. Paul is saying that we are "baptised into Christ" through water baptism.

Hence my previous argument on this point... which you have failed to address in anything more than a superficial sense.

I noticed that you blatantly ignored the Acts 10:43-48, 11:15-17 passage

*snip*

No, I didn't. In fact, you simply failed to notice my response, which is why you had to come back and write another rebuttal!

they were SAVED

Scripture does not say they were saved.

---but they were not yet waterbaptized, were they???

Nope.

So tell me, Ben - if they were already saved, then why was it necessary to baptise them with water?

quote:
Oh, so now you are saying that works are necessary for salvation, and that we are not saved until we are baptised!

Rather than struggle to explain, let's allow James to answer you, more eloquently than I could...

*snip*

Great! Thanks for supporting my argument!

Now, if you could just tell me how this proves that baptism is irrelevant to our salvation...?

The WORKS are CAUSED by their saved-heart.

No, they are caused by a faithful heart, and a faithful heart is the only kind of heart that can eventuall be saved.

You will notice, of course, that James does not refer to these people as "saved."

The WATERBAPTISM is CAUSED by their saved-heart.

See above.

BTW, EV---you know that there are two "SAVED" understandings. There is "ETERNAL SAVED", which as you state happens when we go to Heaven.

Actually, I stated that this happens when we are accepted at the Judgement Seat.

I said nothing about "going to heaven."

There is the SAVED as in CURRENTLY

There is no such thing as "currently saved" on this side of the Kingdom.

Sorry.

as explained in 1Jn5:12-13. "He who HAS the Son, has the life. I write this that you may KNOW YOU HAVE ETERNAL LIFE..."

*snip*

We have eternal life as a conditional promise. In this way, we can be said to "have eternal life."

But that is all.

In verses 10:34-42, Peter is telling them the Gospel. In addition, they had KNOWN Jesus and had HEARD HIM. In verse 43, Peter says: "Of Him all the Prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins."

It is precisely at this point that the Holy Spirit fell upon them!

*snip*

Irrelevant.

We've already been through this on the other thread. I've shown you why your argument is reliant on a faulty exegesis. I've shown you that it is easily refuted. In response, you simply ignored most of what I'd written, and repeated your dogma.

I get that a lot.

Evangelion · Dec 25, 2002

Ben -

But Jesus accepted worship

No he didn't. He merely accepted obeisence. (Hence the consistent use of proskuneo.)

---what does this tell you about who He thought He was?

I'll tell you what it tells us about who he thought he was. Heck, I'll even go further - I'll tell you what it tells us about who others thought he was.

I think you should read your Bible. It gives a clear picture of Jesus, and the impression that he left on people's minds. He led them to understand that he was a prophet, that he was the son of God, that he was the son of David, that he was the Messiah (Christ), and that he was King of the Jews. Now let's see what they believed as the result of this:

Luke 24:19.
And [Jesus] said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:
John 4:10.
The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.
John 6:14.
Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world.
John 9:17.
They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet.

They believed he was a prophet.

John 10:23-25.
And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch.
Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
John 4:24-26.
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.
Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.
Matthew 14:32-33.
And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased.
Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.
Matthew 16:15-17.
He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Mark 14:60-62.
And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?
But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
Mark 15:38-39.
And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.
And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.

They believed him to be the Messiah - the son of God.

Matthew 21:8-9.
And a very great multitude spread their garments in the way; others cut down branches from the trees, and strawed them in the way.
And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.
John 12:12-13.
On the next day much people that were come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem,
Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord.

They believed him to be the son of David, and King of the Jews.

In short - they believed all the things that the OT prophets had said about him... and he confirmed every detail.

Lared, what do you think of Genesis1:26-27? "And God said, 'Let US make man in OUR image"---decidedly plural? (And back to singular in the next verse...)

Definitely plural. And definitely back to singular in the next verse.

One person speaks to others.

And one person only, is responsible for creation.

What do you think it means, by "US-GOD"?

It doesn't say "US-GOD."

Evangelion · Dec 25, 2002

lared - OldShepherd is right about the Tetragrammaton.

This is indisputable.

Christ's Deity

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

Priest of God and the Lamb

Legend

Legend

Priest of God and the Lamb

Legend

do not stray too far left nor right but CENTER

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Legend

Zaqunraah

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

<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>

Similar threads