Baptism, upon, and indwelling of the Holy Spirit

[AbbaLove]

Any man who claims the ability to perform miracles,
is taking the glory of that which is God's.

You couldn't have centered it more "crystal" clear,
while some men are their own worst enemy​

 

[kcmonseysr]

visionary said: ↑
Any man who claims the ability to perform miracles, is taking the glory of that which is God's.

Non sequitur

Non sequitur!?! Not so!

 

[Heber Book List]

visionary said: ↑
Any man who claims the ability to perform miracles, is taking the glory of that which is God's.


Non sequitur!?! Not so!

Read the definition. she twice gave answers that did not address the direct question I asked.

 

[kcmonseysr]

Read the definition. she twice gave answers that did not address the direct question I asked.

Did read the definition . Maybe she expanded a bit from your "straight and narrow" expectation(s), but her point is certainly germane and not worthy, imho, of being called a "non-sequitur". BTW, shouldn't one always capitalize the first letter of the first word that begins a sentence?

 

[Heber Book List]

Did read the definition . Maybe she expanded a bit from your "straight and narrow" expectation(s), but her point is certainly germane and not worthy, imho, of being called a "non-sequitur". BTW, shouldn't one always capitalize the first letter of the first word that begins a sentence?

If one asks a very specific question, it needs to be addressed. When it is asked, directly, twice over, it demands a clear response. If her response was to be taken at face value, it means that she believes that Yeshua's miracles were invalid because he was a man - that is heresy. There again, if she believes that he did them because he was G_d then Phil 2 is a lie!

Re your last sentence - yes, but typos do happen from time to time. Typos are not normally seen as a problem unless someone wishes to be pedantic, or the omission makes something unclear. One might, if one wishes to be a pedant, ask you what happened to the missing 'I' in your first sentence?

 

[AbbaLove]

Did read the definition . Maybe she expanded a bit from your "straight and narrow" expectation(s), but her point is certainly germane and not worthy, imho, of being called a "non-sequitur".

Maybe, he's not familiar with the nine Supernatural Gifts of the Holy Spirit (e.g. The Working of Miracles). This discussion reminds me of the following human trait. This all too common human trait started way back when in the Garden of Eden.

When something goes wrong (like missing the nail and hitting your finger or an untimely death) it's not uncommon for mankind to put the onus on God. Then when something goes unbelievably well (e.g miraculous) it's not uncommon for mankind to take all the credit. Another example is the 1945 movie "God Is My Co-Pilot" that might better have been titled "I'm God's Co-Pilot".

Whether taking all the credit or passing the buck it all started way back when in the Garden of Eden ... “The man said, "The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate" (Genesis 3:12).

If one asks a very specific question, it needs to be addressed. When it is asked, directly, twice over, it demands a clear response.

Yes Sir!
​

 

[kcmonseysr]

If one asks a very specific question, it needs to be addressed. When it is asked, directly, twice over, it demands a clear response. If her response was to be taken at face value, it means that she believes that Yeshua's miracles were invalid because he was a man - that is heresy. There again, if she believes that he did them because he was G_d then Phil 2 is a lie!

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.​

Do I understand how this verse fits in with your (and others) understanding of Phil 2? Not at all. "Completely man and completely God" is an expression that I am sure you have heard of. Do I believe it? Yes. Can I explain it? No. Do I feel bad about not being able to fully understand it? No. I trust that God does not contradict Himself, and I know that there are things beyond me. I am but a creature, and I doubt that I will ever be capable of fully understanding the deepest secrets of my Creator. And I have come to believe that the absolute knowledge of the very essence of the Deity is amongst "...The secret things [that] belong to the LORD our God...". I can live with that. Vis still has a valid point and your bombast does not alter that fact.

Re your last sentence - yes, but typos do happen from time to time. Typos are not normally seen as a problem unless someone wishes to be pedantic, or the omission makes something unclear. One might, if one wishes to be a pedant, ask you what happened to the missing 'I' in your first sentence?

A Brit accusing someone of being pedantic? Is the kettle perhaps calling the pot black? If I were pressed, I'd say to just write off the missing 'I' as American casualness in communication. Maybe a bit sloppy, yes. Point taken. I'll try to improve in the future, for your sake if for no other reason. I'm sure that that our American "English" just infuriates you Brits of the more formal persuasion, but, hey, we colonists have allowed y'all your side of the pond for close on to 250 years now . Should count fer sumptin' .

 

[Tayla]

Yeshua was not 'baptised'- that is a Church thing that was not around at that time.

Good point. John's baptism was not Christian baptism.

 

[Heber Book List]

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.​

Do I understand how this verse fits in with your (and others) understanding of Phil 2? Not at all. "Completely man and completely God" is an expression that I am sure you have heard of. Do I believe it? Yes. Can I explain it? No. Do I feel bad about not being able to fully understand it? No. I trust that God does not contradict Himself, and I know that there are things beyond me. I am but a creature, and I doubt that I will ever be capable of fully understanding the deepest secrets of my Creator. And I have come to believe that the absolute knowledge of the very essence of the Deity is amongst "...The secret things [that] belong to the LORD our God...". I can live with that. Vis still has a valid point and your bombast does not alter that fact.



A Brit accusing someone of being pedantic? Is the kettle perhaps calling the pot black? If I were pressed, I'd say to just write off the missing 'I' as American casualness in communication. Maybe a bit sloppy, yes. Point taken. I'll try to improve in the future, for your sake if for no other reason. I'm sure that that our American "English" just infuriates you Brits of the more formal persuasion, but, hey, we colonists have allowed y'all your side of the pond for close on to 250 years now . Should count fer sumptin' .

Please understad that you entered the conversation I was having with Visionary, part way through, and began to pick holes. It was your choice to join the conversation - it was not imposed on you. If you do, or do not, agree that is your prerogative. I am not sure you understand the debate we were having.

BTW I picked up on the missing 'I', largely because you were unhappy about a typo in my post. I do not wish to overdo your errors but, if you really feel that you guys in the US are a part of the colon of the world, I cannot possibly disagree, but I strongly advise that you revisit the meaning of the word!! That said, I will try to remember that you are not one of my students.

 

[visionary]

If one asks a very specific question, it needs to be addressed. When it is asked, directly, twice over, it demands a clear response. If her response was to be taken at face value, it means that she believes that Yeshua's miracles were invalid because he was a man - that is heresy. There again, if she believes that he did them because he was G_d then Phil 2 is a lie!

Re your last sentence - yes, but typos do happen from time to time. Typos are not normally seen as a problem unless someone wishes to be pedantic, or the omission makes something unclear. One might, if one wishes to be a pedant, ask you what happened to the missing 'I' in your first sentence?

Let's be clear... The God in Yeshua did the miracles. The man in Yeshua did not.

 

[kcmonseysr]

Please understad that you entered the conversation I was having with Visionary, part way through, and began to pick holes. It was your choice to join the conversation - it was not imposed on you. If you do, or do not, agree that is your prerogative. I am not sure you understand the debate we were having.

BTW I picked up on the missing 'I', largely because you were unhappy about a typo in my post. I do not wish to overdo your errors but, if you really feel that you guys in the US are a part of the colon of the world, I cannot possibly disagree, but I strongly advise that you revisit the meaning of the word!! That said, I will try to remember that you are not one of my students.

O.K. Now I understad (sic). Me bad for entering a public conversation uninvited. And, also on my part, I am quite sure that you do not understand what I do or do not understand - so your expression of your lack of understanding is something that I believe to be completely correct. And, also to your credit, at least you have made it possible for me, an Am Haaretz, to understand that you, a Theologian [Applied Theology], clearly believe yourself to be a teacher - someone who is gifted to be able to increase the level of knowledge of the ignorant. So, hey, you're correct - I would never fit into any class that you would be leading. Carry on old bean... It's been nice getting to understand you better . שלום

 

[Heber Book List]

Let's be clear... The God in Yeshua did the miracles. The man in Yeshua did not.

So, Philippians is a lie?

 

[visionary]

So, Philippians is a lie?

??

 

[Heber Book List]

??

Read Philippians 2:5-11

 

[Heber Book List]

O.K. Now I understad (sic). Me bad for entering a public conversation uninvited. And, also on my part, I am quite sure that you do not understand what I do or do not understand - so your expression of your lack of understanding is something that I believe to be completely correct. And, also to your credit, at least you have made it possible for me, an Am Haaretz, to understand that you, a Theologian [Applied Theology], clearly believe yourself to be a teacher - someone who is gifted to be able to increase the level of knowledge of the ignorant. So, hey, you're correct - I would never fit into any class that you would be leading. Carry on old bean... It's been nice getting to understand you better . שלום

One doesn't have to be invited to join in, but if one joins in we assume the person has read the previous posts so that he / she can follow the debate that is going on, and then contribute by asking questions (or teaching if the person is an MJ). As I said, we do not usually comment on typos unless they are such that they make the sentence / word difficult to understand, especially as many of us find that we make typos on here from time to time.

My comment about you not being a student of mine was to point out to you that you picked up on a minor issue - a typo - when in fact your post pointing that out had, itself, some errors - the very thing you accused me of! IOW I'll just ignore your errors.

Shalom aleichem.

 

[Dave-W]

His human side or his God side?

During His earthly existence, He did NOTHING, Nada, zip, zero, from His "God side." Everything was done from the "human side" by the power of the Holy Spirit. There was no way for Him to be an example to us if He did things from the "God side" since we do not have that.

 

[visionary]

Read Philippians 2:5-11

and I see no conflict

 

[Heber Book List]

and I see no conflict

Spiritual blindness? It makes clear that he laid aside his divine nature to take that of a human being, well, in most translations.

Your assertion that he was acting in his divine nature makes Phil 2:5-11 to be a lie. Simples!

 

[visionary]

Spiritual blindness? It makes clear that he laid aside his divine nature to take that of a human being, well, in most translations.

Your assertion that he was acting in his divine nature makes Phil 2:5-11 to be a lie. Simples!

And like every other man, Yeshua asked God for miracles, claimed them in His name, and gave God the glory.

 

[Laureate]

Noticeable differences....

The strength of the spirit is stronger and strengthens the body to do powerful things.
Judges 14:6
The Spirit of the Lord came powerfully upon him so that he tore the lion apart with his bare hands as he might have torn a young goat. But he told neither his father nor his mother what he had done. ... 19 Then the Spirit of the Lord came powerfully upon him. He went down to Ashkelon, struck down thirty of their men, stripped them of everything and gave their clothes to those who had explained the riddle. Burning with anger, he returned to his father’s home.

Judges 15:14
As he approached Lehi, the Philistines came toward him shouting. The Spirit of the Lord came powerfully upon him. The ropes on his arms became like charred flax, and the bindings dropped from his hands.

The Spirit of God makes you into a different person when it is upon you. You understand more of the spiritual world.
1 Samuel 10:6
The Spirit of the Lord will come powerfully upon you, and you will prophesy with them; and you will be changed into a different person. ...10 When he and his servant arrived at Gibeah, a procession of prophets met him; the Spirit of God came powerfully upon him, and he joined in their prophesying.

The descending of the Holy Spirit upon you is a powerful experience.
1 Samuel 16:13
So Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the presence of his brothers, and from that day on the Spirit of the Lord came powerfully upon David. Samuel then went to Ramah.

Matthew 12:28
But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

The first advent marked the end of one world and the beginning of the next, because he is the entirety of our collective body we were all baptised into the covenant of John lit., the Grace of Yah/יונה YWNH the dove, ever since the world has gone through great changes, and is in essence a new world, as you say, Noticeable differences.