UnderGround Forums
 

HolyGround >> Baptize in the name of Jesus only


5/24/13 7:19 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Kung Fu Joe
4 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/27/09
Posts: 806
Saint Stevo - 
Kung Fu Joe - 
the rooster - By the way Helwig, whose name or title would you say is Higher...Jesus (Yeshua) or Yhwh (or Jehovah)? Thanks!
I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding in what is meant by "name," in these passages.

The Hebrew word "shem" and the Greek "onoma" meant more in the ancient world than just a word by which a person is called. It bore a connotation of that person's whole reputation. A name wasn't just a word-- it was a summary of being.

Paul wasn't talking about the word "Jesus." He was talking about Jesus' reputation, authority, and legacy. Paul likely knew dozens of men named "Jesus." It was a very common name, in 1st Century Judaea.

If Paul meant that the word "Jesus" was above all other words used as names, then he is saying that Jesus Barabbas had a name above all names (Matt 27:16). That Jesus son of Jehozadak had a name above all names (Zech 6:11). Or Jesus son of Eliezer (Luke 3:29). Or Jesus called Justus (Col 4:11). Or Jesus conqueror of Jericho (Acts 7:45).

But that's not what Paul meant.

He meant "name" to mean the reputation or familial legacy of Jesus. When people of the ancient world talked about the "name of Caesar," for example, they weren't just referring to Gaius Julius or to Augustus or to Tiberius. They were referring to all of the accomplishments and authority and power that accompanies that family.

Paul, too, is talking about the "name above every name" in this manner. He's not talking about a word. He is talking about legacy and authority and power. Phone Post

So according to your teaching here. When Paul would state Joshua he means every Joshua is God manifest in the flesh or Every Joshua that existed has the same name Emmanuel meaning God with us or according to your Hebrew teaching your pointing out that every Joshua that's ever existed is the everlasting father and mighty God? In other words Paul in the end didn't know what he was talking about correct?

Isaiah 9:6
1Tim.3:16
Matthew 1:23

Exactly the opposite.

What I'm saying is that Paul, in Philippians 2:9-10, is not talking about the word "Jesus" when he refers to the "name." Paul was talking about Jesus' power and authority and divine legacy.

This is obvious precisely because Paul WASN'T talking about anyone who happened to be named "Jesus"-- and there were many such people.
5/24/13 11:38 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Saint Stevo
5 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/18/13
Posts: 64
That's confusing. Here's why. Verse 10 Paul is elaborating what the name is in verse 9 which is Jesus.

So if we view how you're explaining this. We have to look back at what Jehovah said in the Old Testament.

Isaiah 42:8 Jehovah will not give his praise to another.
Isaiah 45:23 Jehovah swore out his mouth every knee will bow to him and tongue confess

So this leads to contradiction on Paul's part right? It contradicts if we believe Jesus and Jehovah are not the same person.

So to keep Jehovah becoming a liar in Isaiah, this only means 1 thing. Jesus is Jehovah. So the name in Phil. 2:9 is Jesus. The scripture was correct on how it's worded.

5/24/13 12:04 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Kung Fu Joe
4 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/27/09
Posts: 808
Saint Stevo - That's confusing. Here's why. Verse 10 Paul is elaborating what the name is in verse 9 which is Jesus.

So if we view how you're explaining this. We have to look back at what Jehovah said in the Old Testament.

Isaiah 42:8 Jehovah will not give his praise to another.
Isaiah 45:23 Jehovah swore out his mouth every knee will bow to him and tongue confess

So this leads to contradiction on Paul's part right? It contradicts if we believe Jesus and Jehovah are not the same person.

So to keep Jehovah becoming a liar in Isaiah, this only means 1 thing. Jesus is Jehovah. So the name in Phil. 2:9 is Jesus. The scripture was correct on how it's worded.

Paul does NOT say, in verse 10, that the name is the word "Jesus."

In Greek, Paul writes "en to onomati Iesou." That cannot be translated "in the name which is 'Jesus,'" as you are suggesting. It conforms rather to "in the [onomati] belonging to Jesus."

The Greek word "onoma" means "name," but not in the same way we tend to use the word in modern English. It's not referring to a word by which a person is known, in the context of Phil 2:9-10. It is referring to the power and authority of Jesus.

If a Roman soldier proclaimed, "In the name of Tiberius, I order you to leave," he is not asserting that the word "Tiberius" has some mystical power. He is saying that he speaks with the authority of the Emperor.

Paul does the same, here. He is not talking about the word 'Jesus.' Again, this was a very common and not at all special name, in and of itself. Paul was talking about the authority belonging to Jesus Christ. Phone Post
5/24/13 12:26 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Saint Stevo
5 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/18/13
Posts: 67
Sorry I have to disagree. There is also no command in the bible that I have to understand Greek nor Hebrew to hear what Paul is saying. So yes. Jesus is the name of God.

Let's continue.

Isaiah 45:23 Jehovah states the word swore.

Past of swear definition (merriam webster)- to utter or take solemnly (an oath)2a : to assert as true or promise under oath <a sworn affidavit> <swore to uphold the Constitution>

So according to you. Isaiah becomes a liar in Isaiah 45:23. We are suppose to bow to him. Yet Paul writes we bow to Jesus in Philip.2:10 and states that will bow to Jesus meaning we give praise to him.

In Isaiah 44:8 Jehovah states that there's no God beside him
Yet you explain that Jesus is divine in this statement you
Posted: " Paul was talking about Jesus' power and authority and divine legacy."

Merriam Webster Divine def:
a : of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god <divine love>
b : being a deity <the divine Savior>
c : directed to a deity <divine worship>

Also Isaiah 42:8 Jehovah says he'll not give his praise to another.

So Jehovah is a Liar in the book of Isaiah according to your teaching, correct?


5/24/13 12:53 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Kung Fu Joe
4 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/27/09
Posts: 809
Saint Stevo - Sorry I have to disagree. There is also no command in the bible that I have to understand Greek nor Hebrew to hear what Paul is saying. So yes. Jesus is the name of God.

Let's continue.

Isaiah 45:23 Jehovah states the word swore.

Past of swear definition (merriam webster)- to utter or take solemnly (an oath)2a : to assert as true or promise under oath <a sworn affidavit> <swore to uphold the Constitution>

So according to you. Isaiah becomes a liar in Isaiah 45:23. We are suppose to bow to him. Yet Paul writes we bow to Jesus in Philip.2:10 and states that will bow to Jesus meaning we give praise to him.

In Isaiah 44:8 Jehovah states that there's no God beside him
Yet you explain that Jesus is divine in this statement you
Posted: " Paul was talking about Jesus' power and authority and divine legacy."

Merriam Webster Divine def:
a : of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god <divine love>
b : being a deity <the divine Savior>
c : directed to a deity <divine worship>

Also Isaiah 42:8 Jehovah says he'll not give his praise to another.

So Jehovah is a Liar in the book of Isaiah according to your teaching, correct?


Why do you insist on talking about the oneness of God? Nothing in my argument has asserted that there are multiple gods. Your quotes from Isaiah have nothing to do with what I've said.

As to Greek, that's the language in which the New Testament was written. If you want to read a translation of the Bible instead of the actual words that Paul wrote, that is your prerogative. However, you cannot simply make the Bible mean whatever you want it to mean. Paul used his words and phrases carefully. You cannot change the meaning of those words to make them conform to your understanding. Your understanding needs to change to conform to the meaning of the Words. Phone Post
5/24/13 11:45 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18661
kung fu joe: The word "Jesus" is not a translation of a name into English. It is a corruption of a name into a form easy to pronounce.

me: no it's not. It's a translation from Iesous.

you: When Paul wrote "Iesous" to refer to Jesus, he wasn't translating "Yeshua" into Greek-- that would have been "Theosoterias." He was trying to write a word that sounded as similar to "Yeshua" as possible. However, the Greek language does not have the sounds that the Aramaic required, so the name ends up sounding nothing like its inspiration.

That got corrupted into Latin as "Iesus." This was further corrupted into the English word "Jesus." Expanded, phonetically, does Jee-zuss sound anything like Yehu-shua to you? Of course not.

me: these are not corruption. The "J" had a Y-ish sound and the "us" at the end indicated masculinity. Like AugustUS, BrutUS, etc.

It was the revelation of the name in the "local" language.

whether you say prounouce it Jesus, "Yasoos", Jayzu, Yeshu, etc, it's the same name in the linguists of the locals.

you: The fact of the matter is that "Jesus" was not the actual name of the person in question, nor was it the name given by Paul as being above all names. If you have no problem baptizing in the name of Jesus, then you should have no problem baptizing according to any of Jesus' other names.

me: It was Iesous, which indicates that you could retain the cultural pronunciation of the name Yeshua, which we say now as Jesus.
5/24/13 11:57 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Saint Stevo
5 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/18/13
Posts: 68
Did I teach Oneness? I was just pointing out how your explanation is contradicting to scripture. You must've got revelation of Oneness. Praise Jesus !!!

Matthew 16:17
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona AND KUNG FU JOE:for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
5/24/13 11:58 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18662
you: I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding in what is meant by "name," in these passages.

The Hebrew word "shem" and the Greek "onoma" meant more in the ancient world than just a word by which a person is called. It bore a connotation of that person's whole reputation. A name wasn't just a word-- it was a summary of being.

me: Actually, that's not entirely different than it is today. A man's name is only so good as the entirety of his being and the conotation of his name. That's why we have immediate impressions around names like Obama, Mike Tyson, Gracies, Trump, etc. Their names are their identiy.

you: Paul wasn't talking about the word "Jesus." He was talking about Jesus' reputation, authority, and legacy. Paul likely knew dozens of men named "Jesus." It was a very common name, in 1st Century Judaea.

me: But like men who bore the name of God (EL) in their name, their was a time that One would come worthy to bare the name and fulfil the meaning. That's why the angel of the Lord said, "you shall call His name Jesus (YH Shua) for He (who's the He? YH) shall save His people from their sins (how? by coming in the flesh).

To divorce the authority and identity, reputation and power from His name is to act as if His name was unimportant.

not so to the apostles who constantly invoked His name at prayer, to heal, to exorcise demons, etc.

Why? Because they new that His name represented the "fullness of God)

you: If Paul meant that the word "Jesus" was above all other words used as names, then he is saying that Jesus Barabbas had a name above all names (Matt 27:16). That Jesus son of Jehozadak had a name above all names (Zech 6:11). Or Jesus son of Eliezer (Luke 3:29). Or Jesus called Justus (Col 4:11). Or Jesus conqueror of Jericho (Acts 7:45).

me: no. When the apostles healed the lame man after the death of Jesus, they were arrested. Upon their questioning they said that it was THE NAME AND FAITH IN THE NAME THAT MADE THIS MAN WHOLE. It wasn't just the name but faith in the identity and authority of He who bore the name. Jesus Barrabbas or Jesus son of Jehozadak, did not have the authority, power or fullness of the Godhead. Jesus Christ, the Messiah, of Nazareth does.

it's about knowing who you are calling on and why.

you: But that's not what Paul meant.

He meant "name" to mean the reputation or familial legacy of Jesus. When people of the ancient world talked about the "name of Caesar," for example, they weren't just referring to Gaius Julius or to Augustus or to Tiberius. They were referring to all of the accomplishments and authority and power that accompanies that family.

Paul, too, is talking about the "name above every name" in this manner. He's not talking about a word. He is talking about legacy and authority and power.

me: but only because of where the reputation and legacy ultimately "flow" up to. It's not nameless. It's because His power and authority come from His divinity. He had the "fullness without measure" and was the "fullness of the godhead bodily" and we are complete in HIM.

Therefore, the authority and power and identity are wrapped up in the name.

That's why I cannot command the armed forces of the United States. only Barak Obama can operate as the highest authority. Because He has the office, but his name and his right to the office allow him to command all the forces of the US.

His VP, his AG, his Treasurer, etc all have names of repute and offices, but not his. their names are tied to their office and power. Even obama's wife and brother bare a similar name but it is not tied to the office. The name and office are integral.
5/25/13 12:09 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18663
you: What I'm saying is that Paul, in Philippians 2:9-10, is not talking about the word "Jesus" when he refers to the "name." Paul was talking about Jesus' power and authority and divine legacy.

me: which is not NAMELESS. His name and authority and identity are tied intimately to his name.

Just as mine is. I have a title at work and a role. It's a sales role with a territory. I can order marketing pieces, spend money with my expense account etc because of WHO I AM. And I must sign my name to my expense accounts, work orders etc with my title.

you: This is obvious precisely because Paul WASN'T talking about anyone who happened to be named "Jesus"-- and there were many such people.

me: again, read acts 6. IT IS THE NAME AND FAITH IN THE NAME...

It must be the name tied to the identity. The other Jesus' were not the right ones.


you: If a Roman soldier proclaimed, "In the name of Tiberius, I order you to leave," he is not asserting that the word "Tiberius" has some mystical power. He is saying that he speaks with the authority of the Emperor.

me: right. A real emperor, with a real name. that's why he couldn't arrest someone in the name of YUKoplata. A name with no relevance, meaning, authority and attached to a non existent identity.

You are trying to separate the name and the identity of YHShua (Jesus). why?

St Stevo rightly divided the word of truth sharing Isaiah 9:6 in which the messiah would be both Son and Everlasting Father.

You then said, that "everlasting Father" really doesn't mean father. It means "like" or having the characteristics. That's not what it says nor what it says in the Hebrew. he is titled wonderful, counselor, El Gibor (mighty God) Ad Ab (Everlasting Father), Prince of Peace.

You cannot unfortunately do that. The titles that will apply to Messiah will be both that of a Son and that of EVERLASTING FATHER. there is only One Father over us all, yet the bible here (and in many other places) states that Jesus is also the Father (as to His Spirit)

you: Why do you insist on talking about the oneness of God? Nothing in my argument has asserted that there are multiple gods. Your quotes from Isaiah have nothing to do with what I've said.

me: the plain language of all the various (some 6) contradicting doctrines of the trinity all imply a direct and outright tritheism of gods to a suggest distinction of beings and personalities. If that is what you are advocating, I would suggest you check the history and development of this doctrine starting with such illustrious early catholic church fathers like tertullian and justin martyr.
5/25/13 12:12 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18664
The bible is clear (as is stated in the beginning of this thread). biblical baptism is done by invoking Jesus.

If name doesn't mean the literal name of Jesus than it cannot mean literal name in matthew 28:19 and we are left with no real invocation because either 1) it doesn't matter or 2) we have hopelessly lost the name 3) it's been done wrong and it's Yhwh or Jehovah or 4) the Name (singular) of (belonging to, possessed by) the Father (title), Son(title) and Holy Spirit (title) IS JESUS.

Which we know to be true by all the various times the bible records (as well as early church history) how the apostles baptized (and cast out demons, and healed the sick, etc). by invoking HIS NAME IN FAITH IN HIS IDENTITY, POWER, WORK AND AUTHORITY.
5/28/13 1:09 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sparkuri
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 8/4/08
Posts: 14251
Saint Stevo - 
HELWIG - 

Wait, Moses parted the Red Sea by invoking the name Jesus?!

Im not at all arguing against Jesus' divinity or oneness with the Father.

Im saying that its a pretty outrageous departure to claim that the name of the Father is not "Yahweh" but "Jesus".

Thats Jesus is the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is not demonstrated by Jesus having the fullness of the Godhead within him.

Jesus was fully God. That doesnt mean he WAS the Holy Spirit.


Jesus is the Holy spirit. Read Acts 20:28. It states that Holy Ghost gave his blood for the church. We know that Spirit has no flesh and spirit cannot bleed. This only Means that Jesus is the Holy Ghost that gave his blood.

28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God,[a] which he bought with his own blood

 

  1. Acts 20:28 Many manuscripts of the Lord
  2. Acts 20:28 Or with the blood of his own Son
How do you get "Jesus is the Holy Spirit" out of this ?
 
Other than the GodHead being three distinct names/entities, yet being "one", I don't agree with the premise that one is the other. At this point, I believe this comes from teaching and interpretation.
5/31/13 1:08 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Saint Stevo
5 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/18/13
Posts: 70
sparkuri - 
Saint Stevo - 
HELWIG - 

Wait, Moses parted the Red Sea by invoking the name Jesus?!

Im not at all arguing against Jesus' divinity or oneness with the Father.

Im saying that its a pretty outrageous departure to claim that the name of the Father is not "Yahweh" but "Jesus".

Thats Jesus is the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is not demonstrated by Jesus having the fullness of the Godhead within him.

Jesus was fully God. That doesnt mean he WAS the Holy Spirit.


Jesus is the Holy spirit. Read Acts 20:28. It states that Holy Ghost gave his blood for the church. We know that Spirit has no flesh and spirit cannot bleed. This only Means that Jesus is the Holy Ghost that gave his blood.

28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God,[a] which he bought with his own blood

 

  1. Acts 20:28 Many manuscripts of the Lord
  2. Acts 20:28 Or with the blood of his own Son
How do you get "Jesus is the Holy Spirit" out of this ?
 
Other than the GodHead being three distinct names/entities, yet being "one", I don't agree with the premise that one is the other. At this point, I believe this comes from teaching and interpretation.

When you read the scripture of Acts 20:28 KJV, Holy Spirit possess the word "he" in the verse.

Acts 20:28

NIV
Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood

NASB
"Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

ISV
Pay attention to yourselves and to the entire flock over which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers to be shepherds of God's church, which he acquired with his own blood.

American KJV
Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost has made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he has purchased with his own blood.

Now let's read how Jesus explains that he is the Holy Ghost.

John 14:16-18
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

Verse 17 Jesus points out that he's the 1 that dwells in them and will be in them. He speaks about the comforter in verse 16 and then he proceeds to say I will not leave you comfortless and I will come to you. The Son (flesh) prayed to the omnipresent spirit of God. The same person prayed and the same person will come back. Jesus.

You're claim of 3 gods/entities is false. There's only 1.

Hear O' MMA Holy Ground the Lord our God is ONE. Jesus.



5/31/13 1:22 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MoustacheRider69
342 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/11/08
Posts: 5744
Saint Stevo -
sparkuri - 
Saint Stevo - 
HELWIG - 

Wait, Moses parted the Red Sea by invoking the name Jesus?!

Im not at all arguing against Jesus' divinity or oneness with the Father.

Im saying that its a pretty outrageous departure to claim that the name of the Father is not "Yahweh" but "Jesus".

Thats Jesus is the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is not demonstrated by Jesus having the fullness of the Godhead within him.

Jesus was fully God. That doesnt mean he WAS the Holy Spirit.


Jesus is the Holy spirit. Read Acts 20:28. It states that Holy Ghost gave his blood for the church. We know that Spirit has no flesh and spirit cannot bleed. This only Means that Jesus is the Holy Ghost that gave his blood.

28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God,[a] which he bought with his own blood

 

  1. Acts 20:28 Many manuscripts of the Lord
  2. Acts 20:28 Or with the blood of his own Son
How do you get "Jesus is the Holy Spirit" out of this ?
 
Other than the GodHead being three distinct names/entities, yet being "one", I don't agree with the premise that one is the other. At this point, I believe this comes from teaching and interpretation.

When you read the scripture of Acts 20:28 KJV, Holy Spirit possess the word "he" in the verse.

Acts 20:28

NIV
Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood

NASB
"Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

ISV
Pay attention to yourselves and to the entire flock over which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers to be shepherds of God's church, which he acquired with his own blood.

American KJV
Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost has made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he has purchased with his own blood.

Now let's read how Jesus explains that he is the Holy Ghost.

John 14:16-18
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

Verse 17 Jesus points out that he's the 1 that dwells in them and will be in them. He speaks about the comforter in verse 16 and then he proceeds to say I will not leave you comfortless and I will come to you. The Son (flesh) prayed to the omnipresent spirit of God. The same person prayed and the same person will come back. Jesus.

You're claim of 3 gods/entities is false. There's only 1.

Hear O' MMA Holy Ground the Lord our God is ONE. Jesus.



The father, the son, the holy spirit = ONLY ONE? Phone Post
5/31/13 1:34 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Saint Stevo
5 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/18/13
Posts: 76
The Father, The son, and the Holy Spirit = Jesus.
5/31/13 1:44 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MoustacheRider69
342 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/11/08
Posts: 5746
Saint Stevo - The Father, The son, and the Holy Spirit = Jesus.
The Father died for our sins? Phone Post
5/31/13 1:46 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MoustacheRider69
342 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/11/08
Posts: 5747
MoustacheRider69 -
Saint Stevo - The Father, The son, and the Holy Spirit = Jesus.
The Father died for our sins? Phone Post
Vu, just because... Phone Post
5/31/13 1:51 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Saint Stevo
5 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/18/13
Posts: 79
MoustacheRider69 - 
Saint Stevo - The Father, The son, and the Holy Spirit = Jesus.
The Father died for our sins? Phone Post

The Jesus as father speaking.
Zech 12:10
And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

John 19:34-37
But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.
35 And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.
36 For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.
37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

The title father belongs to Jesus Ghost. This is God's spirit. Which cannot die. However, Jesus flesh (son) died on the cross.
5/31/13 1:59 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MoustacheRider69
342 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/11/08
Posts: 5748
Saint Steveo and moustacherider69

re: this discussion.
5/31/13 2:11 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Saint Stevo
5 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/18/13
Posts: 82
LOL! That was Stupid! LOL
5/31/13 2:17 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MoustacheRider69
342 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/11/08
Posts: 5749
Saint Stevo - LOL! That was Stupid! LOL
:) Phone Post
5/31/13 4:55 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sparkuri
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 8/4/08
Posts: 14289
MoustacheRider69 - Saint Steveo and moustacherider69

re: this discussion.

haha

 

MOAR Simpsons

per our disagreement Saint Stevo, I only had time to review the first few verses, which do not support your claim.

I'll get on this more later.

Real quick, notice how Jesus refers to The Spirit, and The Father ?

What does that in itself tell you?

We know that In the beginning, the Word was with God, and the Word WAS GOD. Separate, but together.

There are ALSO seven SPIRITS of God, NOT defined in the 66 books of the western canon. Something to think about.

To say NOT to baptize, or ONLY to baptize in the name of JESUS as an absolute is clearly not matter of fact, nor necessary imo.

5/31/13 6:47 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MoustacheRider69
342 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/11/08
Posts: 5766
sparkuri -
MoustacheRider69 - Saint Steveo and moustacherider69

re: this discussion.

haha

 

MOAR Simpsons

per our disagreement Saint Stevo, I only had time to review the first few verses, which do not support your claim.

I'll get on this more later.

Real quick, notice how Jesus refers to The Spirit, and The Father ?

What does that in itself tell you?

We know that In the beginning, the Word was with God, and the Word WAS GOD. Separate, but together.

There are ALSO seven SPIRITS of God, NOT defined in the 66 books of the western canon. Something to think about.

To say NOT to baptize, or ONLY to baptize in the name of JESUS as an absolute is clearly not matter of fact, nor necessary imo.

Go to "you can't kill the rooster!!!" Thread if you haven't. Phone Post
5/31/13 11:53 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
RoninBT
5 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/9/05
Posts: 82
Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done,

If you want to build a house then start with the foundation. It is my opinion that the most trustworthy biblical concepts are rooted in the beginning that being said we tend to concentrate on second half of the book to support our positions.

One of the last verses before the NT begins implores us to:
Mal 4:4 "Remember the torah of Moses My servant, even the statutes and ordinances which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel.

In that spirit I would like to stir the pot with the following verses and a couple more for good measure:

Exo 3:15 And Elohiym said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, YHVH Elohiym of your fathers, the Elohiym of Abraham, the Elohiym of Isaac, and the Elohiym of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

Num 23:19 "El is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

1Sa 15:29 "Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind."

Mal 3:6-7 For I am YHVH, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed
6/4/13 10:56 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Saint Stevo
5 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/18/13
Posts: 104
RoninBT - Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done,

If you want to build a house then start with the foundation. It is my opinion that the most trustworthy biblical concepts are rooted in the beginning that being said we tend to concentrate on second half of the book to support our positions.

One of the last verses before the NT begins implores us to:
Mal 4:4 "Remember the torah of Moses My servant, even the statutes and ordinances which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel.

In that spirit I would like to stir the pot with the following verses and a couple more for good measure:

Exo 3:15 And Elohiym said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, YHVH Elohiym of your fathers, the Elohiym of Abraham, the Elohiym of Isaac, and the Elohiym of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

Num 23:19 "El is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

1Sa 15:29 "Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind."

Mal 3:6-7 For I am YHVH, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed

I agree with you Robin. The old testament is the foundation.
I just like to jump to the chase but if you want me bring from old to the new. I have no problem with that.

Exodus 3:15 - are you referring that Elohim is a multiple person God?

Num. 23:19 - Are you saying that Jesus is not God in the flesh?

1Sam. 15:29 - same question

Mal. 2:6-7 - I have no idea where you're going with this one.
6/4/13 11:05 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Saint Stevo
5 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/18/13
Posts: 105
sparkuri - 
MoustacheRider69 - Saint Steveo and moustacherider69

re: this discussion.

haha

 

MOAR Simpsons

per our disagreement Saint Stevo, I only had time to review the first few verses, which do not support your claim.

I'll get on this more later.

Real quick, notice how Jesus refers to The Spirit, and The Father ?

What does that in itself tell you?

We know that In the beginning, the Word was with God, and the Word WAS GOD. Separate, but together.

There are ALSO seven SPIRITS of God, NOT defined in the 66 books of the western canon. Something to think about.

To say NOT to baptize, or ONLY to baptize in the name of JESUS as an absolute is clearly not matter of fact, nor necessary imo.


Please explain what does not support my claim. Your statement is empty without scripture explanation.

When you say Jesus refers to the spirit and the father in Matthew 28:19 shows that the titles belong to 1 name which is Jesus.

If you're referring to John 1:1 you are explaining to me multiple Gods making a group called god. Which is false.
Also if I view John 1:1 in a trinity stand point there's only 2 persons mentioned in the verse. The father and son. Where did the Holy Ghost go in John 1:1?

The 7 spirits you're referring to in Revelation I believe?

You're telling me to think about. I believe if there is 7 more spirits then this would cause a problem for Trinity because now there is 7 more gods to explain.

Baptizing in Jesus name only is a fact by scripture alone.
Matthew 28:19, Luke 24:47, Acts 2:38 and all the examples of baptism was done in Jesus name alone in the book of Acts.

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.