Posted on 04/15/2013 5:06:15 PM PDT by DouglasKC
Truly a wonderful verse that perfectly describes what later disciples believed about baptism!
Act 2:38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Act 2:39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."
Act 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Act 19:6 And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.
Left out of this consideration is that Jesus is both God and man, that he is “conceived by the Holy Spirit,” and “born of the Virgin May.” He is a man, born of a Jewish woman, in a given time and place. Like us in all ways except sin. A second Adam, come to restore the relationship with the divine that was destroyed by the sin of Adam and Eve.to store man’s right place in the order of Creation. He therefore speaks as a Jewish man ought to speak. But he has this un-broken relationship with the “Father,” which is the God of Israel and with the “Spirit.” through whom he is made man. As to subordination to the Father that requires a kind of division of divinity in TIME. But the doctrine of the trinity speaks of generation outside of time. in eternity. Within time, there can be only a single divine principle, I believe that in Jesus the people saw the face of the living God.” If you have seen me, you have seen the father.” The doctrine of the trinity aims to “save” the humanity of Jesus AND his divinity. All others, fail to do this. Further, we must have this if Jesus is indeed to be our savior.
But only YOU have remembered it?
How does baptizing in the name of Jesus violate the instruction to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the Holy Trinity?
Jesus is the 2nd person of that Trinity. That is why Mary IS the Mother of God, in that she is the mother of the incarnate 2nd person of the Trinity.
To be clear I'm not denying God, Christ, or the holy spirit. What I AM denying is a concept of the nature of the Godhead as defined by men 3 centuries after the death of Christ.
Scripture teaches that the father and son are members of the Godhead and that the holy spirit is the spirit of the father on earth. The holy spirit could also be the spirit of Christ since scripture also refers to the holy spirit as the spirit of Christ.
I hope that helps to clarify....if you read the article you can well see how long it took for the concept of the trinity to be developed.
I visited a Pentecostal church, this past summer, for the first time and they didn’t deny the Trinity- from what I heard.
I am not sure if that is accurate. What is Oneness?
Yes, I'm not ONLY one in the whole entire world and in the history of the world who observes the biblical feasts of the Lord Jesus Christ. :-)
Just kidding...of course there are plenty of people who observe the biblical feasts of the Lord Jesus Christ.
If you want to start there's a good summary of them in Leviticus 23...
It doesn't...but how does quoting a baptismal formula prove the nature of the Godhead? Especially considering that scripture never shows a figure called "the holy spirit" present and reigning on a throne with the father and son. For example:
Rev 7:9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands,
Rev 7:10 and crying out with a loud voice, saying, "Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!"
These boneheads forgot the holy spirit!
Rev_5:13 And every creature which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, I heard saying: "Blessing and honor and glory and power Be to Him who sits on the throne, And to the Lamb, forever and ever!"
EVERY creature on heaven and earth AGAIN forgot to give any credit at all to the creature called "the holy spirit". Idiots. :-)
And let's not forget that infidel Daniel:
Dan 7:13 "I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him.
Dan 7:14 Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed.
Nuts...no kingdom for that "holy spirit" guy here either.
Of course I'm tweaking a bit here, but the holy spirit isn't another, or a different, person in the Godhead. It IS the spirit of the father and/or the son.
Correct, my error, the Son of Man walked with Shadrach, Mescach, and Abednego.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, AND THE WORD WAS GOD. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
AND THE WORD BECAME FLESH AND DWELT AMONG US, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
(John 1, EMPHASIS ADDED)
The Oneness doctrine usually affirms the oneness of God but denies the three persons of the Godhead. Some even abjectly deny the deity of Jesus Christ.
oh- I see what you mean. Oneness pentacostal... where do you think the emergent church philosophy/teachings line up?
Its a mixed bag of poo poo ... you dont know what youre getting.
“And what do any of these names have to do with the trinity? With Jesus being equal to his Father?”
It proves (and all the other scriptures) that Jesus is God, which apparently is a point that you concede. Therefore your argument is destroyed before it even begins.
So we know that Jesus is God, that the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. We know that the central fact of Christianity is that there is only one God (Deu 4:35). But we also know that there is a distinction between all three. They are distinctly defined in baptism, they are described as having different roles in salvation and in the Godhead, (For example, the Holy Spirit regenerates believers through the work of Christ who was made sin for us on the cross, died and rose again, and the Father is the one who chose us before the foundation of the world) and yet all are equal, eternal, and one Almighty God.
The Scriptures are replete with Our Creator dealing with humans within TIME periods from making divisions of night and day for time keeping of seasons, the issuing of prophecy whose fulfillment is in the unknown future time, the setting of times for all manner of festivals and remembrances, life, death and the as Ecclesiastes 3:1 says, a time for everything.
So when you say.
“As to subordination to the Father that requires a kind of division of divinity in TIME.”,
I find it difficult to see just what you're saying. The trinity doctrine says there has always been a division among three persons of the divinity.
“Left out of this consideration is that Jesus is both God and man”.
God the Son? Jesus the man-God?
“He therefore speaks as a Jewish man ought to speak. But he has this un-broken relationship with the “Father,” which is the God of Israel and with the “Spirit.” through whom he is made man”
That's because Jesus was a Jewish man, human and perfect as befits “the last Adam” who being subject to his Father will sit at His right hand still subordinate to the Father. (1 Cor. 15)
You used the phrase, “.... the “Father,” which is the God of Israel....”. But by trinitarian definition of “God” the God of Israel was a triune god, Father, Son, Holy Ghost.
“The doctrine of the trinity aims to “save” the humanity of Jesus AND his divinity”
That's one point on which the trinity doctrine fails, Jesus hunmanity was was sufficient a ransom for Adam's failure, no divinity required.
The scriptures teach that the Holy Spirit is ALSO a seperate and distinct member of the Godhead. Jesus baptism demonstrates that the HS is distinct from Jesus Christ and the upper room discourse (where Jesus said the Father would send the Holy Spirit) shows the HS is distinct from the Father.
I think post 169 should serve as an answer...thanks!
“When they cannot deflect the message, they resort to Ad Hominem attack;”
Let’s go back in time and think logically:
You claimed that the New Testament isn’t scripture, because the Apostles did not believe they were writing scripture.
I posted proof that the Apostles called their own writings scripture, and quoted them alongside the Book of Moses.
You replied that didn’t matter, because there is a Hebrew original source text for the New Testament, for Timothy or 1 Peter, that shows that everywhere you are proved wrong by the scripture is actually a corrupted translation of the original Hebrew. Therefore, in the original Hebrew, the phrase “the scripture,” which identifies their own work, is actually read “Not scripture” in the original Hebrew. (If we think logically about it.)
So I asked you to provide proof.
You asserted that some rabbanical translations from about the 12th or 13th century of the Gospel of Matthew, prove that Matthew in Greek is corrupted (when I had quoted from Peter and the epistle to Timothy), and therefore this disproves that the Apostles believed they were writing for scripture.
So it was at this point that I pointed out the logical flaw of all this, and asked you to provide evidence for your assertions, and to keep on topic.
So, can either of you please stop and think calmly, logically, and provide actual evidence for your various claims? Oh, and actually produce an argument that applies SPECIFICALLY to what you originally disputed?
Thank you very much.
I have been trying to figure out what ties them all together. Is there an agenda? Is it a business model. You are right they are all different, yet something makes them similar.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.