|
|
 |
|
Reply
| | From:  Freeborn22 (Original Message) | Sent: 9/6/2006 3:34 AM |
This thread is a continuation of our discussion on Baptism in 2002, where Pillar was contending that water is not wet water: | From: joie | Sent: 10/16/2002 12:38 PM | | Pillar, you are contending that Spirit Baptism and Water Baptism are one and the same thing, therefore water Baptism is not to be done. I am going to show you positive proof from the Word of God that this is NOT true. Now you can reject God's Word and go your way if you choose, but you will pay the price for doing so.
Acts 10: 30. And Cornelius said, Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and, behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing,
31. And said, Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God.
32. Send therefore to Joppa, and call hither Simon, whose surname is Peter; he is lodged in the house of one Simon a tanner by the sea side: who, when he cometh, shall speak unto thee.
33. Immediately therefore I sent to thee; and thou hast well done that thou art come. Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God.
34. Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35. But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
36. The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:)
37. That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;
38. How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
39. And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
40. Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;
41. Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.
42. And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.
43. To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
44. While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47. Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48. And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Now, read that carefully. These Gentiles had already received the Baptism of the Holy Ghost (spirit baptism) -- - they had the very same evidence as the Jews --- that of speaking in tongues. You must call the Book of Acts a lie to deny this. But look - after they had received the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, Peter COMMANDED them to be Baptized in WATER in the Name of Jesus Christ. God has fixed it in His Word so that every 'question' is covered: every truth is covered; there is no excuse for anyone to miss truth. God will judge all who set themselves up above God to say different than what God said in His Word. If Water Baptism is NOT a necessary part of Salvation, Peter would not have said, Can any forbid WATER that these should NOT be Baptized which HAVE RECEIVED THE HOLY GHOST AS WELL AS WE. See, they had already received the Holy Ghost ; but still needed to be Baptized in Water in the Name of Jesus Chirst. There is just no excuse for anyone to not see this. There will be no excuse for not obeying it on the judgment day. You will not be excused. You are doing the same thing Peter warned against = denying WATER for those who have received the Holy Ghost or need to receive it to be Baptized in WATER in the Name of Jesus Chirst. I ask all of you ---- why did not Peter say be baptized in the Name of the Father, the son, and the Holy ghost? Why? You need to find the answer. Jo
| |
|
 First
Previous
2-12 of 12
Next
Last
|
|
Reply
| |
(This is some more of our discussion with Apostolicminister.)
| From: joie | Sent: 4/19/2003 11:37 AM | It is the name of the Holy Ghost: John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. It is the name of the Father: John 5:43
I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.(Ap. minister)
It is true that we must Baptize in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins ---- BUT IT IS NOT TRUE THAT THIS IS THE NAME OF THE HOLY GHOST OR THE FATHER. That is NOT WHY we baptize in His name. It is NOT a formular for baptism. It is the AUTHORITY by which it is done. I have a message here which proves why we baptize in Jesus Christ ' name. The term 'in the name of'-- does not mean this is that person's name. It is saying the authority by which something is done. If you go somewhere as a representative of a company you work for. you would say I come to you in the name of so-and-so. This does not mean so-and-so is YOUR name; it means it is the authority by which you are there doing business. This is the same way it is with the above Scripture: Jesus was not saying, Jesus is the name of the Father or the Holy Ghost --- No! He was saying I am telling you to baptize by the authority of my Father, who is my head or the authority over me. Peter said, be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ , who is my head or the authority over me. Why do you think Jesus said, If another shall come IN HIS OWN NAME YOU WILL believe him? Was he then saying Jesus is not the name of Jesus? That is what you would have to think if you use it as you do. See, the lie that Jesus was God robed in flesh is why you cannot see this truth. Show me one Scripture which said God robed himself in human flesh. I tell you in the name of Jesus, it IS NOT WRITTEN . JO | |
|
Reply
| |
| From: joie | Sent: 4/20/2003 11:03 PM | | Now I see old Satan poking up his ugly head as he always does when the real truth hits. Now I ask you, WHERE AND HOW HAVE I BEEN HARSH? Show any harshness. I say it is not there. Just because I pointed out flaws in the lying Jesus only doctrine does not mean I am harsh. I tell you both the trinity and the Jesus only doctrines are from hell and satan. Not God's Holy Word. No, If you say that when Jesus said if another should come IN HIS OWN NAME YOU WOULD BELIEVE HIM - the only assumption here would HAVE TO BE (going by your idea that he is saying that Jesus is the name of the Father, would be that then Jesus is NOT THE SON'S NAME.) Now if you will look at the instances you give you will find that in each case it made it clear that is was saying Mary was her name. or Peter was his name or what ever name you chose - it made it clear that it was saying this is that person's actual name. But when Jesus said I came in my Father's name, he did NOT SAY I am using my Father name. He did not say Jesus is the name of the Father. No! that is not even implied. It is the same distortion as this: My Father and I are one. So foolish people jumped off the truth path and said this means His Father and He are one and the same person. Then by the same token, we are all one and the same person. A husband and a wife are one and the same person. For Paul said we are ALL ONE. So what does this mean? Do you know? Jesus prayed in John 17 : 18. As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. ( WHO SENT WHO? DOES ONE SEND ONESELF; AND IF SO WOULD HE SAY YOU SENT ME?) THOU MEANS YOU. SO HE IS SAYING TO (who?) You sent me? who? who sent who?
19. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
20. Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21. That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
v22--Jesus praying--- that they all may be ONE EVEN AS WE (WE MEANS MORE THAN 1 ) ARE ONE. Maybe you should look up the word 'ONE'. Remember this is Jesus' prayer ---- that we ALL MAY BE ONE EXACTLY AS HE AND HIS FATHER ARE ONE. SO ARE WE ALL 1 AND THE SAME BEING? HE SAID as THEY ARE. It actually mean 2 or more being or things in unison. Yes the word 'one' has to have more than 1 to be its true meaning. So now where does that leave the Jesus only lie? If you desire truth, drop the insults and lets study this thing out together in a Christian manner. It is very important. You are missing some of the most GLORIOUS revelation in this world by not seeing the real truth. You must get on the right foundation in order to see any other truth in the Word. When Jesus asked Peter who do you say I am, what did Peter answer? Got any clues? He said, Thou are the Chirst, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD. Notice he did NOT SAY YOU ARE GOD. Did Jesus rebuke this? Nope. He said THIS IS THE FOUNDATION WHICH I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH ON. So I say you need to find and get on the right foundation. No apostle ever said Jesus was God. Thomas is the only one who ever called him God; and that was because Thomas had received the revelation that AFTER HIS RESURRECTION INTO THE LIKENESS AND GLORY OF GOD, HE WAS NOW SET UP ON THE THRONE OF GOD WITH GOD, TO BE OUR GOD. | |
|
Reply
| |
| From: joie | Sent: 4/20/2003 11:15 PM | Peter said, be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ , who is my head or the authority over me. What book and verse does it say that?(ap. min.) 1Cor. 11: 3. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Now there is the headship laid out. This verse alone knocks that Jesus only lie in the head and kills it. The HEAD (authority) of every man is CHRIST. The head of the woman is the man. BUT ~~~ look at this one: The HEAD (authority) of CHIRST IS GOD. Now explain that, if you can. How is God the head of Christ? How is God the authority over Christ? 1Cor. 15: 28. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. ... the SON also himself, shall be SUBJECT (or under the authority) of GOD. ....the Son also himself, shall be SUBJECT unto the one who put all things under him, that GOD may be all in all. God is the head over Christ for all eternity. | |
|
Reply
| |
| From: joie | Sent: 4/20/2003 11:31 PM | | Heb. 1: 4. Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. Jesus received his excellent name by INHERITANCE. Now I ask you, who did he inherit this name from? Can one inherit from oneself? I think not. For then the very meaning of 'inherit' is lost. Phil. 2: 9. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: Now this tells us that God gave this name to Jesus. That is why his name is above all other names: God set it so. But this in no way does away with God, the Father of Jesus. God EXALTED Jesus. Do you think Jesus exalted himself? Nope. Matt. 28: 18. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Now this says that Jesus was GIVEN all power in heaven and in earth. This is after His resurrection. But I ask you, WHO GAVE THIS POWER TO HIM? WHY DID IT HAVE TO BE GIVEN TO HIM? DO YOU BELIEVE THE WORD? WAS IT GIVEN TO HIM, OR DID HE LIE? | |
|
Reply
| |
| From: joie | Sent: 5/5/2003 4:57 PM | Romans 1: 4-4. And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: Jesus was declared to be the Son of God (notice it did not say he was declared to be God - it said the Son of God, by the RESURRECTION from the dead. Rev. 1: 5. And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, Now Rev. 1: 5 says that Jesus Christ was the first BEGOTTEN OF THE DEAD. Does not this agree with Romans 1: 4? Do you agree with this? or do you call it evil also? Hebrews 1 1. God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2. Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3. Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
4. Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
6. And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
7. And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
Now here God said He brought His first begotten into the world and told even the angels to worhip this Son. Thou are my Son, this day have I begotten thee. what day did God beget this son? Let Peter answer it. (do you think Jesus beget himself?)
8. But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
See this anointing by God to Jesus is the same as Isa. 61? He put his Spirit upon his servant? Same anointing, see? Here is Peter's answer ~ Acts 13: 29. And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.
30. But God raised him from the dead:
31. And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people.
32. And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,
33. God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
( Now see, again God declares that He begot this Son on the Day of the RESURRECTION. This is the apostles Peter's words ~~ I thought you claim to believe the Apostles' doctrine ---- well this is the apostles Peter's doctrine ---- that God beget the Son Jesus at the RESURRECTION. See same doctrine the Apostle Paul taught in Romans 1: 4. I am teaching exactly what Peter and Paul taught. Also John, for he said the same thing in Rev. 1.
34. And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.
35. Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
( now these verses above prove that Jesus was corruptible. God is declared to be uncorruptible (Rom. 1) and that it is a reprobate who claims God is corruptible man. But this declares that Jesus was corruptible man. So who is teaching truth, me or those who claim Jesus in the flesh was God? I say exactly what the Apostles taught. So I am the apostolic - not you. Now see Peter spoke of the crucifixion of Jesus, then of God raising him from the dead and quotes Psalms 2 Thou are my Son, this day have I begotten thee ~~~~ and said the day of the RESURRECTION was the day this was fulfilled. See the proof that the day of the RESURRECTION is the day God begot this Son of God in His likeness and his image. Jesus is the image of the invisible God. God anointed His son to be God with the God kingdom. Do you hate this truth? Why? | |
|
Reply
| |
| From: joie | Sent: 5/5/2003 5:05 PM | It is the name of the Holy Ghost: John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. It is the name of the Father: John 5:43
I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.(Ap. minister) |
Now you used these Scriptures to try to say that Jesus is the name of the Holy Ghost. But see, it is used exactly the same way he said I am come in my Father's name --- it is not saying Jesus is the name of the Holy Ghost. Apparently you do not understand the term ' in the name of'. It means as I told you, In or under the authority of.... Jesus spoke of the Holy Ghost, of himself, and of his Father all as SEPARATE AND DISTINCT beings in the very verse you are trying to 'misuse' to say that Jesus is the Holy ghost and the Father also. You could never have come to this conclusion if you had studied the Word on your own and not just listened to previously made up lies. Jesus merely said, the Father will send you the Holy Ghost in or under my authroity. In other words, when we come to God in the name of Jesus or by Jesus, God will honour that and give us the Holy Ghost. It also refers to the being baptized in water in the Name of Jesus Christ. You must come to the Father this way if you desire for the Father to send you the Holy Ghost. You are totaly misusing these scriptures. Neither one of the above verses read that Jesus is the name of the Holy Ghost or the Father. You cannot make it say that. | |
|
Reply
| |
| From: joie | Sent: 5/5/2003 5:18 PM | | The answer to your questions is post # 3, is this: Jesus made it clear that they do not bear witness of themselves, but of the other. Jesus said if I bear witness of myself do not believe me. He said but the Father bears witness of me, so this made up the 2 witnesses God himself requires for a thing to be established as true. The Holy Ghost bears witness of Jesus, therefore it is said he is sent in the name of Jesus. Jesus came in the name of the Father. This is in no way implying that Jesus is the name of the Father. The Father bears witness of His Son, Jesus. But again this does not mean that Jesus is the Father's name. I have never read in the Word where the Holy Ghost is called anything other than the Holy ghost. I have never seen where He is given a name as we humans have a name. Jesus bears witness of the Father, and the Father bears witness of Jesus. If they were the same being as you think, none of this would make any sense. And I can assure you I know the Jesus only doctrine as much or more than any other person who has ever been in it. I once believed this lie and taught it so strong I could convince almost anyone. But God himself spoke directly to me and told me it is not true. If you will seek truth with an honest heart, God will show you also. But if you insist on denying Scripture to prove a certain church doctrine, God will let you go on believing your lies. JO | |
|
Reply
| |
| From: joie | Sent: 5/5/2003 5:33 PM | | John 3:17 and 5:30, along with other verses of Scripture, state that the Father sent the Son. Does this mean that Jesus, the Son of God, is a separate person from the Father? We know this is not so because many verses of Scripture teach that God manifested Himself in flesh (II Corinthians 5:19, I Timothy 3:16). He gave of Himself; He did not send someone else (John 3:16). (Aps. min)
Now you listed these Scriptures as trying to prove that God and Jesus are the same. Yet each of these verses makes it CLEAR that they are not the same. Again you are misusing them. 11Cor. 5:19 states that God was IN Christ. It did not say Christ is God or that God is Christ. It said God was IN Christ. There is a very big difference in being a person and being inside a person. God was in Christ the same as they are in us. Does this make me to be God because he is in me? Of Course. not. John 3:16 states the God gave his son - he did not say he gave himself. You are never reading the Scriptures rightly. | |
|
Reply
| |
I think some of you really do need to get into this baptism board and study. Study to shew yourselves approved to God. Study what? Dake? Scofield? matthew Henry? Billy Sunday? Billy Graham? What did Jesus tell us to study? Search the SCRIPTURES, for in THEM you think you have ETERNAL LIFE. But it is clear that the vast majority of people doubt what Jesus said. Sure they do. Watch what they study and attempt to TEACH from. Remember, I showed you before, the one whose WORD you latch onto, believe in, and teach, that one is your god. Now when it is different from the Scripture, which is God's word, then you call God a lie and stand on what your man-god told you. I warn all of you. This is a very dangerous place to be. it will destroy your soul. I will speak plainly here, for I care for your soul. I see on some other group where some of YOU are discussing baptism, and teaching LIES FROM DAKE, AND OTHER MEN. I warn you in love. When you make the bold statement that you will prove some part of Scripture to be wrong, you are treading on very dangerous grounds. You are setting the words of a man, who was in jail, for messing around with a 16 year old girl, he had only picked up hitch-hiking, and you are setting this man's words above the Word of God, which was preached by all the Apostles of Christ. Is not that dangerous? I love you and care about your soul. But if you insist on continuing on in this spiritually distructive way, it will lead you to hell fire. I hope you can hear. I hope you can repent and believe the Written word of God. I also warned you before, when you post or teach this man's words, or any other person, who is in bitter conflict with the Word of God, you are guilty of his sins. You are just as guilty of leading others astray, as he was. If all the Apostles of Christ taught that it is by water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, that our sins are remitted, and Jesus himself did say, He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved, who is Dake to say this is a lie? You are so deep into this man-god, that you have allowed him to deceive you to the point of boldly making the statement that you will prove Acts 2:38, Word of God, to be wrong. what a shame. How can you prove the Word of God to be wrong? Acts 2:38 Acts 10:47 & 48 Acts 8: acts 19: 1-7 | And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. |
The above is another Scripture (Word of God) proving that baptism in the name of the Lord washed away his sins. How are you going to prove all these verses wrong? I wish to see you try. I would rather see you repent and turn from Dake to the true and living God and his Word. Jo |
|
Reply
| |
When God says a thing it is true. You just have to come to understand the whole matter. Just because it said without the shedding of blood is no remission of sins, DOES NOT do away with the requirement of God by which we are given the benefit of this blood power to cleanse. Now think of this ---no one comes and literally 'sprinkles' Jesus' blood on you for this cleansing. See in the OT types and shadows, Moses and Aaron sprinkled the blood of the animals on the people. This DOES NOT take place in the NT salvation. So then, who and how is the BLOOD applied to you? Ever think of this? God has a REQUIREMENT which you MUST obey IF you wish to have this cleansing blood APPLIED to your sin-laden soul. IF--you are unwilling to obey God's REQUIREMENT, then the blood which was shed will NEVER BE APPLIED TO YOUR ACCOUNT AND YOUR SINS REMITTED. It is true that you MUST believe on Him first... but that is not the end of the matter. You must take and obey all of God's Word.. not just one part of it. God did not say that by believing, your sins are remitted. He did not say believe to have your sins remitted. He said first (after you truly believe) you must REPENT. Now this is the part almost no one is obeying. REPENT. Most people do not even understand what this means. It does NOT mean to ask forgiveness of your sins. It means to FORSAKE THEM.. quit doing them... be very sorry for having done them... sorry enough to quit doing whatever you are doing which is against God's Word...
(but this is not the end of the matter either).... Then you must be willing to go be water baptized in the Name which is the ONLY name given under Heaven, among men (us humans) by which we MUST be saved... and that name is Jesus. Now after you obey these steps, then God will apply the blood of Jesus to you and remit your sins. Unless you obey this, God will never remit your sins... they still cling to you.... you are not clean.....you are not forgiven...you are not justified... grace has not been given to you... for you did not come in the NT way. The thief on the cross is NO EXAMPLE OF NT SALVATION. NT Salvation was not available until the day of Pentecost. No one up until that day had ever truly obtained salvation or remission of sins. They were ALL, From Abraham down to the thief on the cross, held in a place waiting for the atonement to be made which is the only atonement ever to satisfy God and be able to cleanse the sinner. Not one sinner up until Pentecost (they without us are never made whole)....was ever cleansed and set free from their sins, or had them remitted. So you cannot go in the 'thief - on - the - cross' method. You are not on that side of Pentecost. Another thing, Once a statement has been recorded at least twice in Scripture, it is ESTABLISHED by God as being truth. it is absolutely not necessary to repeat something each and every time something on the subject is mentioned. God means for you to know this, and to consider that what he has stated in his word, at least two times, is established as truth, no matter what else is said on a subject. God did not tell the WHOLE of any matter each time a thing is spoken about. How ridiculous it is to hear people claiming that because remission of sins via the water baptism cleansing, is not mentioned each and every time anything about faith, salvation, or justification, is mentioned, makes this fail to be true. What about all the many times this is positively aserted to be true? Does the mere fact that maybe faith is named in some place, without adding the necessity of water baptism, make the times baptism IS proven to be necessary, be no longer true? What foolish and carnal reasoning these folks, who hate God's true chosen method of having the blood applied, come up with! Better if they got totally away from God's word and stop calling God a lie! Jo |
|
Reply
| |
Col 2:12 - Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 1Pe 3:21 - The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ Eph 4:5 - One Lord, one faith, one baptism, |
|
|
First
Previous
2-12 of 12
Next
Last
|
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Return to Baptism