Apostolic Friends Forum
Tab Menu 1
Go Back   Apostolic Friends Forum > The Sanctuary > Deep Waters
Facebook

Notices

Deep Waters 'Deep Calleth Unto Deep ' -The place to go for Ministry discussions. Please keep it civil. Remember to discuss the issues, not each other.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 02-19-2018, 09:45 PM
Esaias's Avatar
Esaias Esaias is offline
Unvaxxed Pureblood


 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Zion aka TEXAS
Posts: 26,009
Re: Question on oneness doctrine?

Quote:
Originally Posted by votivesoul View Post
Come on now, that's not accurate at all.

You're arguing because there's no verse that says "You must call your Savior Yeshua at all times" that somehow you must make sure you never do so, because it's not commanded.

That's an argument from silence, because there not being a command to do so doesn't prove that one must not do so.

Or, you're arguing because the name of the Savior in the New Testament manuscripts is always written in Greek, you must make sure you never use the Hebrew or Aramaic version of that name.

But where's the permission to use an English or Spanish or Portuguese or Chinese or Swahili or Hindi or any other language version of the name of the Savior in the Bible?

I mean, I could just as easily say "Since there's no command in the Bible to make sure I always address or refer to the Savior by the Greek version of His name, I am free to not do so as I please".

In this way, you're creating a double-standard. One the one hand, you are attempting to refute any and all efforts by anyone to use the Hebrew/Aramaic version of the name of Jesus (unless, perhaps, the person is Jewish and is a native speaker of Hebrew???) because it's written in Greek only, and yet, on the other hand, you're totally okay with using the English version of the name of Jesus, despite the fact it's never written in English, except by translation.

You might say, "Well, I'm not Greek so I don't use the Greek form of Jesus". So, in this way, it makes it totally okay to not use the Greek form of Jesus, but when someone veers from the Greek and uses the Hebrew form, which appears 197 times in Hebrew, or the Aramaic form (also well-attested to in the Old Testament) you cry foul.

Is not the hypocrisy here evident?

I am not a native Spanish speaker, and yet, I studied Spanish and became fluent and bilingual, and led a Spanish ministry and immersed people in the name of Jesucristo and prayed for people to receive (and they did) the Holy Spirit in the same name, but by the logic you are presenting, this was somehow wrong of me???

I mean, that's what I'm getting from you on this. Explain where I'm wrong if I am.
This is a rather silly misrepresentation of what I've been saying.

You baptized people en el nombre de Jesucristo? WERE THOSE PEOPLE SPANISH SPEAKERS?

The movement among native English speakers to use some supposed Hebrew version of God's name and some supposed Hebrew version of Christ's name is a movement designed to eventually introduce rabbinic Pharisaic talmudism into Christianity, cast doubt on the Greek textual basis of the New Testament, and thereby destroy faith in Christianity as a whole.

Every language has its version of the Saviour's Name. To promote Jewish primacy by inculcating ridiculous LARPing by non Jews pretending to be "sort of Jews" using alleged Hebrew names for God, Jesus, the books of the Bible, various other things (mikvah for baptism, mitzvot for commandments, Torah for law, brit hadashah for new testament or new covenant, Shaul for Paul, ha moshiach for Christ or Messiah, yada yada yada ad infinitum et nauseum) is a symptom of cultism, heresy, and spiritual war being waged against JESUS CHRIST AND HIS CHURCH.

Many are too blinded to see it, apparently. That's okay, though. The Lord prunes his branches. So as these LARPing schismatics separate themselves, many of them going full Jewish (apostasizing) or even atheist, and their enablers who see nothing (and say nothing and do nothing) continue to say "Shhh!" to the dogs barking at the intruders scrambling over the fence, the Remnant move forward.

I'm starting to suspect Harold Camping was on to something at one time...
__________________
Visit the Apostolic House Church YouTube Channel!


Biblical Worship - free pdf http://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/02/21/biblicalworship4/

Conditional immortality proven - https://ia800502.us.archive.org/3/it...surrection.pdf

Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 02-19-2018, 10:19 PM
Michael The Disciple's Avatar
Michael The Disciple Michael The Disciple is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 14,648
Re: Question on oneness doctrine?

Quote:
The movement among native English speakers to use some supposed Hebrew version of God's name and some supposed Hebrew version of Christ's name is a movement designed to eventually introduce rabbinic Pharisaic talmudism into Christianity, cast doubt on the Greek textual basis of the New Testament, and thereby destroy faith in Christianity as a whole.
Its funny to me that those so strongly asserting this THEMSELVES attempt to get men keeping Moses law. They start with what? Usually the keeping of the Sabbath day! After that its anyones guess where they may go. The feasts? Tithing?

Yes the Sabbath is usually the gateway back to Moses.

But we can be sure they have drawn some good numbers back under the law. So while they so greatly fear the name of Yeshua leads to Pharisee ism they outright promote the law of Moses!

It looks like perhaps THEY are the ones we should be concerned about.

After all Paul wrote an entire book showing the Gentiles they were not under the law. He wrote nothing AGAINST the Hebrew name. Rather he called his Lord by a Hebrew name.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 02-19-2018, 10:22 PM
Esaias's Avatar
Esaias Esaias is offline
Unvaxxed Pureblood


 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Zion aka TEXAS
Posts: 26,009
Re: Question on oneness doctrine?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple View Post
Its funny to me that those so strongly asserting this THEMSELVES attempt to get men keeping Moses law. They start with what? Usually the keeping of the Sabbath day! After that its anyones guess where they may go. The feasts? Tithing?

Yes the Sabbath is usually the gateway back to Moses.

But we can be sure they have drawn some good numbers back under the law. So while they so greatly fear the name of Yeshua leads to Pharisee ism they outright promote the law of Moses!

It looks like perhaps THEY are the ones we should be concerned about.

After all Paul wrote an entire book showing the Gentiles they were not under the law. He wrote nothing AGAINST the Hebrew name. Rather he called his Lord by a Hebrew name.
Obviously you don't know the difference between Talmud and Bible.
__________________
Visit the Apostolic House Church YouTube Channel!


Biblical Worship - free pdf http://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/02/21/biblicalworship4/

Conditional immortality proven - https://ia800502.us.archive.org/3/it...surrection.pdf

Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 02-20-2018, 01:49 AM
Praxeas's Avatar
Praxeas Praxeas is offline
Go Dodgers!


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 45,774
Re: Question on oneness doctrine?

It's not a devil name. That's hooey invented but Gary Reckart
__________________
Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:


  1. There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
  2. The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
  3. Every sinner must repent of their sins.
  4. That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
  5. That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
  6. The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 02-20-2018, 05:05 AM
Michael The Disciple's Avatar
Michael The Disciple Michael The Disciple is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 14,648
Re: Question on oneness doctrine?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Esaias View Post
Obviously you don't know the difference between Talmud and Bible.
I do as a matter of fact. And I also know the difference between the Old Covenant and the New.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 02-20-2018, 05:44 AM
votivesoul's Avatar
votivesoul votivesoul is offline
Administrator


 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: WI
Posts: 5,440
Re: Question on oneness doctrine?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Esaias View Post
This is a rather silly misrepresentation of what I've been saying.

You baptized people en el nombre de Jesucristo? WERE THOSE PEOPLE SPANISH SPEAKERS?

The movement among native English speakers to use some supposed Hebrew version of God's name and some supposed Hebrew version of Christ's name is a movement designed to eventually introduce rabbinic Pharisaic talmudism into Christianity, cast doubt on the Greek textual basis of the New Testament, and thereby destroy faith in Christianity as a whole.

Every language has its version of the Saviour's Name. To promote Jewish primacy by inculcating ridiculous LARPing by non Jews pretending to be "sort of Jews" using alleged Hebrew names for God, Jesus, the books of the Bible, various other things (mikvah for baptism, mitzvot for commandments, Torah for law, brit hadashah for new testament or new covenant, Shaul for Paul, ha moshiach for Christ or Messiah, yada yada yada ad infinitum et nauseum) is a symptom of cultism, heresy, and spiritual war being waged against JESUS CHRIST AND HIS CHURCH.

Many are too blinded to see it, apparently. That's okay, though. The Lord prunes his branches. So as these LARPing schismatics separate themselves, many of them going full Jewish (apostasizing) or even atheist, and their enablers who see nothing (and say nothing and do nothing) continue to say "Shhh!" to the dogs barking at the intruders scrambling over the fence, the Remnant move forward.

I'm starting to suspect Harold Camping was on to something at one time...
Oh, come off it, man. I've seen you on this very forum use words like halachah, Eretz Yisrael, spell the Tetragrammaton countless times as YHVH, which is much more common among Jewish people (instead of the common among non-Jews as YHWH), written in praise of blowing the shofar, giving someone a thumb's up when they wished you shabbat shalom, quoting from Jewish sources to support your views on head coverings and adornment, and other such like where you drop Hebrew words into you posts where English words would have easily sufficed, and you're going to freak out over some saints using the name Yeshua, WHEN CLEARLY JESUS USED IT OF HIMSELF IN ACTS WHEN HE SPOKE WITH PAUL???

Yeah, no sense being made here.

Better not ever say or write "hallelujah", making sure you only ever say or write alleluia instead, since "hallelujah" is the Hebrew version, and isn't found anywhere in the New Testament. I mean, if you do, you might find yourself eventually wearing a kippah and tefillin, grasping your tzizith as you cover yourself with your tallith in order to enter into your prayer closet to call upon HaShem.

Listen, I know people can easily go off the deepend with trying to Hebraize everything, when they don't speak a word of the language and aren't Jewish, and yes, it's pretty silly and might be laughable if it weren't so sad, generally speaking.

But this constant freak-out over "Yeshua" like it's some damnable heresy to call Jesus by it, goes from bordering on the absurd on the one end to bordering on blasphemy on the other.

You were given PROOF from the Holy Scriptures that both Jesus and Paul used the form Yeshua/Yehoshua for our Savior, and that the most likely conclusion was that Paul was immersed, not in the name of Jesus, not in the name of Iesous, but in the name of YESHUA, and you flew right past all of that so you could continue to stomp around about how some small fringe group on the internet is teaching people to be re-baptized in the name of Yahshua.

Then, you wonder if Nutter-in-Chief Harold Camping was "on to something" and people who use the form Yeshua are the ones with the problem?
__________________
For anyone devoted to His fear:

http://votivesoul.wordpress.com/
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 02-21-2018, 12:12 AM
Raffi Raffi is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 211
Re: Question on oneness doctrine?

It is an interesting thought, though, despite all the arguing about which Bible translation version is true "Word of God", and so which local "translation" of Messiah's name is the TRUE one, "Jesus" in his whole lifetime only knew himself by ONE name. I mean, right? We'd suppose. And all of his disciples, and especially his Apostles all knew him and called him by that one same name, right? And as Votivesoul pointed out, it is most reasonably presumed that these Apostles Baptized converts in that name for at least a couple or few decades, covering perhaps at the least the first two or three generations of converts in the name that was thereby commonly known and used. It is not reasonable to assume that the Apostles would suddenly have come to some sudden flash of insight that the original name of the Lord Messiah was now to be dropped and replaced by the use of a "Greekish" name, even if we knew as a matter of fact that later non-Hebrew Believers DID utilize a Greekish version of the name.

If that much can be pretty well agreed upon by most everyone here, and if we also recognize as Votivesoul also pointed out that for the duration of The Book of Acts (some 60 year period), what we today recognize as The New Testament had not yet come into existence in the form we would recognize It, then The Gospel as It would have been known THEN would have been one that utilized first of all the Hebrew Bible, and of course the Teachings and Sayings of the Lord in, we presume, Hebrew and/or Aramaic as he would have originally spoke them. "Iesous" definitely to me seems to be a deliberate approximation in spelling of the Hebrew vocalization of "Yeshua" as nearest as Greek could have come (one reason why I personally do not agree with the Yahshua pronunciation). To me there seems to be evidence of a residual use of the name "Yeshua" spoken by the first generations of Believers well until the Greek rendering of The Gospel accounts became widely circulated. Until that time, I think that there is a reasonable validity to the argument that Votivesoul puts forward.

I know that there are some KJV-only advocates on this forum. But with all due respect, I am comfortable enough to say this knowing that KJV-only is NOT a required Apostolic Pentecostal doctrine. So for me to argue that we must insist that the English word "Jesus" is a "REVEALED" or "INSPIRED" name is no more convincing than the arguments of those who insist that the KJV/AV is a "REVEALED" or "PRESERVED" version of God's Word. Respectfully, to me, God's WORD is not in any translation of man. God's WORD persists only as ORIGINALLY REVEALED. So to approach as closely as possible, in reverence to that original sacred Revelation, is not for me LARPing or "Judaizing", or in any way pretending that I am a "Jew". To me, if God originally spoke in THAT Tongue, why should I be timid to try myself? And wouldn't that honor Him and His Mighty Wisdom? And aren't we to imitate our Lord? I am hard pressed to believe that the people on this forum are unfamiliar with the phrase LISHON HA KODESH. "Jesus" didn't use the KJV. And he didn't speak the King's English. He spoke the Language of God, the Language of Creation, the Language of Revelation.

So we would agree that Jesus spoke Hebrew, and probably Aramaic, and that it is likely that he taught in BOTH languages. And we'd agree that the name that he used of himself and that all who knew him called him by was all a single name. It is not that it was a "Hebrew" name or an "Aramaic" name. It was HIS name. As far as I know, names are names, and even in translation it is considered international courtesy to carry the native pronunciation one's name over WITHOUT translating it. This is all the more important in legal transactions and on documents. "Iesous" is an attempt to render the SPELLING of his name as closely as possible into Greek without totally mutilating the vocalization of his name as it was pronounced.

Okay, so my question is this: According to Acts 4:12, Neither is there Salvation in any other: for there is NONE OTHER NAME under Heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

I am surprised no one has brought this up yet.
Amanah mentioned by my count some 89 different versions of the spelling of the Lord's name, some seem to be based strictly on the Hebrew, and others seem to be based either on the Greek spelling or the English KJV spelling. In light of a LITERAL interpretation of the above Acts 4:12, WHICH of these 89 versions is the correct one by which could be said "NONE OTHER NAME"?

Okay, I am not trying to be facetious here. I am simply asking, if we were to interpret the Verse in a LITERAL way, would that approach effect the argument?

Peace
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 02-21-2018, 04:06 AM
votivesoul's Avatar
votivesoul votivesoul is offline
Administrator


 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: WI
Posts: 5,440
Re: Question on oneness doctrine?

Raffi,

Acts 4:7 seems to answer your question there at the end of your post. There, the disciples are asked "Through what authority or name, have you done this [that is, heal the man at the Beautiful Gate, who was born unable to walk, in Acts 3]?"

Simon Peter's reply is a direct response to the question posed. So, we see the concepts of authority and name being linked together, which was very common then, more so than now. If you study the Jewish history of the time, and the writings of the tanniam period that makes up the earliest portions of the Talmud, you often see something to the effect of: "Rabbi fill in the blank said in the name of Rabbi fill in the blank again..."

This is all about authority. So Simon Peter responding that there is no other name, it's not so much the actual appellation, for many in that era and well before were named with the same name, but rather, how the One to whom Simon Peter refers, that is, how the One who bore that name, was vindicated and exalted to the Right Hand of Majesty, and so, through His emissaries, He, having power (that is, authority) over all of the cosmos of God, gave to them the right to heal as many as had faith to be healed.

So, when it comes to there being salvation in no other name, it's not that Jesus, or Iesous, or Yeshua, is some kind of charm or special word of incantation to bring about the rescue of the human soul from death and hell, but rather, because Jesus is the Son of the Father, at God's Right Hand, He alone is now the Judge of the Living and the Dead, and only those who receive His authorization are granted the right to become a son of God, and so, receive eternal life.

And Christ has empowered His earthly representatives to demonstrate that authority so that through them, whosoever wills, may come to the Son in order to receive the Father.

I therefore believe Acts 4:12, through a synthesis of other concepts drawn from the Gospels and Acts, should be understood thusly:

Neither is there salvation in any other [that is, apart from Jesus, the stone which the builders rejected from v. 11]...

...for there is none other name under heaven [that is, no other authority or authorization as given by God to the human race exists, no, not anywhere under the whole expanse of the heavenly realm]...

...given among men, whereby we must be saved [that is, it is now a permanent divine imperative that all who will be saved must go to and through Jesus, the Door of the Sheepfold, and the power and authority He represents as the Right Hand of God, that He now has as Lord Over All]...
__________________
For anyone devoted to His fear:

http://votivesoul.wordpress.com/

Last edited by votivesoul; 02-21-2018 at 04:08 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 02-21-2018, 04:13 AM
votivesoul's Avatar
votivesoul votivesoul is offline
Administrator


 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: WI
Posts: 5,440
Re: Question on oneness doctrine?

Quote:
Originally Posted by votivesoul View Post
Raffi,

Acts 4:7 seems to answer your question there at the end of your post. There, the disciples are asked "Through what authority or name, have you done this [that is, heal the man at the Beautiful Gate, who was born unable to walk, in Acts 3]?"

Simon Peter's reply is a direct response to the question posed. So, we see the concepts of authority and name being linked together, which was very common then, more so than now. If you study the Jewish history of the time, and the writings of the tanniam period that makes up the earliest portions of the Talmud, you often see something to the effect of: "Rabbi fill in the blank said in the name of Rabbi fill in the blank again..."

This is all about authority. So Simon Peter responding that there is no other name, it's not so much the actual appellation, for many in that era and well before were named with the same name, but rather, how the One to whom Simon Peter refers, that is, how the One who bore that name, was vindicated and exalted to the Right Hand of Majesty, and so, through His emissaries, He, having power (that is, authority) over all of the cosmos of God, gave to them the right to heal as many as had faith to be healed.

So, when it comes to there being salvation in no other name, it's not that Jesus, or Iesous, or Yeshua, is some kind of charm or special word of incantation to bring about the rescue of the human soul from death and hell, but rather, because Jesus is the Son of the Father, at God's Right Hand, He alone is now the Judge of the Living and the Dead, and only those who receive His authorization are granted the right to become a son of God, and so, receive eternal life.

And Christ has empowered His earthly representatives to demonstrate that authority so that through them, whosoever wills, may come to the Son in order to receive the Father.

I therefore believe Acts 4:12, through a synthesis of other concepts drawn from the Gospels and Acts, should be understood thusly:

Neither is there salvation in any other [that is, apart from Jesus, the stone which the builders rejected from v. 11]...

...for there is none other name under heaven [that is, no other authority or authorization as given by God to the human race exists, no, not anywhere under the whole expanse of the heavenly realm]...

...given among men, whereby we must be saved [that is, it is now a permanent divine imperative that all who will be saved must go to and through Jesus, the Door of the Sheepfold, and the power and authority He represents as the Right Hand of God, that He now has as Lord Over All]...
And it's for this very reason that the Apostles of the Anointed One were, in Acts 4:2, preaching the resurrection from the dead through Jesus, that is, Jesus was then and still now is, the only means whereby anyone can be raised to life in the very same manner as the Father raised Jesus back from the dead to prove to the world that Jesus really was the Chosen Servant, the Son of David, the Human Representation of God, on earth.

Had the Father not raised Jesus from the dead, the apostles would have had no right (read: authority) to preach the resurrection of the dead through Jesus, since their Rabbi, having not conquered death for Himself, could by no means conquer death for anyone else (and only if such a scenario was true).

But, because Jesus did conquer death, He has forever blazed the trail for all who would likewise desire to do the same, through the operation of God.
__________________
For anyone devoted to His fear:

http://votivesoul.wordpress.com/
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 02-21-2018, 08:02 AM
Raffi Raffi is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 211
Re: Question on oneness doctrine?

Thank you very much, Votivesoul.

Wow, interesting answer. So according to THIS view it really isn't so much the actual literal articulation of the singular name (Yeshua, Jesus, Isa, etc.) as much as it is the SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY behind the name that matters.

Truly, if that IS all that it is, then a lot of the quibbling on this thread about exactly HOW to pronounce that singular name is really completely irrelevant. If the precise articulation does not matter at the occasion of Water Baptism, and what really matters is faith in the "AUTHORITY" that is behind the mere symbol of the name, truly it shouldn't matter WHAT way we pronounce the name. And in fact, I suppose that by that reasoning, even completely INCORRECT pronunciations would be adequate so long as the individual believes in sincere faith in the AUTHORITY behind the name symbol. Even the pronunciation "YAHSHUA" would serve just as well for someone who truly believes it is the way to pronounce the name. If "Jesus", with it's distinctly English "J" and it's Greekish "s"-ending, though completely not historically correct, is nevertheless just as valid as the original "Yeshua", then how could we genuinely argue that any other aberrant pronunciation, such as "Yahshua", could be any less authoritative and powerful. What is more, does it even have to be a version of the "Yeshua" name? Could the names "Yahweh", "Jehovah", "Jahweh", "Yahawah", or any other variant of THIS name be evoked just as well? We have already established earlier in this thread that BOTH the Old Testament as well as the New Testament names are in fact equally names of the ONE GOD. If that is true, can we make a rational distinction between the use of one name over the other at Baptism? Using Scripture, obviously we can. But I know of some groups who baptize their converts in a version of the Old Testament Name, and they legitimately and sincerely believe they are correct. Is such a Baptism to be taken as valid? If a person baptized in, say, the name of "Yahweh" or in the name of "Jehovah" came to your congregation with a testimony of Salvation, and now wanted to become a member of your congregation, would your pastor require re-baptism of that individual?

And to add one more thought pebble to the conundrum, What about those who were baptized "in the name of The Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". As Apostolics, we believe that the singular name of all THREE titles is invested in the ONE NAME of the Lord and Messiah. But if a person who is baptized in the Matthew 28:19 model legitimately believes by faith he or she is receiving the ONE GOD by that formula, and if his or her faith is directed toward the AUTHORITY behind the symbolic word articulations, would we STILL require re-baptism of that person according to the Apostolic formula?

Peace
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Criticism of oneness doctrine- pinasamb Fellowship Hall 21 03-26-2013 06:43 PM
Oneness Doctrine:Going Deeper Michael The Disciple Fellowship Hall 11 09-06-2012 03:52 PM
Is This Apostolic Oneness Doctrine? Jekyll Fellowship Hall 11 11-20-2007 10:02 AM

 
User Infomation
Your Avatar

Latest Threads
- by Salome

Help Support AFF!

Advertisement




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.