Doctrinal Question - Someone Please Take a Shot at This.

[nathan_slatter]

Hit a nerve, did I?

Actually, I never said that any one was "doing it wrong". Simply brought up the issue for reexamination in light of the direction the thread had taken.

The energy of, "If Oneness folks spent less time arguing about baptism, and focusing..." seems to be coming from another quarter than from me. But, you have taken me to task, and "put me in my place", at it were. I trust everyone feels much better for the exchange.

And, why would anyone be upset over my exchange with Felicity, if she isn't? What would another individual know concerning our exchange that they haven't shared with us? Yet, being the first one to actually express an interest in expanding her understanding of a spiritual subject - and without going through any of my personal theological "filters", I accommodated her request.

For those who simply insist in being justified in their own eyes, I have no problem with allowing them remain so. As noted earlier, we are fast to judge and slow to think.

Shalom Alichem

Yet another reason why i like you -- humble and wise.

[TRFrance]

Hit a nerve, did I?

Please. Not at all. Not even close.


Actually, I never said that any one was "doing it wrong". Simply brought up the issue for reexamination in light of the direction the thread had taken.

You didn't say we were doing it wrong, but, to use your words: "They did not baptize in the same manner as we do today. At least that much is clear from history."

If it was as clear as you said, I was actually quite interested in hearing the facts you had on this matter.


But, you have taken me to task, and "put me in my place", at it were. I trust everyone feels much better for the exchange.

Sorry you feel that way. I wasn't trying to "put you in your place". It seemed from your initial post that you were "going somewhere" on the baptismal issue, but after trying to follow you briefly, it seemed like you weren't that sure were you were going.

You came out with a point that in the end seemed more speculative than substantive. Thats all I was expressing.

The energy of, "If Oneness folks spent less time arguing about baptism, and focusing..." seems to be coming from another quarter than from me.

It is indeed. It was something of a concluding thought, a passing thought in a sense, I guess similar to how you had stated a "passing thought" in your previous post.

And, why would anyone be upset over my exchange with Felicity, if she isn't? What would another individual know concerning our exchange that they haven't shared with us? Yet, being the first one to actually express an interest in expanding her understanding of a spiritual subject - and without going through any of my personal theological "filters", I accommodated her request.

For those who simply insist in being justified in their own eyes, I have no problem with allowing them remain so. As noted earlier, we are fast to judge and slow to think.

I don't know who was upset over your exchange with Felicity. She actually asked the very question I was getting ready to ask you. So I was glad to see the response, but puzzled at the same time, since I expected an answer with more meat to it than: "I think I will study a little more before sharing".

Anyway...no one here has a need to justify themselves here in their own eyes, brother. But because of the very nature of doctrinal debate or discussion... it's perfectly natural for someone to ask a direct question about something that you assert as being fact. And if it turns out you cant provide any facts to support your assertion, then that doesn't really help anyone now, does it? (rhetorical question/no response needed.)

Looking back, I see how the tone of my post was rather straightforward, even blunt. But nobody is trying to make anyone else look bad here. Don't take it that way.

Shalom Aleichem to you too, sir

[Praxeas]

Yet another reason why i like you -- humble and wise.
saying "hit a nerve did I?" hardly sounds like humility to me

[A.W. Bowman]

Man, I like you!

Greetings, Nate. Yes, I am coming back - just had to spend a few days here so see a couple of friends from the old days.

[A.W. Bowman]

You didn't say we were doing it wrong, but, to use your words: "They did not baptize in the same manner as we do today. At least that much is clear from history."

If it was as clear as you said, I was actually quite interested in hearing the facts you had on this matter.

Shalom Aleichem to you too, sir

Then we can start off on a clean slate again?

I will gather at least two more "quality" reference before posting them all on the boards. I will also be adding my comments concerning the history and the spiritual elements related to the content of the rite.

The additional study I want to finish is:

To get a better handle on the Messianic approach to the rite, vs. the observant Jewish approach. How the Jewish rite is/was performed is published elsewhere, and that too will also be included in the list of references.

The purpose in providing quality references is so everyone can gather and consider information from a number of different viewpoints. I will add mine later.

[Brother Price]

Good to see you, Brother HaShaliach! Shalom v'Shalom!

[nathan_slatter]

saying "hit a nerve did I?" hardly sounds like humility to me

**grin**

I'll leave this one alone... though, I can say that one's humility is another's arrogance... I'll pick his as humility.

[nathan_slatter]

Greetings, Nate. Yes, I am coming back - just had to spend a few days here so see a couple of friends from the old days.

No worries... things have been slow there lately what with the loss of the database and other things. We do want to see you come back but no big rush... and I'm here for the same reasons really.

[Brother Price]

**grin**

I'll leave this one alone... though, I can say that one's humility is another's arrogance... I'll pick his as humility.

Knowing the brother as I do, I guarantee with a solid security deposit that it is pure humility!

[nathan_slatter]

Knowing the brother as I do, I guarantee with a solid security deposit that it is pure humility!

As do I but I don't have the greatest reputation so my bragging on HaShaliach actually helps him... :D

[A.W. Bowman]

Guys -

As much as I enjoy kind words like yours - my ego laps it up - it leaves me with one big problem: It's a lot like waiting for Christmas all over again. :clock

That is -

Now, I can't wait to see what kind of stupid thing I am going to say to blow it.

[Sam]

Two things.
First some URL's about the mikveh or mikvah
(some of these links may no longer be active)
Second a quote from a book put out by Jews for Jesus.


http://www.essene.com/B'nai-Amen/MysticalImmersion.htm

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/lifecycle/Conversion/IdeatoRealization/RabbinicRequirements/Mikveh.htm

http://www.graftedin.com/WeeklyTorah/ShomerMitzvot/mikveh.html

http://www.hebroots.com/mikvah.html
down the page a ways

http://www.yashanet.com/library/temple/Mikvah.html


The Jewish Encylopedia online is at
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/index.jsp

An article on baptism in that encyclopedia can be found at
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=222&letter=B&search=baptism

and on the new birth at
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1087&letter=B&search=regeneration

These are a couple of quotes from a book called, "Yeshua" copyright 1982, written by Moshe Rosen of the organization Jews for Jesus.

pages 27 and 28 about Yochanan ben Zechariah or John the Baptist
"He was, by the most traditional standards of Israel, a true prophet. Even his emphasis on mikveh was not unprecedented. The Jewish people had practiced immersion of Gentile converts to Judaism for nearly a century before John came on the scene...Therefore the penitents were baptized to show their conversion from sin."

On pages 78-81 he has a section titled Appendix 2, Mikveh and Baptism.

"Ceremonial Washings in Biblical Times

"All these water rituals formed the basis for the Jewish mikveh laws. Although the Hebrew word mikveh means literally a collection or gathering together, in this context it refers to a gathering or pool of water for the purpose of ritual cleansing. The earliest biblical usage of the word mikveh occurs in Genesis 1:10 which describes the gathered waters which God then names seas.

These washings were for the purpose of symbolic cleansing to demonstrate a spiritual purity.

"Exodus 19:10. Even before the giving of the Torah at Sinai, God commanded the people to wash their clothing as a symbolic act of purification.

"Leviticus 8:6. Aaron and his sons washed when they were ordained as priests to minister in the Tabernacle.

"Leviticus 16:4. Again Aaron had to wash himself before and after (v. 24) he ministered in the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur.

"Numbers 19:7ff. There are explicit instructions for purification after defilement by a dead body. After bathing and washing his clothes, the unclean person had to be sprinkled with fresh water combined with ashes from a sacrificed animal.

"Numbers 31:21-24. The Israelites used the water of sprinkling to purify themselves and their plunder after they battled with the Midianites.

"Leviticus 13-15. The Torah commanded ritual purification for both men and women who had been defiled by flows of various bodily fluids, or who had been healed of leprosy.

"Ceremonial Immersion in Post-Biblical Judaism

"another use of symbolic purification by water became part of Jewish tradition. It was immersion, or tevilah, for Gentile converts to Judaism. Baptism is the Greek-derived equivalent of tevilah from the Greek verb baptidzo; hence, we may speak of converts being immersed or baptized.

"Although the only biblical requirement for entrance into the covenant was circumcision, baptism became an added requisite. No one knows exactly when or by whom the requirements were changed to include baptism, but it was before the time of Jesus, as we learn from debates between the rabbinic schools of Shammai and Hillel, both contemporaries of jesus. Whereas the school of Shammai stressed circumcision as the point of transition, the Hillelites considered baptism most important because it portrayed spiritual cleansing and the beginning of a new life. Ultimately the Hillelite view prevailed, as reflected in the Talmudic writings. The revered twelfth-century Jewish sage Maimonides summed up the Talmudic tradition concerning converts to Judaism:

By three things did Israel enter into the covenant: by circumcision and baptism and sacrifice. Circumcision was in Egypt, as it is written: No uncircumcised person shall eat thereof (Ex 12:48). Baptism was in the wilderness just before the giving of the Law, as it is written: Sanctify them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their clothes (Ex 19:10). And sacrifice, as it is said: And he sent young men of the children of Israel which offered burnt offerings (Ex24:5)....When a gentile is willing to enter the covenant...he must be circumcised and be baptized and bring a sacrifice...And at this time when there is no sacrifice, they must be circumcised and be baptized; and when the Temple shall be built, they are to bring a sacrifice....The gentile that is made a proselyte and the slave that is made free, behold he is like a child new born.

"Presently a Gentile who would embrace Judaism must undergo baptism in a mikveh ritual. The purpose of this ceremonial immersion is to portray spiritual cleansing, as Maimonides concluded in his codification of the laws of mikveh:

"...uncleanness is not mud or filth which water can remove, but it is a matter of scriptural decree and dependent on the intention of the heart.

"Ceremonial Immersion and John the Baptist

"The activity of Yochanan ben Zechariah, generally known to history as John the Baptist, is in line with ceremonial washings and immersion in Judaism. John's emphasis that repentance be visibly demonstrated by baptism was in keeping with the ritual use of water elsewhere to signify a spiritual renewal...

"Ceremonial Immersion and the New Testament

"The New Testament ascribes a multiple symbolism to the baptism of believers in Jesus the Messiah.

"Titus 3:5. here baptism is depicted as the washing away of sin and uncleanness and the giving of new life by God's Spirit to those who are thus cleansed. This symbolism has its roots in the idea already found in the Torah.

"Romans 6:3-4. This further describes baptism as a picture of death and resurrection, a symbolism not found previously. That is, by his baptism the believer publicly announces that through faith in the Messiah, he has died to his old sinful ways and has been made alive to God. As in Jewish tradition, baptism followed the order whereby a candidate first assented to the beliefs he was to hold and then was immersed. Those who believe in the Messiah are plunged or buried into His atoning death, so that God might raise them to a new life as He raised the Messiah from the dead."

[A.W. Bowman]

LOLOL

Love it! Thanks bro. I knew you were lurking about just waiting for the right time to drop in.

I was not going to over load the forum however. I was just going to drop these few on them:

*http://www.allon.org/index.htm
http://www.taibt.org/discussion/index.php
http://www.jewfaq.org/cgi-bin/search.cgi?Keywords=mikvah
*http://www.ritualwell.org/lifecycles/adultpassages/conversion/04Ceremony%20of%20Tevilah.xml/view?searchterm=None
*http://members.cox.net/roshavot/Studies/born.htm
http://torahsearch.com/page.cfm/1890
http://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2007/02/does-tevilah-require-kavanah.html
*http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Hebraic-Roots/message/2913

Even had the same pdf file to upload! LOLOL

The url's marked with an "*" denotes some of the better sites for general application and history. The other word that should be researched (or at least read) is the sister term, Tevilah.

Sam, you're the man. No question! Mercy, I would pray for a whole assembly of men such as you! But, I think I told you something like that before.

Kids, this gentleman has has "stepped on" my posts before, but he always does with such grace - and with such authority. You have to love him and respect him.

--------------

OK, kids, take a couple of days and review some of these sites. Check out the forums you might find & ask questions, consider the Hebrew roots of the rite, and the Messianic (original Hebrew church) take on it - what does it mean to them? Then consider what the Gentile church has done to it, and then let's all get together - say Monday, and compare notes.

[A.W. Bowman]

Thought I would see how the studies were going. Well, I trust.

I hope that by Monday some will have posted some thoughts on the subject.

[A.W. Bowman]

Trusting that at least a few folks actually did their homework over the week end and researched the material provided by Sam and I, it should be clear as to why I thought it better to endure a personal critique, than to just drop a lot of concepts concerning baptisms that are foreign to the majority of us. The danger is, that by the very nature of such an investigation, it also brings into question the assumed “infallibility” of our religious doctrines,upon which many of us have based our salvation.

Therefore, this kind of exercise is not generally looked upon too kindly by a large number of folks. Even so, is there anyone willing to share what they found in their studies before I contribute a few thoughts?

[A.W. Bowman]

In one of my early posts on this subject I stated that historically there was a difference between first century baptism and our current practice. Here is the follow up to that statement.

Historically, from a Hebrew point of view, no baptism is effectual unless it is performed in “moving (living) water”. Baptismal pools, tanks or tubs such as are found in many Christian churches today would never qualify for an apostolic immersion. The water is to remove the sin from one’s body and their clothes, to wash it away, not just rearrange it.

As was pointed out in an earlier post, quoting Heb., 6:1 “Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. 3 And this will we do, if God permit.” It should become clear that we, like the Jews to whom this epistle was written, have yet to master the “foundation” principles of our faith. Rather, we state with great authority that our own church traditions, based on Constantine’s paganism, has a higher standing before God than His own instructions to Israel and apostolic practices.

As you may have also noted from your studies, the baptizer did not actually touch the individual undergoing baptism. He was a witness to ensure that the immersion was complete. The actual act was “self performed” before the witness. Baptism was done in the name of the witness. When we baptize, it is into the name of Jesus, by His authority, and we are standing as witnesses that the person being baptized is taking on the name of Jesus - as well as entering into a spiritual convent with God.

It has been estimated that the baptism of the 3,000 on the day of Pentecost took less than three hours to complete. The baptismal pools, estimated to be 4-5 in number, were built directly over or fed by local springs outside the temple walls. Which, by the way, contributed to selecting the temple site.

As to the spiritual reason(s) for undergoing this act: there are two.

The first is conversion. Being baptized is the spiritual cleansing from the impurities of this world (body and clothes), and being made ready for entering into a covenant with God. This was a requirement at Mt. Sinai as well as at Jerusalem on Pentecost. Whenever entering into a covenant with God, teviláh, a ceremonial rite, is required. This is why it was required of Jesus to be baptized in the presence of John the Baptist. The witness who was sent before the Messiah to prepare the hearts and minds of the people and to confirm Him.

The second reason is to cleans, purify, and make ready the bride for the groom. It is part of the marriage ceremony. Pastor Robert Allon’s teaching “Fire of the Alter” is an excellent reference source. Also see Beit Avanim Chaiot teaching by Rabbi Richard Pustelniak Doctrine of Ceremonial Immersions (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/beit_avanim_chaiot/Messiah101-Immersion.htm)

When the Hebrews washed them selves and their clothing prior to receiving the Torah and taking on the name of God, they completed both the conversion and the bridal requirement for purification. When the Jews underwent the purification of a wife, as well as conversion into a new covenant. Later, we Gentiles did the same thing, converting to a sect of Judaism and undergoing a major step in the marriage ceremony.

There is also a doctrinal conflict here that should be brought to everyone’s attention.

We say that ceremonial laws have been done away with and that only moral laws are still required of Christians (do not kill, lie, steal, commit adultery, etc.) . Yet, the ceremonial law of baptism, commanded of the Jews by God prior to the giving of The Law at Mt. Sinai, was still practiced after the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). And, because of the location and the numbers being baptized on Pentecost, this must have been carried out in the temple mikvah pools. We must also keep in mind that all of the initial church members continued to follow the traditions and customs of their fathers. For example, see Acts 16:1-3, 21:26 & 28:17-18. A question for a later investigation: What other “ceremonial laws” do we Gentile and Jewish believers still observe? Are there any others? If so, is there a different list for the different groups?

There are a number of versions of these different points, but this seems to be the general meaning.

** to be continued **

If desired - we can cover each of the obove points in detail from both a historical cultural, as well as a scriptural point of view, or each of us can continue working through all of the reference material.

[Encryptus]

Trusting that at least a few folks actually did their homework over the week end and researched the material provided by Sam and I, it should be clear as to why I thought it better to endure a personal critique, than to just drop a lot of concepts concerning baptisms that are foreign to the majority of us. The danger is, that by the very nature of such an investigation, it also brings into question the assumed “infallibility” of our religious doctrines,upon which many of us have based our salvation.

Therefore, this kind of exercise is not generally looked upon too kindly by a large number of folks. Even so, is there anyone willing to share what they found in their studies before I contribute a few thoughts?

Sorry my new friend, just made it back into town, will be adding a couple more this week if not already overloaded. LOL

[A.W. Bowman]

To complete the general historical notes, the following is presented to indicate the when and were the major shift in baptism occured from the Hebrew perspective to the Roman perspective.

-----------------------------

CYRIL OF JERUSELEM: 387 A.D.

My introduction notes:

The Bishop of Jerusalem and Doctor of the Church [Cyril], born about 315; died probably 18 March, 386. In the East his feast is observed on the 18th of March, in the West on the 18th or 20th. Little is known of his life.

A few points may be noted. The mythical origin of the Septuagint is told, and the story of the phoenix, so popular from Clement onwards. The description of Mass speaks of the mystical washing of the priest's hands, the kiss of peace, the "Sursum Corda", etc., and the Preface with its mention of the angels, the Sanctus, the Epiclesis, the transmutation of the elements by the Holy Ghost, the prayer for the whole Church and for the spirits of the departed, followed by the Paternoster, which is briefly explained.

Written by John Chapman. Transcribed by Mike Humphrey.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IV. Published 1908. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York


It should also be noted that the Bishops of Jerusalem were all hand picked by the Roman Church from about 300 –350 AD onward. Messianic Jews, along with their teaching (writings), customs and traditions (e.g. calendar) were being purged from the church and the term “Christ Killers” was first employed, Sunday was established as the church sabbath, Sunday was picked as the annual celebration for “Easter”, and other such edicts made. Notes from cited portions of Ecclesiastic History of Pamphilus Eusebius.

The Church and the Jews, The Biblical Relationship by Dan Gruber, Elijah Publishing, Hanover, NH, 1997
---------------------------

From what we can deduce from Article 1, and from the Jewish documents concerning mikvah and teviláh, Rome had already progressed a long way from its Jewish Roots.

--------------------------

BAPTISM. (ON THE MYSTERIES. II.) OF BAPTISM. ROMANS vi. 3--14.


Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into His death? &'c. .... for ye are not under the Law, but under grace.

1. THESE daily introductions into the Mysteries, and new instructions, which are the an-nouncements of new truths, are profitable to us; and most of all to you, who have been re-newed from an old state to a new. Therefore, I shall necessarily lay before you the sequel of yesterday's Lecture, that ye may learn of what those things, which were done by you in the inner chamber, were symbolical.

2. As soon, then, as ye entered, ye put off your tunic; and this was an image of putting off the old man with his deeds

(3). Having stripped yourselves, ye were naked; in this also imitating Christ, who was stripped naked on the Cross, and by His nakedness put off from Himself the principalities and powers, and openly triumphed over them on the tree.

(4) For since the adverse powers made their lair in your members, ye may no longer wear that old garment; I do not at all mean this visible one, but the aid man, which waxeth corrupt in the lusts of deceit.

(5) May the soul which has once put him off, never again put him on, but say with the Spouse of Christ in the Song of Songs, I have put off my garment, how shall I put it on?

(6) O wondrous thing! ye were naked in the sight of all, and were not ashamed;

(7) for truly ye bore the likeness of the first-formed Adam, who was naked in the garden, and was not ashamed. Then, when ye were stripped, ye were anointed with exorcised oil,

(8) from the very hairs of your head to your feet, and were made partakers of the good ol-ive-tree, Jesus Christ. For ye were cut off from the wild olive-tree,

(9) and grafted into the good one, and were made to share the fatness of the true olive-tree. The exorcised oil therefore was a symbol of the participation of the fatness of Christ, being a charm to drive away every trace of hostile influence. For as the breathing of the saints, and the invocation of the Name of God, like fiercest flame, scorch and drive out evil spirits,

(10) so also this exorcised oil receives such virtue by the invocation of God and by prayer, as not only to burn and cleanse away the traces of sins, but also to chase away all the invisi-ble powers of the evil one.

(11) After these things, ye were led to the holy pool of Divine Baptism, as Christ was car-ried from the Cross to the Sepulchre which is before our eyes And each of you was asked, whether he believed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and ye made that saving confession, and descended three times into the water, and ascended again; here also hinting by a symbol at the three days burial of Christ.

(12) For as our Saviour passed three days and three nights in the heart of the earth, so you also in your first ascent out of the water, represented the first day of Christ in the earth, and by your descent, the night; for as he who is in the night, no longer sees, but he who is in the day, remains in the light, so in the descent, as in the night, ye saw nothing, but in ascending again ye were as in the day. And at the self-same moment ye were both dying and being born; and that Water of salvation was at once your grave and your mother. And what Solo-mon spoke of others will suit you also; for he said, in that case, There is a time to bear and a time to die,

(13) but to you, in the reverse order, there was a time to die and a time to be born; and one and the same time effected both of these, and your birth went hand in hand with your death.

(14) O strange and inconceivable thing! we did not really die, we were not really buried, we were not really crucified and raised again; but our imitation was in a figure, and our salva-tion in reality. Christ was actually crucified, and actually buried, and truly rose again; and all these things He has freely bestowed upon us, that we, sharing His sufferings by imitation, might gain salvation in reality. O surpassing loving-kindness! Christ received nails in His undefiled hands and feet, and suffered anguish; while on me without pain or toil by the fel-lowship of His suffering He freely bestows salvation.

(15) Let no one then suppose that Baptism is merely the grace of remission of sins, or fur-ther, that of adoption; as John's was a baptism conferring only remission of sins: whereas we know full well, that as it purges our sins, and ministers to us the gift of the Holy Ghost, so also it is the counterpart of the sufferings of Christ. For this cause Paul just now cried aloud and said, Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus, were baptized into His death? We were buried therefore with Him by baptism into His death.

(16) These words he spoke to some who were disposed to think that Baptism ministers to us the remission of sins, and adoption, but has not further the fellowship also, by represen-tation, of Christ's true sufferings.

[A.W. Bowman]

Note the position of the Bishop of Jerusalem concerning Jewish scripture:

"A few points may be noted. The mythical origin of the Septuagint is told, and the story of the phoenix, so popular from Clement onwards. The description of Mass speaks of the mystical washing of the priest's hands, the kiss of peace, the "Sursum Corda", etc., and the Preface with its mention of the angels, the Sanctus, the Epiclesis, the transmutation of the elements by the Holy Ghost, the prayer for the whole Church and for the spirits of the departed, followed by the Paternoster, which is briefly explained."

AND

"THESE daily introductions into the Mysteries, and new instructions, which are the an-nouncements of new truths, are profitable to us; and most of all to you, who have been re-newed from an old state to a new."

These so-called new ways and new truths were famous during the first 500 years. Most of these "new" truths are still alive and well today in the Christian church - even ours.

[A.W. Bowman]

A final note:

There seems to a vacuum in today's church concerning the fundamentals that were referenced in the book of Hebrews 6:1-4, just as it was back then. Everyone thinks "they have it". Yet, when I started looking into these "fundamentals",it became apparent that non of us really had a lock of the real fundamental principles of our faith. This conclusion is based on everyone I talked to could not give me a coherent Messianic/Jewish perspective on these same subjects. All I could get were warmed over Roman Church perspectives.

We seem to have a lot of doctrine and we have our traditions, but there seems to be little in the way of understanding. So, when I noticed that I knew a lot of this that were not so, I started really studying the fundamentals from the perspective of the Jewish religion, culture, world view, history and language. That was when I decided to become knowledgeable in the Jewish roots of the Christian religion.

Some of what I found required me to change my perspective on a number of so-called Apostolic doctrines. For example, when I discovered that there was no such thing as a Godhead it came as a theological shock. Then, to come to the realization that there never has been and that there never will be a Godhead, it was even more of a shock. Conclusion: All arguments that center on or over Godhead issues are arguments over nothing, and such exercises can only create false divisions between believers. Now that, is what I call a waste!

For those who have not studied, examined, and evaluated the reference material supplied, and the additional provided in the above couple of posts, then most likely there will be no change in understanding or questioning of accepted church dogma. I respect that decision, and will not push the issue on these boards. On the other hand, if there is an interest, send me a PM or email, and we can continue the discussions off line.

Final comment:

My purpose is NOT to persuade anyone to change or modify any beliefs, doctrines, or theological positions. What I am interested in, however, is for each individual who is interested, to conduct their own investigations and draw their own conclusions.

Shalom Aleichem