View Full Version : Accepting Him or Rejecting Him; Jesus Name Baptism and Pentecostal Trinity Churches
stmatthew
03-04-2007, 10:24 AM
The bible says very specifically that those that are "led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God"(Rom 8:14). It also says that this Holy Ghost will "guide you into all truth" (John 16:13). I think most of us here agree that the correct method of baptizing in water is "in the Name of Jesus Christ". This is what makes us Apostolic, and separates us from others that claim the Pentecostal experience.
So why is it that most Pentecostal trinitarian churches reject water baptism in Jesus Name? Are they refusing to be led by the Spirit into all truth. Why is it that this fundamental, foundational doctrine is not being accepted by these that have received the Spirit?
Will God accept them if they do not follow the leading of the Spirit and accept the truth of water Baptism in Jesus Name?
whollyHis
03-04-2007, 11:24 AM
St. Matt...I was lying in bed last night, thinking about this forum, and all of the conversations about the doctrine that have been presented,and I asked myself the question, "Why NOT be baptized in Jesus Name??" Folks will do everything else in His name- why wouldn't they want to be baptized in His name? I cannot fathom NOT desiring to have His name applied to my life. Is it because that's all I've ever known, or been taught?
Do other churches preach or teach the name of Jesus at all?? I have only been to a Church of God service one time, Apostolic church is all I know...:dunno
mizpeh
03-04-2007, 11:38 AM
St. Matt...I was lying in bed last night, thinking about this forum, and all of the conversations about the doctrine that have been presented,and I asked myself the question, "Why NOT be baptized in Jesus Name??" Folks will do everything else in His name- why wouldn't they want to be baptized in His name? I cannot fathom NOT desiring to have His name applied to my life. Is it because that's all I've ever known, or been taught?
Do other churches preach or teach the name of Jesus at all?? I have only been to a Church of God service one time, Apostolic church is all I know...:dunno
I wasn't raised apostlic. I was Catholic and then an atheist. When God opened my eyes to his existence as the God of the Bible, I searched to see if what was being taught was true. Jesus' name baptism is truth. It is more clear than the initial evidence of tongues doctrine. Those who don't accept it are holding onto their traditions (it's hard to admit all those who have gone before them were wrong) and not obeying the word of God. :ranting
stmatthew
03-04-2007, 03:42 PM
I wasn't raised apostlic. I was Catholic and then an atheist. When God opened my eyes to his existence as the God of the Bible, I searched to see if what was being taught was true. Jesus' name baptism is truth. It is more clear than the initial evidence of tongues doctrine. Those who don't accept it are holding onto their traditions (it's hard to admit all those who have gone before them were wrong) and not obeying the word of God. :ranting
good post
ManOfWord
03-04-2007, 03:57 PM
From my experience with folks of the "trinitarian" persuasion, they don't see the difference. I think it is sincere ignorance for the most part. I have also had quite few folks who didn't have a clue as to what was said over them at their baptism or they automatically believed that they were baptized in Jesus' name.
I know in some places it is outright rejected, but I really don't think it is the majority.
seguidordejesus
03-04-2007, 06:01 PM
I've known of quite a few trinitarian churches who baptize in Jesus' name, actually.
I've known of quite a few trinitarian churches who baptize in Jesus' name, actually.
me too.
BoredOutOfMyMind
03-04-2007, 06:18 PM
Well do we need then to examine again Pentecost prior to Arroyo Seco?
Or do we really only have roots to 1910's?
seguidordejesus
03-04-2007, 06:20 PM
A story about one of them in Jackson, MS:
I noticed a church van with an Acts 2:38 bumper sticker on it, and I didn't recognize the name. However, I worked for a pizza place that delivered in that area of town, so the next Friday night, I happened to pass by and they were having some sort of choir practice or something, so I stopped by on the way back to the store (yeah yeah, I was on the clock). I was talking to some ladies outside and told them I noticed their bumper sticker and got a bunch of praise the lords...then I asked if they believed in the trinity and got another chorus of rambunctious amens! LOL Anyway, talked for a few more minutes and had to go back to work...
Good times!
Steve Epley
03-04-2007, 10:08 PM
I've known of quite a few trinitarian churches who baptize in Jesus' name, actually.
I don't know any.
Hoovie
03-04-2007, 10:12 PM
The bible says very specifically that those that are "led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God"(Rom 8:14). It also says that this Holy Ghost will "guide you into all truth" (John 16:13). I think most of us here agree that the correct method of baptizing in water is "in the Name of Jesus Christ". This is what makes us Apostolic, and separates us from others that claim the Pentecostal experience.
So why is it that most Pentecostal trinitarian churches reject water baptism in Jesus Name? Are they refusing to be led by the Spirit into all truth. Why is it that this fundamental, foundational doctrine is not being accepted by these that have received the Spirit?
Will God accept them if they do not follow the leading of the Spirit and accept the truth of water Baptism in Jesus Name?
Most of the Trinitarian Pentecostals I have discussed this with will say they do actually involk the name of Jesus in the baptismal ceremony - and make it clear at the time of baptism, that the event is taking place because Jesus has transformed yet another life.
While they simply recite the words of Jesus at the exact moment of the baptism, they seem to leave no doubt that it is in Jesus the transforming power rests.
Steve Epley
03-04-2007, 10:15 PM
Most of the Trinitarian Pentecostals I have discussed this with will say they do actually involk the name of Jesus in the baptismal ceremony - and make it clear at the time of baptism, that the event is taking place because Jesus has transformed yet another life.
While they simply recite the words of Jesus at the exact moment of the baptism, they seem to leave no doubt that it is in Jesus the transforming power rests.
Have you read any of their articles of faith NONE of them expouse this and most of them would not give you license if you did. I do NOT know ONE Trinitarian preacher that baptizes in Jesus Name and I know a few folk.
Have you read any of their articles of faith NONE of them expouse this and most of them would not give you license if you did. I do NOT know ONE Trinitarian preacher that baptizes in Jesus Name and I know a few folk.
Hence ... it's law???
Steve Epley
03-04-2007, 10:29 PM
Hence ... it's law???
I do NOT believe the
Assembly of Gods
Church of Gods( all the root and branches)
Foursquare
Pentecostal Church of God
Pentecostal Holiness Church
Church of God in Christ
Vineyard
Calvary Chapels
would give a preacher license if he insisted that he would baptize in Jesus Name.
Have you read any of their articles of faith NONE of them expouse this and most of them would not give you license if you did. I do NOT know ONE Trinitarian preacher that baptizes in Jesus Name and I know a few folk.
This remark is from the 1960. My father John A Eckstadt, was an Assembly of God liscensed minister. My mom was also a liscenses AOG minister.
They both Went to Zion Bible College in Rhode Island AOG.
My dad received the revelation of the Oneness and was re-baptized in 1961 in New Brunswick, Canada.
My mom then was re-baptized in NB a few months later.
Upon revealing this to the general board of the AOG.
He was summoned to Head Quarters for reprimand.
After the meeting many of them told him they were baptized in Jesus name to be safe.
He went back to Bristol, Conn where a few years earlier he had converted 2 UPCI Churches from the Oneness to Trinity.
He then converted them both back and his church to Oneness.
The rest is history until he passed in 1978.
Both my Uncles Rev John Laun an older evengelist in the UPCI and my mom's brother were both former AOG ministers.
They have were bapitzed in JN.
My Mom's brother lives in Springfield, MO headquarters city of the AOG.
She recently went to visit the retirement home of retired AOG ministers.
She went to visit some old schoolmates, some retired ministers some ministers wives.
She sat next to one man, who was a student who graudated a few years before her.
He asked her what she did during all those years ago.
He was one of her teachers in the 1950's.
He remember my Dad as being a genius on the Scriptures.
After talking about the UPCI, he commented Evelyn....You would be amazed who at college and over the years still reside in the AOG, but believe in the Oneness and have been Baptized in Jesus Name.
Thought this might be interesting.
Nathan Eckstadt
Steve Epley
03-04-2007, 10:47 PM
This remark is from the 1960. My father John A Eckstadt, was an Assembly of God liscensed minister. My mom was also a liscenses AOG minister.
They both Went to Zion Bible College in Rhode Island AOG.
My dad received the revelation of the Oneness and was re-baptized in 1961 in New Brunswick, Canada.
My mom then was re-baptized in NB a few months later.
Upon revealing this to the general board of the AOG.
He was summoned to Head Quarters for reprimand.
After the meeting many of them told him they were baptized in Jesus name to be safe.
He went back to Bristol, Conn where a few years earlier he had converted 2 UPCI Churches from the Oneness to Trinity.
He then converted them both back and his church to Oneness.
The rest is history until he passed in 1978.
Both my Uncles Rev John Laun an older evengelist in the UPCI and my mom's brother were both former AOG ministers.
They have were bapitzed in JN.
My Mom's brother lives in Springfield, MO headquarters city of the AOG.
She recently went to visit the retirement home of retired AOG ministers.
She went to visit some old schoolmates, some retired ministers some ministers wives.
She sat next to one man, who was a student who graudated a few years before her.
He asked her what she did during all those years ago.
He was one of her teachers in the 1950's.
He remember my Dad as being a genius on the Scriptures.
After talking about the UPCI, he commented Evelyn....You would be amazed who at college and over the years still reside in the AOG, but believe in the Oneness and have been Baptized in Jesus Name.
Thought this might be interesting.
Nathan Eckstadt
Have you read the AG's articles of faith. When Charisma ran that article that caused such a furor a couple of years back it was the AG huncho that said they would NOT fellowship Oneness folks unitl they denied this heresy. He had more guts than the two Oneness guys interveiwed.
BoredOutOfMyMind
03-05-2007, 12:51 AM
This remark is from the 1960. My father John A Eckstadt, was an Assembly of God liscensed minister. My mom was also a liscenses AOG minister.
They both Went to Zion Bible College in Rhode Island AOG.
I can tell you first hand that Zion DID NOT welcome the UPC message with open arms at all. Three Districts used to rent the Zion campus for campmeetings. They were concurrent for Central New England (then MA-RI), Connecticut, and New York Metro being there in what must be maybe 96-2000.
Jekyll
03-05-2007, 12:59 AM
It is meant to be a polarizing event along with denying missionaries and officials to speak in tongues...
Truth distinguishes itself even though some try to push it into a little corner
chosenbyone
03-05-2007, 06:07 AM
Several years ago, I was giving a bible study to a lady I met through work who attended Lakewood Church. She saw the need to follow the plan of salvation and she became concerned about how she was baptized. She called Lakewood and she was told that they baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost in Jesus name. I guess they wanted to cover all the bases.
Steve Epley
03-05-2007, 08:14 AM
People are delusional if they think these so-called Trinitarian Pentecostal groups do not care how you baptize.
I contend there is NOT one group that would license a preacher who told them they believed in the Oneness of God and they insisted on baptizing in Jesus Name.
People are so hungry to erase the line of distinction the are living in lulu land.
If they find a RARE case they shout it from the housetop but most of the time when investigated it is NOTHING like the story the preacher was either misquoted or maybe will baptize someone in Jesus Name if the convert insists.
Then they listen to hear them say ONE word that may sound a little like Oneness and go claim hey they believe in One God. The foolishness of this is astounding. It looks like after decades of this foolishness people would tire of this.
AGAPE
03-05-2007, 08:21 AM
A trinitarian preacher told me that when people insist that he baptize them in Jesus Name that he says "in the titles Father,Son,and Holy Spirit" under his breath
Steve Epley
03-05-2007, 08:42 AM
I heard A. A. Allen say one time I baptize in the name of the F. S. HG. and for those who insist in Jesus Name.:highfive
The bible says very specifically that those that are "led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God"(Rom 8:14). It also says that this Holy Ghost will "guide you into all truth" (John 16:13). I think most of us here agree that the correct method of baptizing in water is "in the Name of Jesus Christ". This is what makes us Apostolic, and separates us from others that claim the Pentecostal experience.
So why is it that most Pentecostal trinitarian churches reject water baptism in Jesus Name? Are they refusing to be led by the Spirit into all truth. Why is it that this fundamental, foundational doctrine is not being accepted by these that have received the Spirit?
Will God accept them if they do not follow the leading of the Spirit and accept the truth of water Baptism in Jesus Name?I think much of the reason why they reject the Apostolic belief regarding baptism (notice I didn't say "the truth of water baptism in Jesus' name") is because Matthew 28:19 gives a specific command to baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." For them, this command is consistent with their trinitarian doctrine. Another reason why they might not be inclined to accept Jesus'-name baptism is because of what they believe to be the error of the oneness or "Jesus only" churches.
Felicity
03-05-2007, 09:47 AM
I think much of the reason why they reject the Apostolic belief regarding baptism (notice I didn't say "the truth of water baptism in Jesus' name") is because Matthew 28:19 gives a specific command to baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." For them, this command is consistent with their trinitarian doctrine. Another reason why they might not be inclined to accept Jesus'-name baptism is because of what they believe to be the error of the oneness or "Jesus only" churches.Yes, I agree.
sola gratia
03-06-2007, 02:13 PM
:killinme
Praxeas
03-06-2007, 02:16 PM
I know of a Trinitarian who was baptized in Jesus name. He was given that option in an AOG church. He was raised AOG.
BTW I just don't get into the discussions of who is saved or not saved or know knows Jesus etc etc...my saying someone is not saved has never convinced someone to be saved or to be baptized in Jesus name. They can only accept or reject what the word of God says and thus it is only important for us to properly present the word of God and let the chips fall where they may, so to speak
ThePastorsCoach
03-06-2007, 02:41 PM
People are delusional if they think these so-called Trinitarian Pentecostal groups do not care how you baptize.
I contend there is NOT one group that would license a preacher who told them they believed in the Oneness of God and they insisted on baptizing in Jesus Name.
People are so hungry to erase the line of distinction the are living in lulu land.
If they find a RARE case they shout it from the housetop but most of the time when investigated it is NOTHING like the story the preacher was either misquoted or maybe will baptize someone in Jesus Name if the convert insists.
Then they listen to hear them say ONE word that may sound a little like Oneness and go claim hey they believe in One God. The foolishness of this is astounding. It looks like after decades of this foolishness people would tire of this.
Elder - I always laugh so hard when I read your posts. I think that our passion sometimes gets us both in trouble - I try to stay away from here to keep my blood pressure down! LOL
As you know - I continue to preach in a lot of "Trinity" Pentecostal churches. It is funny at times when I tell them that I was UPC at one time - then they work hard at impressing me with saying - well - I have baptized people in Jesus Name! Most everyone of them are proud of the fact that if someone insist on being baptized in Jesus name - that they will honor their request.
Sad to say - You are correct about this - there is a much larger gap than most of us realize. When we go among them - (as Mark Hanby says "They are Mixed Seed") - they will at times - tolerate us - but they certainly do not celebrate us!
Pragmatist
03-06-2007, 03:52 PM
I attended an Assembly of God church for a time when I was in college. One of my friends was baptized and the youth pastor used Acts 2:38 as his scripture reference and then baptized in the titles and said something like because that was how the organization did it.
Praxeas
03-06-2007, 05:07 PM
I attended an Assembly of God church for a time when I was in college. One of my friends was baptized and the youth pastor used Acts 2:38 as his scripture reference and then baptized in the titles and said something like because that was how the organization did it.
That's what they do in the CoC.. Acts 2:38 is one of their favorite verses because they believe in baptismal regeneration, but deny oneness, baptism in Jesus name and some even say tongues is of the devil
Theophilus
03-06-2007, 05:41 PM
I think much of the reason why they reject the Apostolic belief regarding baptism (notice I didn't say "the truth of water baptism in Jesus' name") is because Matthew 28:19 gives a specific command to baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." For them, this command is consistent with their trinitarian doctrine. Another reason why they might not be inclined to accept Jesus'-name baptism is because of what they believe to be the error of the oneness or "Jesus only" churches.
This works great...if you chuck the rest of scripture. Who's looking?
Felicity
03-06-2007, 08:03 PM
This works great...if you chuck the rest of scripture. Who's looking?Of course there's the rest of scripture. Just saying that this is the way many trinitarians look at it --- not that they're right. It's so clear how the apostles baptized.
Tradition is very very powerful thing and going against the status quo is difficult when you're in the "system".
crakjak
03-06-2007, 09:44 PM
St. Matt...I was lying in bed last night, thinking about this forum, and all of the conversations about the doctrine that have been presented,and I asked myself the question, "Why NOT be baptized in Jesus Name??" Folks will do everything else in His name- why wouldn't they want to be baptized in His name? I cannot fathom NOT desiring to have His name applied to my life. Is it because that's all I've ever known, or been taught?
Do other churches preach or teach the name of Jesus at all?? I have only been to a Church of God service one time, Apostolic church is all I know...:dunno
Other churches do preach and teach the name of Jesus, they just believe they take on His name when they confess in faith Him as Saviour. They pray to the Father in Jesus Name as scripture instructs, they just don't interpret scripture as OP's do. Many of them believe what they believe just as fervently as OP's believe what they believe, however most will not reject you as a brother or sister in Christ just because they disagree doctrinely. Why not accept them as brothers and sisters, then trust the Holy Spirit to complete anything that is lacking in them?
Have you read the AG's articles of faith. When Charisma ran that article that caused such a furor a couple of years back it was the AG huncho that said they would NOT fellowship Oneness folks unitl they denied this heresy. He had more guts than the two Oneness guys interveiwed.
I do remember those statements. But remember that they had their officals we had ours. The ministers in an organization do not always subscribe to the manual.
I can tell you first hand that Zion DID NOT welcome the UPC message with open arms at all. Three Districts used to rent the Zion campus for campmeetings. They were concurrent for Central New England (then MA-RI), Connecticut, and New York Metro being there in what must be maybe 96-2000.
I agree with that statment. I was only sharing that there were some men that were baptized in secret. There were teachers there that believed the message.
My Dad and Mom found the oneness revleation after leaving Zion.
Just wanted to share that there were some who believed.
SHe has run into many students from the 50's who turned Oneness in UPCI and other Oneness org's as church members.
Nathan Eckstadt
Theophilus
03-07-2007, 01:23 AM
Of course there's the rest of scripture. Just saying that this is the way many trinitarians look at it --- not that they're right. It's so clear how the apostles baptized.
Tradition is very very powerful thing and going against the status quo is difficult when you're in the "system".
If you take a closer look at the heretical post, then you'll see why the comment was made. Chan superciliously defends his many modified tritheistic heresies with a familiar craftiness and subtle deception. Notice the supposed clever nuance of referring to trinitarians in the third person, though he is one. See Chan's homepage (http://www.newlifeassemblyonline.com/)
I believe that it was that deception that threw you off.
It reminds me of some of the dialogue that I read from that book I shared with you the other evening. BTW, PM me if you are really interested in one. :waving
Brother Price
03-07-2007, 05:35 AM
Other churches do preach and teach the name of Jesus, they just believe they take on His name when they confess in faith Him as Saviour. They pray to the Father in Jesus Name as scripture instructs, they just don't interpret scripture as OP's do. Many of them believe what they believe just as fervently as OP's believe what they believe, however most will not reject you as a brother or sister in Christ just because they disagree doctrinely. Why not accept them as brothers and sisters, then trust the Holy Spirit to complete anything that is lacking in them?
Because their Jesus is not my Jesus. They deny Jesus is the Father. They deny Jesus is the Holy Ghost. In so doing, they have made another Jesus than that of the Bible. In order to be a brother, they must have the same Father, and they do not have my Father. They may say I am their brother, but I do not call them mine, because of the scriptures, as found in 2John 1:10-11, "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him Godspeed: For he that biddeth him Godspeed is partaker of his evil deeds."
They can be fervant in their beliefs, and still be fervantly wrong. Trinitarians are not my brothers or sisters. They have a different God. One other thing to mention on this. John 8:24 says this, "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." Notice ion the King James that the word 'he' is in italics. It was added for clarity. But, the original says that unless one believes Jesus is the I AM, which means unless a soul believes Jesus Christ is God and God alone, then cannot be saved. Only God can forgive sins, and only God can save the soul.
sola gratia
03-07-2007, 08:29 AM
Because their Jesus is not my Jesus. They deny Jesus is the Father. They deny Jesus is the Holy Ghost. In so doing, they have made another Jesus than that of the Bible. In order to be a brother, they must have the same Father, and they do not have my Father. They may say I am their brother, but I do not call them mine, because of the scriptures, as found in 2John 1:10-11, "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him Godspeed: For he that biddeth him Godspeed is partaker of his evil deeds."
They can be fervant in their beliefs, and still be fervantly wrong. Trinitarians are not my brothers or sisters. They have a different God. One other thing to mention on this. John 8:24 says this, "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." Notice ion the King James that the word 'he' is in italics. It was added for clarity. But, the original says that unless one believes Jesus is the I AM, which means unless a soul believes Jesus Christ is God and God alone, then cannot be saved. Only God can forgive sins, and only God can save the soul.
Gee can I quote you on this?
crakjak
03-07-2007, 08:31 AM
Because their Jesus is not my Jesus. They deny Jesus is the Father. They deny Jesus is the Holy Ghost. In so doing, they have made another Jesus than that of the Bible. In order to be a brother, they must have the same Father, and they do not have my Father. They may say I am their brother, but I do not call them mine, because of the scriptures, as found in 2John 1:10-11, "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him Godspeed: For he that biddeth him Godspeed is partaker of his evil deeds."
They can be fervant in their beliefs, and still be fervantly wrong. Trinitarians are not my brothers or sisters. They have a different God. One other thing to mention on this. John 8:24 says this, "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." Notice ion the King James that the word 'he' is in italics. It was added for clarity. But, the original says that unless one believes Jesus is the I AM, which means unless a soul believes Jesus Christ is God and God alone, then cannot be saved. Only God can forgive sins, and only God can save the soul.
What doctrine is John speaking of? He is specifically speaking of the doctrine that Jesus The Christ has come in the flesh, the doctrine that the messiah has come. You are super-imposing your interruption into the context. Trinitarians do believe that Jesus is He that has come in the flesh. I am not trinitarian, but I will defend folks that I know are true believers in Jesus Christ.
sola gratia
03-07-2007, 09:31 AM
Brother Price cannot defend his own position so I would not be to concerned about it - it is sad to think that some think in this manner
Felicity
03-09-2007, 09:59 AM
If you take a closer look at the heretical post, then you'll see why the comment was made. Chan superciliously defends his many modified tritheistic heresies with a familiar craftiness and subtle deception. Notice the supposed clever nuance of referring to trinitarians in the third person, though he is one. See Chan's homepage (http://www.newlifeassemblyonline.com/)
I believe that it was that deception that threw you off.
It reminds me of some of the dialogue that I read from that book I shared with you the other evening. BTW, PM me if you are really interested in one. :wavingI thought of the same conversation when I read that but I don't really think I was thrown off. He may or may not be trinitarian but I've spoken with trinitarians (so-called) who use some of the same arguments.
I am and I will. :)
This works great...if you chuck the rest of scripture. Who's looking?Your system works great if you chuck Jesus' own words.
Because their Jesus is not my Jesus. They deny Jesus is the Father. They deny Jesus is the Holy Ghost. In so doing, they have made another Jesus than that of the Bible. In order to be a brother, they must have the same Father, and they do not have my Father. They may say I am their brother, but I do not call them mine, because of the scriptures, as found in 2John 1:10-11, "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him Godspeed: For he that biddeth him Godspeed is partaker of his evil deeds."
They can be fervant in their beliefs, and still be fervantly wrong. Trinitarians are not my brothers or sisters. They have a different God. One other thing to mention on this. John 8:24 says this, "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." Notice ion the King James that the word 'he' is in italics. It was added for clarity. But, the original says that unless one believes Jesus is the I AM, which means unless a soul believes Jesus Christ is God and God alone, then cannot be saved. Only God can forgive sins, and only God can save the soul.Show me where the BIBLE says the Father's name is Jesus! Show me where the BIBLE says the Holy Ghost's name is Jesus! The name Jesus was given ONLY to God's only begotten Son and, thus, applies ONLY to Jesus' humanity.
If you believe that Jesus is His own Father, then you are an atheist! The BIBLE is clear that Jesus is the name given only to the MAN Christ Jesus: you know full well that Jesus (as a human being) didn't father Himself. Jesus is the name given to God's only begotten Son and, thus, the One with the name had a beginning. Since GOD is without beginning or end, you cannot claim that Jesus is His own Father since Jesus was begotten (fathered).
sola gratia
03-14-2007, 08:46 AM
amen!
Steve Epley
03-14-2007, 10:07 AM
Show me where the BIBLE says the Father's name is Jesus! Show me where the BIBLE says the Holy Ghost's name is Jesus! The name Jesus was given ONLY to God's only begotten Son and, thus, applies ONLY to Jesus' humanity.
If you believe that Jesus is His own Father, then you are an atheist! The BIBLE is clear that Jesus is the name given only to the MAN Christ Jesus: you know full well that Jesus (as a human being) didn't father Himself. Jesus is the name given to God's only begotten Son and, thus, the One with the name had a beginning. Since GOD is without beginning or end, you cannot claim that Jesus is His own Father since Jesus was begotten (fathered).
He inherited his Father's name. Heb. 1:4
There is ONE God and His Name ONE. Zech. 14:7
If the Father has another name it is inferior Jesus is the Name ABOVE every name. Phil.2:9
If the Father or Holy Ghost separate names there is NO salvation in them. Acts 4:12
Why wasn't their names preached in Acts?????????????????
You know this is the goofiest I have heard.
He inherited his Father's name. Heb. 1:4
There is ONE God and His Name ONE. Zech. 14:7
If the Father has another name it is inferior Jesus is the Name ABOVE every name. Phil.2:9
If the Father or Holy Ghost separate names there is NO salvation in them. Acts 4:12
Why wasn't their names preached in Acts?????????????????
You know this is the goofiest I have heard.Hebrews 1:4 does not say He inherited His Father's name, it says He inherited a name that is more excellent than that of the angels. You really should learn how to read the Bible instead of reading into the Bible.
As for one God, even Trinitarians believe in one God. As for Zechariah 14:7, it says, "But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light." You really meant Zechariah 14:9, "And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one." It doesn't say that "There is ONE God and His Name ONE," it says that "in that day" (referring to the last days) the LORD (YHVH) will be (FUTURE EVENT) king over all the earth, that there will be (FUTURE EVENT) one YHVH and that His name will be (FUTURE EVENT) one. Again, you really need to try reading God's word instead of reading into it. Why would there be a need for the prophet to tell us the words of that passage as a future event if it was what was already reality?
As for Philippians 2:9, the Father is obviously exempted just as Paul in another passage said that He is exempted from all things being put under subjection to Christ.
GOD has a name and His only begotten Son has a name. There is not one name for God's fatherhood, another for His outpouring of Himself, another for His holiness, another for this or that attribute of God.
God's name was not preached in Acts, the name of His only begotten Son was preached.
Show me where the BIBLE says the Father's name is Jesus!
John 17:6
I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world:
The name Jesus was given ONLY to God's only begotten Son and, thus, applies ONLY to Jesus' humanity.But, since I believe that the Son IS the Father manifested in flesh, then the revelatory name of the Father in the NT is Jesus Christ.
Jehovah (commonly referred to [even by trinitarians] as the Father) became salvation in the Son. Jehovah-Savior. Jesus Christ. (See also Isaiah 12)
John 17:6
I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world:This does not say that the Father's name is Jesus.
But, since I believe that the Son IS the Father manifested in flesh, then the revelatory name of the Father in the NT is Jesus Christ. This is heresy! The Bible says that Jesus is GOD manifest in the flesh, not God's fatherhood manifest in the flesh.
Jehovah (commonly referred to [even by trinitarians] as the Father) became salvation in the Son. Jehovah-Savior. Jesus Christ. (See also Isaiah 12)Father is not a name, it's a title. It was not God's fatherhood that became salvation, it was God that became salvation.
Steve Epley
03-14-2007, 10:53 AM
Hebrews 1:4 does not say He inherited His Father's name, it says He inherited a name that is more excellent than that of the angels. You really should learn how to read the Bible instead of reading into the Bible.
As for one God, even Trinitarians believe in one God. As for Zechariah 14:7, it says, "But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light." You really meant Zechariah 14:9, "And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one." It doesn't say that "There is ONE God and His Name ONE," it says that "in that day" (referring to the last days) the LORD (YHVH) will be (FUTURE EVENT) king over all the earth, that there will be (FUTURE EVENT) one YHVH and that His name will be (FUTURE EVENT) one. Again, you really need to try reading God's word instead of reading into it. Why would there be a need for the prophet to tell us the words of that passage as a future event if it was what was already reality?
As for Philippians 2:9, the Father is obviously exempted just as Paul in another passage said that He is exempted from all things being put under subjection to Christ.
GOD has a name and His only begotten Son has a name. There is not one name for God's fatherhood, another for His outpouring of Himself, another for His holiness, another for this or that attribute of God.
God's name was not preached in Acts, the name of His only begotten Son was preached.
Try out for the dodgers and forget the Bible!:winkgrin Your 'arguments' are so weak I will just allow mine to stand those reading can chose.
Why do you despise Jesus Name??????????????? If Jesus did NOT inherit his name from his Father who did he inherit from????? The foolishness of this is absurd.
This does not say that the Father's name is Jesus.Then what IS the Father's name that the Lord Jesus manifested to those men?
This is heresy! The Bible says that Jesus is GOD manifest in the flesh, not God's fatherhood manifest in the flesh.So, a piece of God was manifested, just not His fatherhood?
Father is not a name, it's a title. It was not God's fatherhood that became salvation, it was God that became salvation. The Father's name as commonly referred to in the OT is Jehovah. Agree or not? I do agree that God became salvation. It's just about "which one" is where we disagree.
LadyChocolate
03-14-2007, 10:58 AM
Try out for the dodgers and forget the Bible!:winkgrin Your 'arguments' are so weak I will just allow mine to stand those reading can chose.
Why do you despise Jesus Name??????????????? If Jesus did NOT inherit his name from his Father who did he inherit from????? The foolishness of this is absurd.
:thumbsup
Then what IS the Father's name that the Lord Jesus manifested to those men?The scripture doesn't say.
So, a piece of God was manifested, just not His fatherhood?No, not a mere piece of God, God Himself.
The Father's name as commonly referred to in the OT is Jehovah. Agree or not? I do agree that God became salvation. It's just about "which one" is where we disagree.No, it isn't. More often than not what we see is the word LORD in all capital letters. What is being used there is essentially the tetragrammation YHVH. It is the name of God and not merely His fatherhood.
There is no "which one" in God. Even the early Trinitarian Creeds acknowledge, "We believe in one God, the Father almighty...." This is consistent with what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 8:6, "There is one God, the Father..."
Steve Epley
03-14-2007, 11:03 AM
This does not say that the Father's name is Jesus.[/FONT]
This is heresy! The Bible says that Jesus is GOD manifest in the flesh, not God's fatherhood manifest in the flesh.
Father is not a name, it's a title. It was not God's fatherhood that became salvation, it was God that became salvation.
Sir there is ONLY God the Father in the Bible so if God was manifested in the flesh it HAD to be God the Father.
One God the Father Eph. 4:6!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Jesus said I come in my Father's name. Jn. 5:43!
He inherited his Father's name. Heb. 1:4
There is but ONE name. Zech. 14:7
Try out for the dodgers and forget the Bible!:winkgrin Your 'arguments' are so weak I will just allow mine to stand those reading can chose.
Why do you despise Jesus Name??????????????? If Jesus did NOT inherit his name from his Father who did he inherit from????? The foolishness of this is absurd.
Why do you insist on bearing false witness against Trinitarians by accusing them of believing in three Gods? Why do you insist on reading INTO the word of God instead of reading the word?
Jesus' name is HIS name, not His Father's name! I don't despise it but I do insist that it bears false witness against the word of God to say that it is His Father's name. Jesus is NOT - to use the ancient Jewish manner of naming - Jesus bar Jesus. He is not what amounts to Jesus, Jr. - which is exactly the nonsense you are espousing here when you say Jesus' name is the Father's name.
Jesus is the name given to God's only BEGOTTEN Son and, thus, the name is restricted to the MAN Christ Jesus. It is not the name of God or of the logos that John said "became flesh and dwelt among us."
The scripture doesn't say.What I asked you was what the name was that the Lord manifested to those men. In John 17:6, what name was manifested to them by Jesus Christ?
No, not a mere piece of God, God Himself.So, His "fatherhood" was manifested in the man Jesus Christ?
No, it isn't. More often than not what we see is the word LORD in all capital letters. What is being used there is essentially the tetragrammation YHVH. It is the name of God and not merely His fatherhood.Ok, so the name that represents the tetragrammaton has been rendered as Yahweh or Jehovah. Agree, disagree?
There is no "which one" in God. Even the early Trinitarian Creeds acknowledge, "We believe in one God, the Father almighty...." This is consistent with what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 8:6, "There is one God, the Father..."You seem to be contradicting yourself. If there is "ONE GOD, the Father", then Jesus Christ IS the Father, since He claimed to be God.
Sir there is ONLY God the Father in the Bible so if God was manifested in the flesh it HAD to be God the Father.
One God the Father Eph. 4:6!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Jesus said I come in my Father's name. Jn. 5:43!
He inherited his Father's name. Heb. 1:4
There is but ONE name. Zech. 14:7Ephesians 4:6 doesn't say there is this divine being called "God the Father." Try reading the text:
"One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."
There is one God. This one God is the Father of all.
God is not limited to His fatherhood.
Again, you are WRONG about Zechariah 14:7 and I would have expected YOU of all people to know better.
Steve Epley
03-14-2007, 11:11 AM
Why do you insist on bearing false witness against Trinitarians by accusing them of believing in three Gods? Why do you insist on reading INTO the word of God instead of reading the word?
Jesus' name is HIS name, not His Father's name! I don't despise it but I do insist that it bears false witness against the word of God to say that it is His Father's name. Jesus is NOT - to use the ancient Jewish manner of naming - Jesus bar Jesus. He is not what amounts to Jesus, Jr. - which is exactly the nonsense you are espousing here when you say Jesus' name is the Father's name.
Jesus is the name given to God's only BEGOTTEN Son and, thus, the name is restricted to the MAN Christ Jesus. It is not the name of God or of the logos that John said "became flesh and dwelt among us."
This easy watch:
God the Father 1
God the Son 1
God the Holy Ghost 1
___________________
Equals 3
All are divine persons or beings possessing omnipresence-omnipotence-omniscience- separate and distinct of themselves.
Thus a Heavenly Committee!!!!!!!!:thumbsup
What I asked you was what the name was that the Lord manifested to those men. In John 17:6, what name was manifested to them by Jesus Christ?The scripture doesn't say.
So, His "fatherhood" was manifested in the man Jesus Christ?
You really need to brush up on your reading skills. I said GOD was manifested, not God's fatherhood!
Ok, so the name that represents the tetragrammaton has been rendered as Yahweh or Jehovah. Agree, disagree?Jehovah is a poor rendering.
You seem to be contradicting yourself. If there is "ONE GOD, the Father", then Jesus Christ IS the Father, since He claimed to be God.No, Jesus is not the Father. Jesus is God's ONLY BEGOTTEN SON. Jesus is the name that applies ONLY to Jesus' humanity.
Steve Epley
03-14-2007, 11:12 AM
What I asked you was what the name was that the Lord manifested to those men. In John 17:6, what name was manifested to them by Jesus Christ?
So, His "fatherhood" was manifested in the man Jesus Christ?
Ok, so the name that represents the tetragrammaton has been rendered as Yahweh or Jehovah. Agree, disagree?
You seem to be contradicting yourself. If there is "ONE GOD, the Father", then Jesus Christ IS the Father, since He claimed to be God.
God(the Father) was IN Christ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is the difference. The flesh was not Diety it housed Deity.
The scripture doesn't say.Oh.
You really need to brush up on your reading skills. I wondered how long it would take you to begin the personal attacks with me. :bored
I said GOD was manifested, not God's fatherhood!And I asked you how God could be manifested in flesh but not His fatherhood. How can that happen if not by something of His diety being "left out" of that manifestation?
Jehovah is a poor rendering.Which do you prefer?
No, Jesus is not the Father. Jesus is God's ONLY BEGOTTEN SON. I agree. But, the Son IS the manifestation, in flesh, of the diety we call God the Father.
Jesus is the name that applies ONLY to Jesus' humanity. Nope. The "Christ" part refers to His humanity. Jesus is rendered from Jehovah-Savior. Jehovah is the diety, Savior is the role. Christ, as you know, means Messiah, and the Messiah had to be flesh, so this term applies to His humanity.
tbpew
03-14-2007, 11:22 AM
Sir there is ONLY God the Father in the Bible so if God was manifested in the flesh it HAD to be God the Father.
One God the Father Eph. 4:6!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Jesus said I come in my Father's name. Jn. 5:43!
He inherited his Father's name. Heb. 1:4
There is but ONE name. Zech. 14:7
you write...
"if God was manifested in the flesh it HAD to be God the Father"
AMEN. That which was manifested in the flesh (the only begotten Son) was the Father.
where I will part company with you is if/when you purposely change
"manifested" into BECAME.
you also cited:
"Jesus said, "I come in my father's name
He inherited his Father's name"
AMEN, to the fact that the Son inherited his name from his father....ALL SONS do! Afterall, the scripture plainly states it is a FAMILY name.
Now, more in line with the kind of discussion we were having yesterday....
If I added to myself, or BECAME some new NATURE, I would not need to come in my FATHER's name, I could still, very well, come in my OWN name. I would think this must be curious for a concurrent manifestation viewholder.
Secondly,
INHERITING something must also be a curious word choice for persons holding a "multiple concurrent manifestation viewpoint" since how can one manifestation of a single person inherit something from another manifestation of himself?
Steve Epley
03-14-2007, 11:23 AM
Ephesians 4:6 doesn't say there is this divine being called "God the Father." Try reading the text:
"One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."
There is one God. This one God is the Father of all.
God is not limited to His fatherhood.
Again, you are WRONG about Zechariah 14:7 and I would have expected YOU of all people to know better.
There is but ONE God the Father 1Cor.8:6
One God and the Father of All Eph. 4:6
FATHER...........the ONLY true God Jn.17:3
Jesus is the Name!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Prophecied in Zech.14:7 revealed!!!!
Michael The Disciple
03-14-2007, 11:37 AM
Two things.
I take it Chan is the old Chancellor. Chan at times I have agreed with some things you have said. But you strive to prove you are a Trinitarian. What is it that you DO have in common with Oneness people? You have many posts on various forums. There must be some reason you frequent them. Now dont take this to mean that Im saying you should leave. Just curious.
The other thing is this. A Trinitarian may reject baptism in Jesus name. That in itself does not mean they reject Christ entirely. They may need to hear Oneness doctrine taught more accurately. Most Oneness teachers are in error on the doctrine of the Logos so they weaken the case for the doctrine to those already opposing it.
And I agree the spirit will guide into all truth. Now if because the Trins and Arians fail to see the Oneness and baptism that means they are lost for it what about Oneness Christians who teach OTHER false doctrines?
Say they teach false about the rapture? The resurrection? The eternal judgment? Perfection? These are all foundation teachings. Will Apostolics burn in hell because they rejected the Spirits leading into all truth?
And yes I know of Trins who baptize in Jesus name. James Lee Beall Pastor of Bethesda Missionary Temple in Detroit did for many years. Hobart Freeman Pastor of the Faith Assembly network of Churches did though he is now dead.
These were Trinitarians. I have known of others also.
But I can see the rationale of why one ULTIMATELY could be lost if they do reject it (baptism in the name). The Lord did say "Unless you believe that I AM you shall die in your sins".
I teach it as being FULL SALVATION as the UPC once did.
sola gratia
03-14-2007, 12:16 PM
There is but ONE God the Father 1Cor.8:6
One God and the Father of All Eph. 4:6
FATHER...........the ONLY true God Jn.17:3
Jesus is the Name!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Prophecied in Zech.14:7 revealed!!!!
you are incorrect here Bro Epley.
First I think you mean Zech 14:9. That is the verse that discusses the one name.. am I correct in that this is the verse you meant?
Second the timeline your talking about has yet to occur, this is an event that has yet to happen - you have no bases to state JESUS is the one name revealed - there is not scriptural support for it - so one must assume you arrive at this on some supposition of your own
you are incorrect here Bro Epley.
First I think you mean Zech 14:9. That is the verse that discusses the one name.. am I correct in that this is the verse you meant? Well, most of us who are familiar with Zechariah 14:9 (my favorite Bible verse) know that this is the passage he meant. But, given how he has this habit of reading into scripture instead of reading scripture, one never knows.
Second the timeline your talking about has yet to occur, this is an event that has yet to happen - you have no bases to state JESUS is the one name revealed - there is not scriptural support for it - so one must assume you arrive at this on some supposition of your ownAnother example of him reading into scripture instead of reading scripture. The fact of the matter is that the scriptures don't tell us the name that Jesus manifested, we only know that it was God's name. Now, when I was in a Oneness Pentecostal Bible school, I was taught that the name Jesus manifested was the YHVH of the Old Testament and that Jesus' Aramaic name contains YHVH within it. That doesn't make the name Jesus God's name, however.
Two things.
I take it Chan is the old Chancellor. Chan at times I have agreed with some things you have said. But you strive to prove you are a Trinitarian. What is it that you DO have in common with Oneness people? You have many posts on various forums. There must be some reason you frequent them. Now dont take this to mean that Im saying you should leave. Just curious.I'm here in memory of Jim Yohe. That is my connection to these forums.
The other thing is this. A Trinitarian may reject baptism in Jesus name. That in itself does not mean they reject Christ entirely. They may need to hear Oneness doctrine taught more accurately. Most Oneness teachers are in error on the doctrine of the Logos so they weaken the case for the doctrine to those already opposing it.Well, I don't reject Jesus'-name baptism. I may reject the notion that it is the act of baptism that actually saves a person (since I believe it is God's grace alone that saves, as that grace was displayed in the propitiating work of Jesus on the cross) but I don't reject baptizing in the name (authority) of Jesus.
And I agree the spirit will guide into all truth. Now if because the Trins and Arians fail to see the Oneness and baptism that means they are lost for it what about Oneness Christians who teach OTHER false doctrines?
Say they teach false about the rapture? The resurrection? The eternal judgment? Perfection? These are all foundation teachings. Will Apostolics burn in hell because they rejected the Spirits leading into all truth?
Which version of the trinity and which version of oneness? The way some oneness folks communicate their doctrine, it seems essentially identical to the trinitarian doctrine of the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Creeds.
And yes I know of Trins who baptize in Jesus name. James Lee Beall Pastor of Bethesda Missionary Temple in Detroit did for many years. Hobart Freeman Pastor of the Faith Assembly network of Churches did though he is now dead.
These were Trinitarians. I have known of others also.
It wasn't until approximately the fourth or fifth century that the Church really began baptizing according to the words in Matthew 28:19.
But I can see the rationale of why one ULTIMATELY could be lost if they do reject it (baptism in the name). The Lord did say "Unless you believe that I AM you shall die in your sins".The passage doesn't say I AM in capital letters (as if to indicate the name God told Moses to tell the children of Israel if they ask the name of the God who sent him. Interestingly, the Hebrew word used there is hyh (hayah).
I teach it as being FULL SALVATION as the UPC once did.Full salvation is what occurs when we go home to be with the Lord.
There is but ONE God the Father 1Cor.8:6
One God and the Father of All Eph. 4:6
FATHER...........the ONLY true God Jn.17:3But it doesn't say there is one God the Father, it says there is one God and that this one God is the Father of all.
Jesus is the Name!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Prophecied in Zech.14:7 revealed!!!!No, Jesus is the name of God's only begotten Son and it was not prophesied in Zechariah 14:7.
Oh. That's it? Just "Oh"? :)
I wondered how long it would take you to begin the personal attacks with me. :bored It wasn't a personal attack. Your question that prompted the statement was evidence that you didn't comprehend what I had posted previously.
And I asked you how God could be manifested in flesh but not His fatherhood. How can that happen if not by something of His diety being "left out" of that manifestation?No, what you asked was "So, His "fatherhood" was manifested in the man Jesus Christ?"
Which do you prefer?YHVH
I agree. But, the Son IS the manifestation, in flesh, of the diety we call God the Father. I prefer to say that Jesus (the Son) is the manifestation of God, as in 1 Timothy 3:16 (KJV), "God was manifest in the flesh."
Nope. The "Christ" part refers to His humanity. Jesus is rendered from Jehovah-Savior. Jehovah is the diety, Savior is the role. Christ, as you know, means Messiah, and the Messiah had to be flesh, so this term applies to His humanity.It still refers only to His humanity. There is no evidence in scripture to show that the logos was ever named.
That's it? Just "Oh"? :)Yes, just "oh", since you don't see that Jesus clearly said He manifested His Father's name. The only name we have scripture declaring He mainfested is Jesus Christ. If you don't see that, why should I belabor the point?
It wasn't a personal attack. Your question that prompted the statement was evidence that you didn't comprehend what I had posted previously.Then maybe you should have attacked me by saying I should brush up on my "comprehension" skills?
No, what you asked was "So, His "fatherhood" was manifested in the man Jesus Christ?"Ok, so now I ask you: how can God be manifested in flesh while something of Him, His Fatherhood, is not?
YHVHThis is the name of God? What about the Father? Same person, same name? Or no?
I prefer to say that Jesus (the Son) is the manifestation of God, as in 1 Timothy 3:16 (KJV), "God was manifest in the flesh."I agree that the Son is the manifestation of God, but the verse does not say the Son was manifested in flesh. It says God. But, according to you, not all of God was manifested in flesh, right?
It still refers only to His humanity. Christ refers to His humanity. God could not be the Messiah without flesh, right? His diety lies in the name we get by transliteration from YHVH-Savior, Jesus. But, the two cannot be separated. Diety + humanity (Yahweh-Savior + Messiah) are fused into the One called Jesus Christ. The diety was that of the Father, the humanity was that of a woman.
There is no evidence in scripture to show that the logos was ever named. Really? John 1 clearly tells us the name of the logos when He was manifested in flesh.
Carpenter
03-14-2007, 01:01 PM
...I teach it as being FULL SALVATION as the UPC once did.
Holy cow, as the UPC once did? What do they preach now?
Yes, just "oh", since you don't see that Jesus clearly said He manifested His Father's name. The only name we have scripture declaring He mainfested is Jesus Christ. If you don't see that, why should I belabor the point? I agreed that Jesus did say He manifested His Father's name. But to go beyond that is nothing more than INTERPRETATION of scripture.
Then maybe you should have attacked me by saying I should brush up on my "comprehension" skills?Comprehension is part of reading.
Ok, so now I ask you: how can God be manifested in flesh while something of Him, His Fatherhood, is not?The same way that a human male can be a father and yet he is not his fatherhood. The same way a son can be like his father yet he is not like his father's fatherhood.
This is the name of God? What about the Father? Same person, same name? Or no?It is the name of God, not of His fatherhood or of His holiness or of His love or of His justice or any of His other characteristics/attributes.
I agree that the Son is the manifestation of God, but the verse does not say the Son was manifested in flesh. It says God. But, according to you, not all of God was manifested in flesh, right? As I said, the passage says that GOD was manifest in the flesh - not His fatherhood, not this or that attribute of His. GOD was manifest (revealed) in the flesh. This is not the same thing as John saying that the logos "became flesh and dwelt among us." I think you (and maybe certain others here like Brother Epley) confuse "manifest" with "became."
Christ refers to His humanity. God could not be the Messiah without flesh, right? His diety lies in the name we get by transliteration from YHVH-Savior, Jesus. But, the two cannot be separated. Diety + humanity (Yahweh-Savior + Messiah) are fused into the One called Jesus Christ. The diety was that of the Father, the humanity was that of a woman.GOD is not the Messiah, God's only begotten Son is the Messiah.
Really? John 1 clearly tells us the name of the logos when He was manifested in flesh.Well, here's the passage: "And the Word was made 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." Show me where it "clearly" tells us the name of the logos.
Holy cow, as the UPC once did? What do they preach now?
That beards are a sin. :)
COOPER
03-14-2007, 01:52 PM
The bible says very specifically that those that are "led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God"(Rom 8:14). It also says that this Holy Ghost will "guide you into all truth" (John 16:13). I think most of us here agree that the correct method of baptizing in water is "in the Name of Jesus Christ". This is what makes us Apostolic, and separates us from others that claim the Pentecostal experience.
So why is it that most Pentecostal trinitarian churches reject water baptism in Jesus Name? Are they refusing to be led by the Spirit into all truth. Why is it that this fundamental, foundational doctrine is not being accepted by these that have received the Spirit?
Will God accept them if they do not follow the leading of the Spirit and accept the truth of water Baptism in Jesus Name?
It is the same problem as with Apostolics, the trinitarians are stuck in tradition.
Their orgs are so big they can not change.
I agreed that Jesus did say He manifested His Father's name. But to go beyond that is nothing more than INTERPRETATION of scripture.Do you have an opinion as to WHAT His Father's name is/was?
The same way that a human male can be a father and yet he is not his fatherhood. The same way a son can be like his father yet he is not like his father's fatherhood.I quit analogizing God a while back.
How can God only manifest certain parts of Himself (not His fatherhood) when scripture says "GOD was manifest in flesh"? Aren't you reading an interpretation into that belief?
It is the name of God...Cool. So, where scripture says "God" we can always insert YHVH, right?
I think you (and maybe certain others here like Brother Epley) confuse "manifest" with "became."I don't know about others, but if the Word became flesh and God was manifest in flesh and the Word was God, isn't it plausible to assume that "God became flesh"?
GOD is not the Messiah, God's only begotten Son is the Messiah.Hmmmm? Isn't the Messiah God?
Well, here's the passage: "And the Word was made 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." Show me where it "clearly" tells us the name of the logos.What was the name of the One who was made flesh, whose glory they beheld?
Do you have an opinion as to WHAT His Father's name is/was?The same as it was throughout the Old Testament.
I quit analogizing God a while back. You asked a question and I answered it.
How can God only manifest certain parts of Himself (not His fatherhood) when scripture says "GOD was manifest in flesh"? Aren't you reading an interpretation into that belief?I'm not the one who said God manifests only certain parts of Himself. Go back to where I specifically said it was GOD that was manifest in the flesh and not His fatherhood, His holiness, etc. In other words, it was the person/being of God that was revealed and not merely some role or attribute.
Cool. So, where scripture says "God" we can always insert YHVH, right?Actually, where the scripture says LORD in all capital letters we can always insert YHVH.
I don't know about others, but if the Word became flesh and God was manifest in flesh and the Word was God, isn't it plausible to assume that "God became flesh"?God was REVEALED (manifest) in the flesh. The logos became flesh. The logos was divine but the logos is not God in all His fullness. The best way to understand the logos is to understand what the Jews referred to as the memra or revealed essence of God. This revealed essence is not all of God that there is, it's just the part of God that we can know.
Hmmmm? Isn't the Messiah God?
The Messiah is God's "only begotten Son."
What was the name of the One who was made flesh, whose glory they beheld?Why are you asking me? You said that it was clearly stated in John 1 where John said that the Word became flesh. Go to that passage (John 1:14) and show me where it says what you claim it says.
The same as it was throughout the Old Testament.Which is?
I answered it.With an analogy that does not fit or work.
I'm not the one who said God manifests only certain parts of Himself. Go back to where I specifically said it was GOD that was manifest in the flesh and not His fatherhood, His holiness, etc. You are not saying it, but there's no other way for me to take it. If GOD was manifested in flesh, then ALL of Him was. He did not leave His fatherhood or holiness at home.
In other words, it was the person/being of God that was revealed and not merely some role or attribute.So, Jesus Christ is the "person/being" of God?
Actually, where the scripture says LORD in all capital letters we can always insert YHVH.But, you said that YHVH was the name of God, didn't you? If that is so, can't I insert that proper name anywhere I see the title "God"?
The logos was divine but the logos is not God in all His fullness. So when John states that "the logos was God", he really didn't mean that?
The Messiah is God's "only begotten Son."Yep.
You said that it was clearly stated in John 1 where John said that the Word became flesh. Go to that passage (John 1:14) and show me where it says what you claim it says. John 1:14 (NIV, NASB, AMP, NKJV)
And the Word became flesh...
Is that what you're looking for?
Which is?Asked and answered.
With an analogy that does not fit or work.The analogy is what it is and it is a sufficient answer.
You are not saying it, but there's no other way for me to take it. If GOD was manifested in flesh, then ALL of Him was. He did not leave His fatherhood or holiness at home.THIS, more than anything else, is what annoys me about some people here. STOP READING THINGS INTO WHAT I POST!!!!!!!!!!! You are to take my posts exactly as written; I said what I said and didn't say anything other than what I said. Don't give me this "there's no other way for me to take it" nonsense. Read the words and stop trying to read the blank spaces between them.
So, Jesus Christ is the "person/being" of God?Jesus Christ is God's only begotten Son.
But, you said that YHVH was the name of God, didn't you? If that is so, can't I insert that proper name anywhere I see the title "God"?Only where the Hebrew text of the Old Testament does it.
So when John states that "the logos was God", he really didn't mean that? John didn't say "the logos was God." He wrote his gospel in Greek. You are relying on the words of an English translation that are not necessarily accurate. Jesus' divinity is God's divinity and not some other divinity (not that there is any other divinity). Again, "God was REVEALED (manifest) in the flesh. The logos became flesh. The logos was divine but the logos is not God in all His fullness. The best way to understand the logos is to understand what the Jews referred to as the memra or revealed essence of God. This revealed essence is not all of God that there is, it's just the part of God that we can know."
John 1:14 (NIV, NASB, AMP, NKJV)
And the Word became flesh...
Is that what you're looking for?
No, I want you to show me what YOU CLAIMED the passage said! You said that His name was clearly stated in John 1 where John said that the Word became flesh. (The exact quote: "John 1 clearly tells us the name of the logos when He was manifested in flesh.") Go to that passage (John 1:14) and show me where it says what you claim it says.
Asked and answered.YHVH?
The analogy is what it is and it is a sufficient answer.Not sufficient to address God, though. That's why I don't use them anymore.
Read the words and stop trying to read the blank spaces between them.That seems to be the most intelligible parts, though. :friend
Jesus Christ is God's only begotten Son.Yep. But, I quote you: "In other words, it was the person/being of God that was revealed and not merely some role or attribute."
Is Jesus Christ the One you identify as being "revealed"? If so, then am I wrong to assume that you are saying that Jesus Christ is the person/being of God revealed?
Only where the Hebrew text of the Old Testament does it.What about all of the other words rendered, OT and NT, as "God"? Am I not allowed, by your rules, to apply that personal name to those?
John didn't say "the logos was God." He wrote his gospel in Greek. You are relying on the words of an English translation that are not necessarily accurate. Would you mind giving me the correct translation, then? :tiphat
Jesus' divinity is God's divinity and not some other divinity (not that there is any other divinity). I agree.
The logos was divine but the logos is not God in all His fullness. The best way to understand the logos is to understand what the Jews referred to as the memra or revealed essence of God. This revealed essence is not all of God that there is, it's just the part of God that we can know."Bear with me, because I'm going to have to do some deducting here:
logos is divine but not God's fullness
logos is the part of God we can know
logos is not all of God that there is
Doesn't that mean that there is a part of God that was not revealed?
You said that His name was clearly stated in John 1 where John said that the Word became flesh. (The exact quote: "John 1 clearly tells us the name of the logos when He was manifested in flesh.") Go to that passage (John 1:14) and show me where it says what you claim it says.Forgive me, but I assumed you knew who that passage referred to. No, the name Jesus Christ is not in those 14 verses, Chan, but you're being a bit childish in denying that Jesus Christ IS the One who was the logos incarnate, aren't you?
Or, are you even denying that? I certainly hope not.
YHVH?
Not sufficient to address God, though. That's why I don't use them anymore.It was sufficient to address what you asked.
That seems to be the most intelligible parts, though. :friend What? Don't you like challenging your brain? :)
Yep. But, I quote you: "In other words, it was the person/being of God that was revealed and not merely some role or attribute."Absolutely. But "revealed" does not mean "became," though you seem to be trying to equate the two.
Is Jesus Christ the One you identify as being "revealed"? If so, then am I wrong to assume that you are saying that Jesus Christ is the person/being of God revealed?No, GOD is the one being revealed. HE is being revealed by/through Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son.
What about all of the other words rendered, OT and NT, as "God"? Am I not allowed, by your rules, to apply that personal name to those?No, because the various words translated that way may not be referring to YHVH. Some of the Greek words translated God sometimes mean divinity, deity or divine nature.
Would you mind giving me the correct translation, then? :tiphat The problem in the translation of John 1:1 is the phrase translated "was with God." A proper translation would be "pertaining to deity" or "with regard to deity," much the way it was translated in Hebrews. Thus, "In the beginning was the logos and the logos, with regard to deity, was God." In other words, the divinity/deity of the logos is the divinity/deity of God and not a separate divinity/deity - contrary to John Calvin's use of autotheotes (God of Himself) with regard to Jesus.
I agree. It's good that we at least agree on something.
Bear with me, because I'm going to have to do some deducting here:
logos is divine but not God's fullness
logos is the part of God we can know
logos is not all of God that there isDoesn't that mean that there is a part of God that was not revealed?
I thought I had said that when I was explaining about the logos/memra.
Forgive me, but I assumed you knew who that passage referred to. No, the name Jesus Christ is not in those 14 verses, Chan, but you're being a bit childish in denying that Jesus Christ IS the One who was the logos incarnate, aren't you?
Or, are you even denying that? I certainly hope not.I'm taking what you post to mean exactly what you wrote (which is what I expect people to do with my posts). I know that the logos that became flesh and dwelt among us is none other than Jesus Christ - based on the context of the passage - but coming to that conclusion is an act of INTERPRETING scripture, which is not the same thing as saying the Bible actually says something.
It was sufficient to address what you asked.No, it wasn't. No analogy is sufficient to address God, Chan.
Absolutely. But "revealed" does not mean "became," though you seem to be trying to equate the two.OH! Let me see if I've got it right now: it was the person/being of God that was revealed, but that person/being did not BECOME anything (eg: a man). Yes? No?
No, GOD is the one being revealed. HE is being revealed by/through Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son.Then the Lord was just a vehicle to "show" that part of God (logos) that we could (or, maybe, that He would "let" us) know?
No, because the various words translated that way may not be referring to YHVH. Some of the Greek words translated God sometimes mean divinity, deity or divine nature.Are there certain ones you'd agree do identify the Father, YHVH? If so, could you give me some examples?
The problem in the translation of John 1:1 is the phrase translated "was with God." What about the last part of that verse: "and the word was God"?
In other words, the divinity/deity of the logos is the divinity/deity of God and not a separate divinity/deity"God" as in YHVH?
I know that the logos that became flesh and dwelt among us is none other than Jesus Christ - based on the context of the passage - but coming to that conclusion is an act of INTERPRETING scripture, which is not the same thing as saying the Bible actually says something.Point taken. I just think it's juvenile to use the tactic you did, because it is clear from John 1:1-14 that the Person being spoken of is Jesus Christ. That was my point.
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.