Born Again Speaking in Tongues

[Wansvic]

listen, I plainly said in my post...not addressed to you...that I am baptized

you would not approve however because it was not in Jesus name only. however, it was done in accordance with Jesus' words so I am not going to worry over the fact you believe otherwise



Jesus said God is His Father....and in fact the Father called Jesus His Son when Jesus was baptized and the Holy Spirit is also called the Holy Spirit in scripture

you do understand that your teaching is considered to be a different gospel?



have you considered the fact that Jesus did not raise Himself from the dead?

11 The Spirit of God, who raised Jesus from the dead, lives in you. And just as God raised Christ Jesus from the dead, he will give life to your mortal bodies by this same Spirit living within you. Romans 8:11

so there we have the Spirit of God raising Jesus from the dead

ALL THREE

whatcha gonna do about it?

folks...read your Bibles so that you do not fall for this oneness baptize in Jesus name only.

Jesus stated to baptize in the name of... Thus making a distinction between using a title(s) and a name.

Also, Jesus was God in the flesh therefore He could make the following comment to the Jews:
Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

But he spake of the temple of his body. John 2:19-21

 

[Jimbone]

It doesnt "say" Jesus wore a white robe.
Doesn't mean he didn't.

I am talking from experience,not taking a text and trying to expand it.
It's like casting two demons out of 2 people simultaneously ,and someone saying " that's not in the bible"
Lots of things aren't.
Remember,there's not a book big enough to hold all the miracles Jesus did.

I agree, but it can't mean "He did" either. It's just not there so you don't get to build on what's not there. If it's not in the text then you don't get to wield it as a fact to bash the people you disagree with. Of course share what you believe and we should hear you out, but you were wording as if it was written clearly in the text, and "if" anyone was interpreting in that crowd it wasn't recorded in what we read. Honestly I agree with how the guy that everyone jumped on to "teach", the text clear does say that each person heard in in their own tongue, the only thing I disagreed with was the way he worded it as if this way all of what tongues was period. But assumed interpreters, in my opinion, is a much hard case to defend because it's not there at all "you" have to "add" it. How am I wrong here?

 

[Footprint]

Respectfully: 7seasrekeyed,

The apostle Matthew recorded Matthew 28:19 and also stood with Peter when he preached on the Day of Pentecost. The question, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” was addressed to all the apostles. If Peter had given an incorrect answer when he told the crowd to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, Matthew would have corrected him. Peter heard Jesus speak Matthew 28:19, Matthew heard Peter speak Acts 2:38, and only about one or two weeks separated the two events. Clearly, both apostles understood these two statements.

Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not proper names but descriptive titles. Even if they were proper names, this verse specifically describes only one name, not three. We must still ask what is the one proper name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Without doubt the name of the Son is Jesus, for the angel told Joseph, “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS.”

Jesus said in John 5:43, “I am come in my Father’s name.”

Jesus said to the Father...

John 17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
[26] And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.


-Thank you.

 

[Wansvic]

so really, you are saying that if the order you believe to be the 'godly' order is not followed the person is not saved

really sister, this is nonsensical when the Bible clearly clearly shows no distinctive order for salvation other than we always begin by
acknowledging Christ as our Savior and accept His atoning death on the cross

Only the blood of Jesus gives remission for sins. soap and water make you clean on the outside but you know what Jesus said about whitewashed tombs, eh?

you are quick to point out all that you call 'spiritual', and the Bible does declare we must be reborn (spiritual) but that is by the Spirit of God and not a pond in the backyard

so how is it you go from 'spiritual' to 'physical' in one breath and do not even bat an eye, even though they are not the same thing?

If you read previous posts in the discussion between me and CS1 you would realize the comment had nothing to do with a salvation "order." I just rephrased my response to CS1's question.

 

[stonesoffire]

Respectfully: 7seasrekeyed,

The apostle Matthew recorded Matthew 28:19 and also stood with Peter when he preached on the Day of Pentecost. The question, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” was addressed to all the apostles. If Peter had given an incorrect answer when he told the crowd to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, Matthew would have corrected him. Peter heard Jesus speak Matthew 28:19, Matthew heard Peter speak Acts 2:38, and only about one or two weeks separated the two events. Clearly, both apostles understood these two statements.

Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not proper names but descriptive titles. Even if they were proper names, this verse specifically describes only one name, not three. We must still ask what is the one proper name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Without doubt the name of the Son is Jesus, for the angel told Joseph, “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS.”

Jesus said in John 5:43, “I am come in my Father’s name.”

Jesus said to the Father...

John 17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
[26] And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.


-Thank you.

Footprint, His actual name is Yeshua which means saviour, salvation. Perhaps the passage in Matthew in misunderstood from our English?

The Complete Jewish Bible translated from Hebrew puts a different spin on what is said there.

So the eleven talmidim went to the hill in the Galil where Yeshua had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they prostrated themselves before him; but some hesitated. 18 Yeshua came and talked with them. He said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore, go and make people from all nations into talmidim, immersing them into the reality of the Father, the Son and the Ruach HaKodesh, 20 and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember! I will be with you always, yes, even until the end of the age.”

In the name of means operating in the character of. Or even living out of His character, His Spirit. The Spirit filled life.

It’s wise to check out a doctrine no matter who is teaching it.

 

[7seasrekeyed]

I should of butted out because I wasn’t reading the posts. Was thinking about the post to wolf. Just saw a few remarks about Jesus only.

It’s a ridiculous argument but at one time I thought it was right. Never heard though about water baptism regeneration.

I’ve been around...lol

oh no. please do butt in any time

yes. do read the posts though.

yeah...adding to salvation. the not by works crowd don't know what they are missing

 

[7seasrekeyed]

If you read previous posts in the discussion between me and CS1 you would realize the comment had nothing to do with a salvation "order." I just rephrased my response to CS1's question.

I'm pretty sure he does not think you even answered his question

however, the grinding error you and one or two others are making here, is stating that baptism is an integral part of salvation rather than the witness OF salvation that it actually is. water does not regenerate us.

 

[7seasrekeyed]

The biblical record makes it clear that everyone MUST be water baptized in Jesus' name.

that's just not true at all

only the blood of Christ washes away our sins

most Christians will most likely be baptized, but we understand that the water is representational and not actually cleansing us from sin as you errantly believe

 

[7seasrekeyed]

Jesus stated to baptize in the name of... Thus making a distinction between using a title(s) and a name.

Also, Jesus was God in the flesh therefore He could make the following comment to the Jews:
Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

But he spake of the temple of his body. John 2:19-21

you are celebrating with the Catholics every time you insist water baptism saves

I don't suppose you read even a part of the article I quoted

it delivers the truth about your beliefs and how they actually go back to the beginnings of Catholicism

as usual, you are quoting scripture that has nothing to do with the subject of water baptism

it further shows how confused your theology on this matter is. however it isn't actually yours. you would agree with the Pope it seems

 

[Wansvic]

we understand that the water is representational and not actually cleansing us from sin as you errantly believe

Your understanding and mine differ. We are both entitled to share what we see in the word. That is the point of discussion.

 

[garee]

Respectfully: 7seasrekeyed,

The apostle Matthew recorded Matthew 28:19 and also stood with Peter when he preached on the Day of Pentecost. The question, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” was addressed to all the apostles. If Peter had given an incorrect answer when he told the crowd to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, Matthew would have corrected him. Peter heard Jesus speak Matthew 28:19, Matthew heard Peter speak Acts 2:38, and only about one or two weeks separated the two events. Clearly, both apostles understood these two statements.

Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not proper names but descriptive titles. Even if they were proper names, this verse specifically describes only one name, not three. We must still ask what is the one proper name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Without doubt the name of the Son is Jesus, for the angel told Joseph, “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS.”

Jesus said in John 5:43, “I am come in my Father’s name.”

Jesus said to the Father...

John 17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
[26] And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.


-Thank you.

I would offer. In order to baptize in respect to a name. First and foremost God does not have a name as you or I needed to identify each other. He has no identical twin either. .He has no form and therefore no competition of that which could meet the eye or touch of a human hand as to "who is the greatest". Like that when the apostles understood not a parable . The Son of man, Jesus would become the low man on the totem pole (Luke 9)..

Even the names of people in the Bible are names that God chose from the foundation of the world to be used according to there meanings for certain purposes. .

He alone as Jehovah, Emanuel, is named Jealous etc . A God all powerful, as savior and friend .

God it would seem has assigned attributes of two or three working together in perfect harmony and submissiveness to one another. This would be according to a demonstration promised in Isiah 53.

It must first be established as whose authority (open in the name of the law) before the doors of our new hearts can be opened . The one authority of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as one work of one of faith (plan) as a labor of their three day demonstration on the cross .It brought the peace of God that surpasses all human understanding as it is written .

To be baptized is coming under the hearing of the gospel called the "hearing of faith" Galatians 3: as the Holy Spirit gives his bride the churches (sects) ears to hear and a new will to obey. .He does the growing if any.

We do have the honor of planting the seed as did Paul who was signified as the bride of Christ the church the surrogate mother of Christianity when he held out the gospel to Timothy. Christ did the forming of the seed. .

Ephesians 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

Faith without works is simply dead . No life needed to spout.

 

[Wansvic]

Please stay on topic. You asked why you needed the name of Jesus pronounced over you in water baptism. My comment, as you know, was in answer to that question.

respectfully Footprint:

I did not ask you. are you and Wansvic of the same denomination? are you oneness as some are now suggesting?

I suggest you might read my post again because I covered baptism in it

my question is directly to Wansvic concerning her many comments on baptism


I would ask you however, why do I need the name of Jesus pronounced over me?

I have called on the Lord Jesus thousands of times during my lifetime but yet someone has to say 'Jesus' over me?

what on earth?

According to scripture everyone MUST be water baptized in Jesus' name

that's just not true at all

Please provide scripture where water baptism was administered differently.

 

[garee]

Jesus represents a imputed righteousness that we as His bride are clothed with . Like in the description of the bride in Revelation 12 . A picture of the new heaven and earth. The sun and moon, the two time keepers that began on day 4... under our feet . the glory of God will be the light no more darkness as night .

While we look to the temporal the things seen that can be used to represent the unseen eternal understanding .We I believe must realize the temporal are not the substance of faith the unseen But shadows of the good things coming ahead (our new incorruptible bodies..)

2 Corinthians 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

If we look to the things seen and not the unseen work of faith, as a labor of God's love working in us as that which caused the finished work to appear. (imputed righteousness) Then we are shown as having no faith that could please God coming from him.

Clothing is also used to represent blasphemy in James 2. We do not wrestles against the things seen .They can be used to represent good or evil. Nothing of itself is evil save the evil one.

The god of this world .He as the counterfeiter, illusionist, loves to turn things upside down making the temporal, the eternal , and the eternal buried in the ground out of sight out of mind.

 

[7seasrekeyed]

Jesus stated to baptize in the name of... Thus making a distinction between using a title(s) and a name.

Also, Jesus was God in the flesh therefore He could make the following comment to the Jews:
Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

But he spake of the temple of his body. John 2:19-21

again, that scripture does not make your case

typical of your posts though

 

[Wansvic]

oh one more thing

why would Jesus tell Nicodemus to be baptized for salvation when He had not even died yet ?

was Jesus giving Nicodemus the rules for salvation?

that's pretty strange since Jesus was not baptizing anyone and never did

In His discourse with Nicodemus, Jesus was indeed explaining what was required to experience the spiritual rebirth. Notice in John 3:22-23 what Jesus did immediately following their conversation; He joined His disciples while they administered water baptisms.

 

[7seasrekeyed]

In His discourse with Nicodemus, Jesus was indeed explaining what was required to experience the spiritual rebirth. Notice in John 3:22-23 what Jesus did immediately following their conversation; He joined His disciples while they administered water baptisms.

well that would make Nicodemus a disciple then

your emphasis on water has diluted the actual gospel

 

[7seasrekeyed]

Please stay on topic. You asked why you needed the name of Jesus pronounced over you in water baptism. My comment, as you know, was in answer to that question.

According to scripture everyone MUST be water baptized in Jesus' name



Please provide scripture where water baptism was administered differently.

yes

you should TRY TO STAY ON TOPIC

you are so divisive and disoriented that you have forgotten the actual op

it's not about baptism. that. is what you have turned it in to

ACTUAL OP:

Born Again Speaking in Tongues

maybe you should give swimming lessons

 

[7seasrekeyed]

Please stay on topic she says after diverting this thread and several others to the point she does not even know it is not about baptism

you can't make this stuff up

 

[7seasrekeyed]

If you read previous posts in the discussion between me and CS1 you would realize the comment had nothing to do with a salvation "order." I just rephrased my response to CS1's question.

you dodge anything you cannot answer or do not want to answer

you do that consistently while telling others that they are not displaying the fruit of the Holy Spirit

what you do is not honest. but we should just excuse you while you tell others which way is up

really hypocritical IMO

 

[7seasrekeyed]

Respectfully: 7seasrekeyed,

The apostle Matthew recorded Matthew 28:19 and also stood with Peter when he preached on the Day of Pentecost. The question, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” was addressed to all the apostles. If Peter had given an incorrect answer when he told the crowd to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, Matthew would have corrected him. Peter heard Jesus speak Matthew 28:19, Matthew heard Peter speak Acts 2:38, and only about one or two weeks separated the two events. Clearly, both apostles understood these two statements.

Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not proper names but descriptive titles. Even if they were proper names, this verse specifically describes only one name, not three. We must still ask what is the one proper name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Without doubt the name of the Son is Jesus, for the angel told Joseph, “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS.”

Jesus said in John 5:43, “I am come in my Father’s name.”

Jesus said to the Father...

John 17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
[26] And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.


-Thank you.

you are teaching basic Catholicism 101

baptize and have your sins forgiven

NOT the gospel, but a man made doctrine that seems to have become more important to you than Jesus actually dying on the cross

it's unbelievable !