Question...

[eternally-gratefull]

You sound BUTTHURT in your responses!!

Try exlax, it will help you get past your denial that the Hebrews know who God is, and you obviously don't have a clue!!

This is dangerous dude, you not only attack a major christian doctrine, ut when someone tries to show you different, you attack her. That usually does not work well here.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Nah, it reeks of butthurt people who are comfortable in mommy and daddy's tradition, and everyone else must be wrong!!

Second warning.

Watch yourself, or people will start to report you (if they have not already)

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Oh, you hurt my feelngs. NOT.

Quantrill

I love how he thought he could hurt us..lol

 

[lightbearer]

It proves that the apostles did not use the masoretic text.


.

That is an assumption on your part. They used both would be the correct surmising.

 

[lightbearer]

That is right because Paul dismissed it. He had the Masoretic in mind when he paraphrased Deut 30:11-14.
Like I said There are quotes from both the LXX and Masoretic in the New Testament. Are you denying that?

In your example, Paul does not quote LXX or consider it when he paraphrases Deut. 30:11-14 in verse 10:6-8.

Now why would I purport that he does not even consider it in His paraphrase? Something is missing from the LXX in verse 14 that is why.
I know. Thanks for bringing it up anyway some might not

The "LXX" sign says that it can be found ONLY in the LXX.

If there is no LXX sign, it can mean:
a) MT and LXX do not differ
b) its in the MT only
c) its neither in the MT nor in the LXX

Yes, not all quotations are from the LXX, only about 80% are.

If we would like to have the exact textual version apostles used, we would have to compile it, it does not exist as a whole. The LXX is the most close version we can have.

Like I said I know but thanks for sharing some might not.
It is quite wanting though that you keep ignoring the fact that something is missing when Paul paraphrases Deut. 30:11-14 in verse 10:6-8.

Now why would I purport that he does not even consider it in His paraphrase? Something is missing from the LXX in verse 14 that is why.
Now I know that what we have today in Hebrew; the Masoretic did not exist in the time of the Apostles. But to think and teach that they did not have Copies of Scripture in their language (Hebrew) would be foolish and an assumption on our part.

 

[lightbearer]

That is an assumption on your part. They used both would be the correct surmising.

And yes I know they did not have what we know as the Masoretic. The Masoretic did not exist in the time of the Apostles. But to think and teach that they did not have Copies of Scripture in their language (Hebrew) would be foolish and an assumption on our part. There are no copies of the LXX coming from Jerusalem that I am aware of. That being the case what were they using? And if they do have copies of the LXX that were found in Jerusalem please provide proof; thanks.

 

[Quantrill]

So, you first accepted the canon of Athanasius but later you say that Esther is canonical.

Yes, Jesus was Jew. It does not mean that the faith of Jews is the right one and that we should be led by them as by our authority regarding doctrines.

No I didn't. I accepted his statement that there were books that were not part of the canon that were good for reading purpose only.

Sure it does. (John 4:22) "Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

I love how he thought he could hurt us..lol

People who are full of doubt concerning the Bible and their faith seem to want others to have their doubt also. That ain't going to happen.

There are plenty of questions I can't answer in the Bible where I have to say, I don't know. But that doesn't affect my faith in Christ and that the Bible is the written Word of God. I will just have to wait for an answer.

Quantrill

 

[NayborBear]

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

If "made" in the KJV really means "became" (which is past tense of become, as also, "made", the past tense of make)....Then, "was", in the KJV, should also translate to "became." As is something that "changed", from a state of that which isn't there originally? As we read in the Bible, that God never created anything to be uninhabitable. Right?

Genesis 1
2 And the earth became without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

 

[seed_time_harvest]

The TORAH is what Jesus read from, when He read Isaiah, "that no prophet has honor within His own country."..

So, let's see what the Torah (which is what God Himself in the flesh used) says about "Elohim said, let us make man in our own image and in our likeness?"



The Almighty said, “Let us make adam (man) in our image and our likeness.” (Bereshith 1:26) (our Genesis)


Why did God say, “Let us make man”? To whom did He make this statement, and why?

In His infinite humility, God consulted His Heavenly Court before creating man

Who is the the Heavenly Court according to the Torah which Jesus read from?

the Angels and created beings in heaven equal God's Heavenly Court


So, Jesus (Yeshua) read from scrolls of scriptures known as the TORAH that claims ELOHIM is singular, and that let us make man in our image IS NOT THE FALSE TRINITY, but the actual Heavenly Court."

Example: we LOOK just like angels do. So, Angels were made in God's image and we are made in BOTH God and the angel's image!!

Once again, this is from the TORAH, which our God Jesus read from!!

I like your thoughts In this post,I never was 100 about that part In the Bible on what was meant by “let us make man In our Image”

 

[TruthwillsetyouFree]

Here is a clear example of Paul baptizing in NAME of JESUS:

Acts 19:
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.


Now, read these 3 verses. The men are saved and receive the Holy Ghost. But LOOK how they were baptized under what NAME?


JESUS!!

I did notice that if Jesus did command us to be baptized in the Father-Son-Holy Ghost you would like to believe there would be an actual example of it happening in the rest of the New Testament. Unfortunately, there are "no examples" of that taking place. There are examples of people being baptized but in the name of Jesus. This does lead to a very important question, in my opinion. If there are no examples in the Bible of people being baptized in the Father-Son-Holy Ghost, then why are their beliefs baptizing as such today? I understand why people are being baptized in the name of Jesus because we have Peter and Paul (author of most of the New Testament) baptizing in the name of Jesus.

What is even more interesting, people follow Paul's "Grace" message and Paul's example today like it was the actual Gospel. But only a select few are actually following how Paul baptized (in the name of Jesus). How can Paul be worthy enough to believe his Grace message but not how he baptized?

The traditions of men are definitely going to play a role come judgement day.

 

[TruthwillsetyouFree]

That's a lie.

You keep speaking of the baptism in Acts in Jesus name. Give the verses you are addressing.

You doubt (Matt. 28:19) because, as you say, it is disputed. That proves nothing. You have textual critics out there that dispute the whole Bible. So, big deal.

Quantrill

It appears the poster did give the actual scriptures. I will copy/paste them for you.


rlm68 said:


Here is a clear example of Paul baptizing in NAME of JESUS:

Acts 19:
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.


Now, read these 3 verses. The men are saved and receive the Holy Ghost. But LOOK how they were baptized under what NAME?

JESUS


And from what I copied/pasted, verse 5 is rather conclusive the Bible shows they were baptizing in the name of Jesus.


Just a thought here to help me out, do you have an actual scripture showing people baptizing in the Father-Son-Holy Ghost?
Because I have searched multiple Bibles and cannot find a single example of anyone baptizing in what people claim the "trinity."

 

[seed_time_harvest]

I have another "theory", hypothesis or suspicion

what if, works mentality exist because of not being clear of what it means to "let go and let God", the fear of "not bearing visible fruit" and "taking matters into one's own hands", or not being clear of what it means to "allow God to work through you", or unable to "allow God to work through you"?

IMO,That would be an EXACT discription of how a works based person mind would operate.

 

[TruthwillsetyouFree]

Hmmmm, I thought the poster Quantrill was online. Maybe I will extend this question to anyone then to help me out. Am I missing scripture here because I cannot find one example of anyone in the New Testament being baptized in the Father-Son-Holy Ghost? Surely, there must be at least one example of it I am missing. How ironic to have Paul's example of baptizing in the name of Jesus, but nowhere is there an example of anyone baptizing in the Father-Son-Holy Ghost.

This leads to so many questions I guess the biggest question then is if we do have an example of people baptized in the name of Jesus, does that mean Paul was wrong? And, since there seems to be no example of people being baptized in the Father-Son-Holy Ghost, why are we doing it today? I just assumed the Bible was the example that we follow. And it appears that on baptism, some are not following the example. So, what does that mean?

 

[seed_time_harvest]

Hmmmm, I thought the poster Quantrill was online. Maybe I will extend this question to anyone then to help me out. Am I missing scripture here because I cannot find one example of anyone in the New Testament being baptized in the Father-Son-Holy Ghost? Surely, there must be at least one example of it I am missing. How ironic to have Paul's example of baptizing in the name of Jesus, but nowhere is there an example of anyone baptizing in the Father-Son-Holy Ghost.

This leads to so many questions I guess the biggest question then is if we do have an example of people baptized in the name of Jesus, does that mean Paul was wrong? And, since there seems to be no example of people being baptized in the Father-Son-Holy Ghost, why are we doing it today? I just assumed the Bible was the example that we follow. And it appears that on baptism, some are not following the example. So, what does that mean?

Does saying the words “I baptize you In JESUS name”cause GOD to say No or does GOD look at a person’s motivation?

 

[Locutus]

According to the Didache:

And concerning baptism, in this manner baptize: when you have gone over these things, baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in running water.

From Wiki:

The Didache also known as The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, is a brief anonymous early Christian treatise, dated by most modern scholars to the first century.

 

[Quantrill]

I did notice that if Jesus did command us to be baptized in the Father-Son-Holy Ghost you would like to believe there would be an actual example of it happening in the rest of the New Testament. Unfortunately, there are "no examples" of that taking place. There are examples of people being baptized but in the name of Jesus. This does lead to a very important question, in my opinion. If there are no examples in the Bible of people being baptized in the Father-Son-Holy Ghost, then why are their beliefs baptizing as such today? I understand why people are being baptized in the name of Jesus because we have Peter and Paul (author of most of the New Testament) baptizing in the name of Jesus.

What is even more interesting, people follow Paul's "Grace" message and Paul's example today like it was the actual Gospel. But only a select few are actually following how Paul baptized (in the name of Jesus). How can Paul be worthy enough to believe his Grace message but not how he baptized?

The traditions of men are definitely going to play a role come judgement day.

You did notice that Jesus Christ said that we are to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in (Matt. 28:19)? So, is that not good enough for you? Do you disbelieve this Scripture?

Concerning Paul, when he was baptized we are not even told the language used. We are just told that he was baptized. (Acts 9:18)

Paul never presented himself as 'worthy enough' to be anything associated with God. Strange question.

Quantrill

 

[Angela53510]

I do not want to mess up with your faith, but many things in the Old Testament are later additions.

Christians must decide if only originals are inspired or if also the additions.

And if something is not "inspired" or "original", then it automatically does not equal "wrong" or "antichristian".

The only one with messed up faith is you, trofimus! And it grieves me to see you slipping away so fast.

Do you even believe Jesus is divine, anymore?

 

[Quantrill]

It appears the poster did give the actual scriptures. I will copy/paste them for you.


rlm68 said:


Here is a clear example of Paul baptizing in NAME of JESUS:

Acts 19:
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.


Now, read these 3 verses. The men are saved and receive the Holy Ghost. But LOOK how they were baptized under what NAME?

JESUS


And from what I copied/pasted, verse 5 is rather conclusive the Bible shows they were baptizing in the name of Jesus.


Just a thought here to help me out, do you have an actual scripture showing people baptizing in the Father-Son-Holy Ghost?
Because I have searched multiple Bibles and cannot find a single example of anyone baptizing in what people claim the "trinity."

Here is a thought. I don't need a Scripture showing people being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. I have the words of Jesus Christ in (Matt. 28:19) that we are to baptize in the name of the Father, Son. and Holy Ghost.

Concerning (Acts 19:1-7) , the contrast is between the baptism of John and the baptism of Christ. These are two different baptism's. (Matt. 3:11). "...he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire." These men in (Acts 19) had not been baptized with the baptism of Jesus. They had only been baptized with the baptism of John. They needed to believe on Jesus and be baptized with his baptism. (Acts 19:4) "...that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus."

So, here is a thought. When you come across someone who is baptized only unto John's baptism and not Christ's, feel free to re-baptize them in the name of Jesus Christ. But to all others, follow what Jesus Christ said in (Matt. 28:19).

Quantrill

 

[TruthwillsetyouFree]

According to the Didache:



From Wiki:

The Didache also known as The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, is a brief anonymous early Christian treatise, dated by most modern scholars to the first century.

Hmmm, and the Didache also promotes that the brothers of Christ (James, Jude, and other family members) never accepted the divinity of Jesus. So, I highly doubt I would call that reference legible, just saying. And besides, it is not the actual Bible. I mean there is concrete evidence how Paul baptizes and clearly Peter taught on it. So that means all of the Disciples and James (leader and brother of Jesus plus Jude) probably baptized as we see Paul baptizing (name of Jesus).

But one would think with many I this world being baptized Father-Son-Holy Ghost, there would be an actual example in the Bible of it. But there is not